Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: "Anderson; Ethan" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:50 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom it May Concern:
This proposition is a terrible one, and should not be allowed to pass.
Individual investors like myself would be at a great disadvantage if this
goes through.
Thank you.
Ethan Anderson
Senior Support Analyst
Continental Airlines
713.324.9066
Author: "Andler; Eliot [And]" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please put an end to selective disclosure. Please level the playing field by
forcing companies to disclose information - important to the individual
investor - in a more equitable manner.
Eliot S.
Andler
Author: "Simon Mawby" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:44 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Madam/Sir
I am writing to voice my support for Proposed Regultion FD. I feel very
strongly that individual investors have the right to the same quality of
information as Wall Street analysts. The idea that "analysts cannot do
their work nearly as well as they do now if they are forced to do their
work, at least when it comes to interaction with issuers, collectively -- in
a pack" (from the Securities Industry Association's filling in opposition)
is ridiculous. How would a more open environment prohibit a diligent
analyst from "relentlessly pursue an independent line of inquiry and ferret
out negative information that management would rather not disclose or would
prefer to disclose at a time of its choosing and with its own spin" (SIA
filling). It seems to me that they would like to keep a lock on this
information in order to keep individual investors dependent on their
services.
Thank you for your consideration,
Gina Atwood
Independent Investor
Author: David at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is imperative that laws like this are in place to keep businesses in
check.
The "public" does not need protection from themselves. Do you really
believe that only a chosen few understand the market and that they have
the "public's" best interests in mind? I think not!
This is the US, not some communist country, where the information
available to the "public" about "publicly traded" companies should be
edited for our own good.
What the analysts and Wall Street are afraid of is that we DO understand
what they disclose and then we will NOT INVEST in the companies that
they want us to!
Please pass this law.
C. Bell
Small Business Owner
Author: Jesse Brandeburg at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:58 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to have the selective disclosure laws abolished!
I believe fair access to ALL information should be available to ALL
investors at the same time.
Thank you,
Jesse Brandeburg
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
jesse_brandeburg@bigfoot.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:29 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am writing to encourage you to revise your rules to require public companies
to give information to the public at large at the same as they give it to
professional analysts.
I especially enourage you to consider the experiences of public companies who
already widely volunteer such information, and to consider how analysts
themselves have been and are being decentralized, how individual investors
already *reference* analysis and commentary from a number of sources, such as
TheStreet.com or The Motley Fool, to help make investment decisions.
I believe that such an orientation of investor in the center and advisors on the
periphery is the healthiest and most prosperous arrangement. Concerns about
overwhelmed individuals are misplaced, I believe, because it is always the
person putting down the money who actually makes the decision anyway. Changing
your rules does not alter that basic fact, but only changes the center of
gravity--a process already well underway with online trading, for example. As
such, I believe full and fair public disclosure is an inevitable movement that
is best embraced rather than resisted.
I believe that technology has made it possible for all such information to be
distributed readily, and believe that people are increasingly capable of
understanding the issues involved. Moreover, there are a multitide of services
available to individuals, offering commentary and education on financial issues,
to further aid in the assimilation process.
Such a change in your rules, I believe, would only help our system of markets
prosper by continuing the movement of individual responsibility and opportunity
started with the founding of this country, and most recently enhanced by the
advent of the PC and now Internet.
In short, I believe that companies that make information available only to
analysts tend toward wanting to control or spin how that information is
digested. That understandable desire, however, conflicts with the basic fabric
of our markets, which provide opportuntity for companies and investors while
providing an accountable and level playing field.
In this regard, I believe lobbying efforts to keep the rules as they are
primarily arise out of a status-quo mentality that is inadequate and perhaps
even dangerous to the vitality of our world-leading markets.
Again, I strongly encourage you to change your rules to require all public
companies to divulge information to the public at large.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sean Bronzell
Author: "Jonathan Cohen" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:07 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the proposed regulation.
-Jonathan Cohen
Department of Philosophy office: (732) 445 6163
Faculty of Arts & Sciences home: (718) 499 1213
Rutgers University email: joncohen@ruccs.rutgers.edu
26 Nichol Avenue snail: 295 7th Avenue #3
New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Brooklyn, NY 11215
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/~joncohen/cohen.html
Author: "Hamid and Connie L. Daie" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please open up the process for the little guys, and let us have access to
financial information the same time that the fat cats in wall street access
such information.
Sincerely,
Hamid Daie
Author: "Keith Davidson" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:18 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Brokers and other professionals should NOT have company info before the
investing pulblic. My IRA acount is more important than some company's
profit. They make money at the public expense.
