Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: No Subject
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern- I am a 60 year old college graduate that feels
completely
taken-aback by your reference that I can not make good decisions without the
"help" of the professional Wall Street types with their high commission costs
and haughty demeanor. I have been investing successfully with the help of the
Internet for many years. It has only been made possible by having the
information that the Internet makes available to the general public. Any
information that these "professional" ( which I usually means that they
only know how to use a telephone and spout company suggestions) is surely to
be put to a better use in the hands of one that is actually going to spend
thier own money (me). Thank you Donald Bahl
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
John Bishop- California
LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD !!! Investors are being ripped off and the
government is condoning it? You have the opportunity to correct this--DO IT !!
Author: "Andreas Braun" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
We need a level playing field. Individual investors are capable and willing to
evaluate comany informantion and make their own decisions. Wall Street analysts
should not have preferential treatment in terms of the availability of company
infromation.
Sincerely
Andreas Braun, Ph.D.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: GeneClouse@aol.com at Internet
Subject: Support for Rule for Disclosure of Company Info to Individua
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support fair disclosure of information by publicly traded companies to the
public. The rule (Proposed Regulation FD) would require, among other things,
that companies no longer engage in the practice of discreetly disclosing
important information to Wall Street analysts without also giving that
information to the public at large.
I support this rule change. I can't believe this isn't already a rule.
I am an individual investor and would like same access to info the same as
the analysts have.
thanks
geneclouse@aol.com
Author: Roger Cole at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Mr. Katz,
I wish to voice my support for regulation FD and applaud the
commission for its efforts to ensure that all investors are
equally supplied with information of material significance.
My primary comment on the proposed rules is that the regulations
should cover all information released by persons authorized to act on
behalf of the company. Limiting the regulation to only a particular group
of corporate employees would allow corporations to evade the regulations
by releasing information through other channels. Companies will always
feel pressure from analysts to provide non-public information; therefore
any regulation should be written with the expectation that corporations
will maneuver as necessary to ensure favorable analyst ratings.
respectfully,
Roger Cole
Author: Roy Coles at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulations FD: File No. 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
This proposed regulation is long overdue, and it's no wonder that wall
street professionals are against giving the public an even playing
field. As the survivor of many brokers self-serving advice, I have
found that I can make better investment decisions myself when I have the
information directly from the source rather than having it filtered
through a third (or fourth) party. The advance notice that brokerage
firms receive merely subjects the public interest to the interest of a
priviledged few.
Roy Coles
rcoles1@home.com
Author: "Brian Cunningham" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99. The vested
interests that oppose this regulation are simple rationalizing their greed
pure and simple. A terrific example of special interests exploiting the
people. It's high time the playing field is leveled for the individual
investors
Brian Cunningham
Author: "Shannon Curtis" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99" in the comment he
------------------------------- Message Contents
I don't think Analysts should be entitled to more information than the public
under any circumstances!
SM Curtis
Englewood, Colorado
Author: "Michael L. Davis" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I vote for immediate and full disclosure of information by publicly traded
companies to the public and not just the analysts. Level the playing field,
minimize class-actions, minimize market and company stock manipulation by
the few, minimize the fear of individual investors when a stock goes down
in price that it is because 'they', the analysts, know something 'we'
don't, etc.
Michael L. Davis
Software Farm, Inc.
Boulder, CO
michael@swfm.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to make available my comments concerning Fair Disclosure.
Selective Disclosure has nothing to do with fair and unbiased dissemination
of corporate information. SEC Chairman Authur Levitt is 100% factual and
ethically correct when stating "the basic principle of fairness deserves no
less". The individual investor is without question taken advantage of by
entities who receive information though Selective Disclosure. If it is the
intention of the SEC to empower and inform the individual investor, why would
Fair Disclosure not be implemented.
I am completely insulted by the statements issued by the SIA. The SIA
considers me not intelligent enough to make my own decisions regarding
corporate information and investment of my money. For the SIA to infer that
only analysts can understand financial information and make unbiased
judgements is the equivalent of calling the Pope an athiest. How does Fair
Disclosure "end up restricting the flow of information"? I would consider
Fair Disclosure to be the antithesis of information flow restriction.
To not implement Fair Disclosure would be a direct statement by the SEC that
"inside information" is acceptable for use in the equity markets. The
analysts get the information before the public and the opportunity to
disseminate this information to selective individuals for their financial
gain (or avoidance of loss).
Implement Fair Disclosure, anything less is financial segregation.
Respectfully,
/s/
Thomas P. DeJong
Chemical Engineer and MBA program participant
Author: "DONALD EDWARD DOSTIE" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Public Information
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom it may concern;
I don't pretend to be an expert in analysing company's financial
statements or their prospectuses (spelling?), however, I feel compelled to write
a short note and express my sincere desire that the public receives the same
information that so called analysts see at the same time. Frankly, while there
are some honest people out there that do their level best to provide good
advice, most have their own interest in mind when they opine as to what the
masses should be doing with their money.
Please move forward with providing the public like me the oppurtunity to
research companies without any interference or help from analysts. I may not be
the smartest person out there, but I have the right as a possible investor in a
company to amass my own undiluted or interpreted information before I make a
decision to invest. Should I desire help from a brokerage firm I will seek it.
Thank you for your consideration.
Don Dostie
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD file number S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
In my opinion, disemination of information on public companies is a
no-brainer.
Analyst are not judges or priests but selfserving opinionators and
manipulators.
Amy Butts of Bear Stearns on Knight-Trimark the past 2 mo's comes to mind.
Let's level the playing field! Matthew Dudek
Author: "Joe Ferrara" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
A. J ferrara
710 watson hollow rd
west shokan, NY 12494
please protect retail shareholders rights, make it all public..
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen:
It has come to my attention that there is a movement to continue the secrecy
that has led many to achieve a great advantage when valuing stock.
Clearly, free and timely distribution of information to all members of the
public is the basis for enabling all investors in our equities markets to
have a fair and equitable opportunity to evaluate the value of a company's
stock. It seems to me the advantage gained by analyst groups who obtain
information prior to the public is inconsistent with the true purpose of our
market economy.
Please make a conscious decision to arm the small investor with a greater
opportunity to take advantage of information at the same time as these
analysts.
Mark Ginther
Author: "Telepath Email" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:28 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Ladies and Gentlemen: Individual investors have as much right to, and need
for, information as do analysts, and at the same time. The comments of the SIA
insult my intelligence.
Harold Heiple, Norman, OK
Author: "Greg Helwig" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Never in the history of the financial markets has it been more critical to adopt
a rule restricting or banning the selective disclosure of information by
publicly traded companies. Recent comments by the Securities Industry
Association (SIA) in response to the proposed rule are simply ludicrous. It is
obvious to anyone with a shred of objectivity that the majority of securities
analysts are loath to disclose any negative information about a company for fear
that their employers will lose the opportunity to do business with that firm.
The SIA has also suggested that securities analysts make the markets less
volatile, when in fact a positive or negative comment from a securities analyst
can cause the price of a stock to move more in one day than would be normal in
several months in "normal" markets.
As an independent investor, I strongly urge the SEC to adopt the rule limiting
selective disclosure by public companies.
Sincerely,
Gregory S. Helwig
Author: KitTjocco@aol.com at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: (no subject)
------------------------------- Message Contents
dear sirs: this is a for and against ruling. the middle men have had their
way with investors for years, and in spite of the fact that things have
improved, the people with "inside" position are still shooting fish in a
barrell. Example, a representative of knight (ecn) had the audacity to
appear on cnbc and brag about the millions of dollars they had made day
trading. the way they are able to do this is to monitor volume movement and
slip their buys in ahead of other traders(also sells). If the analysts of
these financial institutions are so hellbent on protecting us; then why do
they ignore valuations,pe's,earningsetc. when they keep raising target
prices, put out strong buy ratings on stocks that are way oversold. If these
guys are so protective of our best interests, why are they selling mutual
funds that are loaded with risk? The point is that (at least in my
experience) the proffessionals at the institutions are only interested in one
thing-that is protecting their place in the food chain.
Author: "Elizabeth Jowers" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think that this is a very important rule that needs to be passed for the good
of the general investing public. Please pass it immediately,
Oscar Jowers
6019 W. 157th Terrace
Overland Park, Ks. 66223
EMAIL: CRAWFISH7@EARTHLINK.NET
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:16 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Make Corporate Information Public
------------------------------- Message Contents
When corporations make information available to analysts or reporters, it
should be publicly released. Key information should not be witheld from
individual investors.
Andrew A. Kenny
4/21/00
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:08 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: full disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
I personally believe that what information is available to analysts should be
available to small individual investors like me. For one am I also an
investor in a company and I think I deserve the same information those big
guys at Wall Street have access at.
I also think that most analysts are not telling the disclosing the truth
about a company. I don't see any analyst rating a company a sell-the lowest
rating is a hold. Isn't it natural that if there is a buy rating there should
also be a sell rating?
Then the markets are really volatile because of the anlaysts. Big
institutions sell and buy depending on the analysts rating which they have
clear and broad access to. In some market sell-offs most people who sold are
institutions who followed the analysts' rating. Small investors and
individual investors just sat tight.
Definitely many individuals will not read prospectuses or periodic reports
but not all individual and small investors are like this. Will you sacrifice
this small number of investors because majority does the other way ( wrong
way)? I don't think it will be fair. Let those who read prospectuses and
reports have access to them reports! It is not my fault many don't do this!
Thank you for taking time to read my opinion.
Sincerely,
Jay Libutan
Author: John May at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
the position of SIA in opposing fair disclosure of information by public traded
companies to the public is " ORWELLAN" . I dont want the inmates to be in charge
.I support the SEC proposal. Thank You , John W. May 1910 Dundee Lane
Martinsville VA 24112
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen:
I support the proposed rule changes providing that information must be
provided to everyone at the same time. The big companies and institutions
would then not have the very real advantage they now enjoy over the
individual investor. I have been investing on an individual basis for nearly
40 years. I cannot count the number of times that I have either bought or
sold only to learn later that information was provided to large
operators/traders that negatively affected my investment position. I strongly
encourage you to create a level playing field for all investors large or
small, large institutions or individual investors.
Thank you for providing this opportunity to express my opinion.
Richard F. Mayo, individual investor
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
I read the response from the Securities Industry Association today with great
interest.
I am an individual investor and I do take the time to read the SEC required
reports from the companies I chose to invest in.
I take issue with the arguements posited by SIA, which essentially would
continue the existing failed system of exclusive, individual or small group
access to firms officers by security analysts who are employed by brokerage
firms.
I have listened to many conference calls, where security analysts have the
opportunity to ask one or more questions of the company officers. This
method, when combined with the opportunity for individual investors phone-in
questions, allowing all to reach the company officers simultaneously would be
preferable, and eliminate the inherent unfairness of exclusive and private
access by security analysts, in non-public meetings.
I have found that security analysts working for brokerage firms are commonly
biased by the brokerage firms relationship with the company being analyzed.
If the brokerage underwrites secondary offerings or debt for the company,
there is an obvious conflict of interest.
To assume, as does the SIA, that these analysts persue "an independant line
of inquiry" under such circumstances begs credulity.
As regards the notion that the work of brokerage security analysts " results
in less volatility" in share price, I disagree. Very short term volatility is
often intentionally created by analysts half-baked or intentionally
misleading "analysis", in my experience.
I have invested in firms that have been subject to both pumping and dumping
types of analyst reports, only to find, and usually with a short passage of
time, that the "spin" put on the information in the analysts' reports was
coordinated with large trading activity by the trading desks of the same
firms issuing biased and misleading analysis.
Please do not assume that individual investors need or want brokerage
security analysis to guide them in investment decision making.
Also, the SIA states that analysts "spend time ferreting out negative
information about the companies". If this is so, how is it that the
percentage of stocks rated "Sell" by brokerage firms is much less than 1% of
all issues covered.
I have used a full-service brokerage for a number of years, although the bulk
of my investments are held in discount brokerages. I keep some funds in a
full service house only because every one of the top "Strong Buy"
recommendations my broker has provided over the past 2 years has lost at
least 50% of its share value within 3 months of the brokerage's buy
recommendation. I have been using these recommendations to take positions in
option puts in my discount brokerage accounts, and have done extremely well.
I have found that those issues most feverishly hyped by the broker's analysts
and rated as table pounding buys by the local office broker's do not hold up
to scrutiny on a fundamental basis, according to my analysis, and make
excellent opportunities for profits on the downside.
Please do not confuse the efforts of individual investors to demand a level
playing field in the face of this manipulated use of exclusive information by
brokerages as a
source of additional risk for the little guy.
The SEC should do it's job to help the small investor, not protect the
brokerage underwriting and trading operations.
While you are at it, how about moving the decimilization along. What kind of
plausible reason for further delay could there be, when most of the world's
stock exchanges have already gone decimal? Are the NYSE and NASDAQ computers
inferior to those in foreign nations, so that going to decimals would
overwhelm them?
If the government can go after Microsoft's monopoly, surely the SEC can
remove this
antiquated excuse for bid/ask spread market maker thievery.
Please just do your job.
J. Mc Gowan
Author: "Rick Miller" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg. FD: File#S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a small investor, I cannot tell you how frustrating it is when certain
analysts who have exclusive access to conference calls let their premier
clients know about negative information before I have a chance to know.
Needless to say, I have been surprised a few times when my stock went down
significantly and I wondered why, only later to discover some piece of
information that not made public yet many investors were selling like mad.
This is unfair and gives the advantage to big, institutional investors at
the expense of the little guy.
I am AGAINST selective disclosure and think that we, the public should have
equal access to conference calls.
Sincerely,
Rick Miller
Author: "Roy A. More" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation
------------------------------- Message Contents
April 21, 2000
To Whom It May Concern:
I very much support the proposed regulation requiring equal disclosure
of information from publicly traded companies. The future is open
information.
In one capacity, I serve on the Executive Board of the area Boy Scouts
of America council and chair the Endowment Committee. We are harmed by
the current system that allows certain market participants to have
information ahead of others. This regulation works to level the playing
field. Please implement it.
Regards,
Roy
--
Roy A. More
President
spa@msen.com
Scout Patch Auction
2484 Dundee
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
http://www.tspa.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:56 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. ST-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I wrote you last December about transparency in the dissemination of
information by publicly traded companies advocating that any and all investors
have equal access to such information and that it not be restricted to a small
group of self-appointed experts, Wall-Street analysts to be specific. I
understand that the Securities Industry Association is lobbying strongly to
keep the pipeline flowing only to the Wall-Street elite who will then,
noblesse oblige, tell us simple investors what to do with our equity
investments. I urge you to support democracy and transparency. Make it
unlawful for companies to whisper near-insider information to a select few and
to restrict meetings to disseminate information only to a select group. Take
action to make any information released by publicly traded companies released
to all who wish to hear it.
In the last half of the past century we as a society have moved toward
deregulation and transparency. Now it is generally unlawful for any elected
body to exclude the public from their meetings or to conduct business in
closed chambers---the so-called "Sunshine Laws." I do not advocate totally
deregulating the equities markets but I do advocate making all information
that publicly traded companies available to anyone be made available to all.
George W. Morrison, President
By George, Inc.
1075 N Hills Blvd Suite 360
Reno, NV 89506
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:32 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Again I am writing to say that I strongly urge you to change the current
system & adopt a policy requiring timely market information dissemination
available to all equally.
It is certainly not hard for this individual investor to understand what is
at stake, financially, for the members of the SIA if the current system
changes. If, as they would like you to believe, we would not know what to do
with the information, they have nothing to worry about & this would not be an
issue to them.
Individual investors have no lobbyists to represent our interests - but then
we don't need any. We are not asking for any advantage, all we would like is
a level playing field.
Surely it is obvious to all of us what is at stake here. What's laughable,
and I would think an embarrassment to SIA members, is that they are not so
sure their experts can perform effectively without their current information
advantage.
Thank You
Randy L. Morse
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I do not feel that analysts should have priviledge access toto company
information before the public. Grady Nixon
Author: Jay Prince at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:19 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Greetings--
I wanted to write to you in support of this proposed regulation. I
believe it is critical to the concept of a free and open market that
"insider" information be regulated. The change this rule would make,
in my opinion, would eliminate the gray area between insider
information and public information. This is necessary, as we have
seen in recent years, because the recipients of this pseudo-insider
information use it regularly to manipulate the markets for thier own
profits at the expense of a stable and equitable stock market.
Thank you-
Jay Prince
(Speaking only for myself)
--
Jay Prince
prince@singingfish.com
Author: "Ken Purcell" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
I say yea to the idea of direct dissemination of company financial
information. The securities analysts have had a lock on this information
and offer nothing other than their "Corporate" opinion.
regards,
Ken Purcell
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
In a message dated 4/21/00 8:58:31 PM Central Daylight Time, Tnbound299
writes:
<< rule-comments@sec.gov >>
Sorry, I believe you would want to know who I am
William C. Resler
615 Preston Baggett Road
Cumberland City, TN 37050
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom it may concern,
I would like to encourage you to support the proposed Fair Disclosure
regulation.
I think financial information about publicly held companies should be made
available to all investors at the same time.
Ron Schacht
merlin6151@aol.com
Author: sanderb@webtv.net (Sander B Shipper) at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD,file #s7-31-09
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an investor since 1981,and having worked in high school for a stock
advisor,I believe in the full and complete disclosure of all
information concerning a company,to all concerned parties at the same
time. Special priveliges or secrets revealed to only a select group is
morally wrong. Never underestimate the American people.
Thank you
S.B. Shipper
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:47 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a stockholder who is trying to become more informed about my
investments, I find it chilling to discover that the government has in
the past authorized the withholding of information pertinent to my
holdings, in the sole interest of a few "big guys" on Wall Street.
Please register my complete support for the subject proposed regulation.
Ruth Sigler
106 Harbor Ave.
Marblehead, MA 01945
RSigler@mediaone.net
Author: "Grant A. Silvey" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:24 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs and Madams,
I would like to voice my discontent with the way analysts are currently allowed
to receive information ahead of the general public. Information that might be
important to individual investors as well, should not come second hand from
privileged analysts.
In today's world, many more individuals are taking responsibility for their
investment decisions. Why should we take a back seat to so called analysts? I
have advanced degrees in engineering and mathematics. Should I have to wait till
an analyst with a certificate tells me the information that I need to have for
my investment decisions?
Certainly the focus of the SEC is to ensure a level playing field. Information,
in this the information age, should be made available to all interested parties.
Not just the privileged few.
Therefore when publicly owned companies are divulging important information
regarding their business it should be made available to the general public.
This access could include active questioning for those who wish to register to
do such. But at the very least the investing public has a right to have
important information as it breaks, even if it it is limited to "listen only".
I have read the letter from the association that represents brokers and
securities dealers, and I find it laughable at the very least. Sure let them
attend the meeting and ask their questions, and put their spin on it, but don't
make the public rely on their regurgitation of the information for making their
investment decisions upon. Very often the analysts have an interest in a
security. Why should I have to rely on their spin?
I urge you to level the playing field to all Americans.
Yours Truly
Grant Alden Silvey, P.E.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:07 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
I fully support the "open playing field" concept and the release of analysts
"inside" information to all investors. The games that the analysts play now
are causing excessive volatility and ridiculous valuations. They can still
do their cheerleading and mantras and even detailed analysis (if they are
old-school), but I would at least like to have the option to see what is
happening when they see it, before they can utilize the inside information
with their own portifolios.
Thanks for letting me have my say.
David Sokol
(Self-employeed engineer)
516 West Bell
Houston TX 77019
Author: specht@ns.sympatico.ca (Eric Specht) at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to encourage the adoption of the rule (Proposed
Regulation FD) that would require, among other things, that companies no
longer engage in the practice of discreetly disclosing important
information to Wall Street analysts without also giving that information
to the public at large.
Eric Specht
Author: "David Trammel" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
That a select group of brokers can sit in a private meeting with company
officials, especially a company I own shares in, get insider information
hours and days before I do, and then make recommendations to their select
clients, profiting on what should be public information is unfair.
I strongly support the proposed rule change to level the playing field
for small investor's like myself.
Yours truly,
David Trammel
Author: JVillasin at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:15 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an investor, I believe it is important that the public in general and
not only the few favored analyst be privy to public companies
announcement materially affecting the performance ot the stock.
JBVillasin
JVillasin@home.com
Author: "Jerry White" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I read and article on The Motley Fool web page listing the comments from the SIA
in response to an article written by Bill Barker. I find it appalling that
anyone would believe that the general public would best be served by having the
information it receives be spoon fed to them by such a group as the SIA
represents. Anyone who thinks that these so called analysts, in league with the
bubbleheads on CNBC, are good and honest sources of information, has never tried
to operate in the market using only input from them. I, along with millions of
others like me can do much better in the market without them, thank you very
much.
Regards,
Jerry White
nomad1956@earthlink.net
Author: "Catherine Wieland" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 5:07 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
All information should be available to all interested investors, not just
analysts, so that individuals can make knowledgable and rational decisions with
the facts. More information should level the playing field so that when an
analyst makes a comment, the market will not be as likely to swing as widely in
reaction as evidenced several weeks ago. Thank you for considering my point of
view as an individual knowledgable investor looking for more information.
Catherine J. Wieland
wielassoc@yahoo.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-9
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe that investors have the ability to hear information directly from
companies. We have become much more knowledgable than we used to be. The
commercials are not kidding, the game HAS changed. We are intelligent
investors now and the playing field needs to be more level.
There is no truth to any of your reasons for why analysts should have more
intimacy with companies and their announcements than the general public.
This rule does not help volatility. This rule does not protect us from
emotional decisions. We want to have access to the information in our free
information society and it would be a mistake to use this opportunity to
close off any level of communication with the investment community.
Do the right thing based on real facts, not just unproven assumptions.
Thank you,
Ralph Wilkinson
Ralph@brighterthinking.com
Author: "David Winston" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a small individual investor, I feel that the privilidged and unfair
selective disclosure to analysts by corporations is grossly unfair. I am
quite capable of processing information myself without having it
filtered through people who are getting paid to encourage people to
churn their portfolios. Market volitillity will actually decrease if all
people are privey to the same information at the same time.
Thank You,
David Winston
Author: peter wobus at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 6:56 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir,
I strongly support "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99." I
think individual investors should be provided the same financial
information made available to professional "analysts". Thank you.
Peter Wobus
409 west Side Dr., Apt 202
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0421b08.htm