I am considering contacting my congress person about this.
Keith Davidson
Author: "Day; Thomas (STP)" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:09 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The Existing regulation is a terrible idea, both for the economy and for the
market. The so-called "experts" in the market have done nothing to deserve
a special advantage over the public. With the dramatic increase in private
investors, through the internet and discount brokerages, the market has
changed and the proposed regulation reflects that change. Thank you for
providing leadership with this rule change.
Thomas Day
2660 Lake Shore Avenue
Little Canada, MN 55117
Author: "David DeCurtis" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:27 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of fair disclosure. I do not need or want to wait for an
analyst to decide what I should do with my holdings. The current system of
privileged disclosure is a shameful assault on the rights of small minority
shareholders of public companies.
David DeCurtis
Orlando, FL
Author: cdoersom at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:02 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support fair disclosure rules.
Wall Street analysts should not be given unfair advantages.
The time to level the playing field is long overdue.
Carol Doersom
Corning NY
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:27 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe all americans deserve accessability to the same information
provided to the finacial institutions.
Please pass the appropriate legislation to allow this to happen.
Thank You,
Mark H. Downey
29652 Avante
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Author: "Dick Dragiewicz" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:51 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Individual investors want an equal opportunity program. Wall Street houses
don't deserve special treatments.
Thanks,
Dick Dragiewicz
312-444-9503
obiobiobi@msn.com
Author: "Josh Gatts" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:03 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my support for Proposed Regulation FD. I believe
that individual investors have the right to obtain any information released
by a company at the same time as professional market analysts.
The Securities Industry Association's arguments against the proposal pretty
much boil down to, "The public can't be trusted with this information. They
need us to interpret it for them so that the market will remain stable and
efficient and they won't lose lots of money with their random, uneducated
investing practices". This is sheer, elitist nonsense: it is completely
undemocratic to allow well-positioned members of some old-boy's club access
to important data while denying it to the public at large. There are many
intelligent, free-thinking individual investors out here that would benefit
greatly from corporations' legal obligation to disclose information
nonpreferentially. There is no reason to think that giving analysts
privileged information somehow makes the market more efficient or stable:
all it does is allow them to act on knowledge before it is disseminated to
the general public. The SIA's stance is a transparent cover for their real
motivation: to maintain analysts' job security as well as to maintain an
advantage for themselves and their wealthy clients.
Thank you for your attention to public comments on this issue. I hope we
will see Regulation FD passed in the near future.
Joshua Gatts
Hayward, California
Author: bob gib at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:37 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: FIle No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please level the playing field for all investors.
Stop letting the rich get richer at the expense of the
little people. I am a little investor and have never
used an analysts recommendation for investing in any
stocks.
It makes me sick when I hear analysts upgrading a
stock after they have already purchased the stock for
their customers. It's like knowing the final score of
a game before it even starts .These analysts want to
stay in the driver's seat so they can reap the rewards
of advanced knowledge.
It's just not fair to all investors. If you want to
make if fair don't allow the analysts to make their
recommendation public,allow them to give info to their
paying customers only.
You are allowing a certain group of investors an
enormous advantage over another that's not fair.
Robert Gibbons
Bethpage NY
Author: "G R Glore" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:30 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
We are for Full Disclosure to Public
Gary and Rita Glore
11 Donald St
Park Hills, Mo. 63601
Author: Duncan Granger at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:03 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To the SEC,
As an individual investor, I take exception to some of the comments made
on April 6, 2000, by The Ad Hoc Working Group on Proposed Regulation FD
and the Legal and Compliance Division of the Securities Industry
Association ("SIA").
Fair Disclosure - disclosure to the public at large, not limited to
certain analysts - should be required by law. We live in a democratic
society. Information is power. If a company is publicly traded, it
should provide ALL information to the public at large. Restricting
information to certain analysts creates an atmosphere of collusion. It
also insinuates that individual investors cannot understand the level of
information provided to analysts.
The SIA asserts that it is "highly theoretical and out of sync with the
real world" to think that "millions of individual investors and
potential investors" would spend time "poring over prospectuses and
periodic reports." I currently subscribe (for free) to an e-mail
service through freeedgar.com whereby any time that a company in which I
hold stock files a report with the SEC, I am notified by e-mail. I can
then choose what to read and what not to. I would suggest that the SEC
look at the number of "hits" received at sites like freeedgar.com to
gauge the public interest in accessing this information. I do not find
it AT ALL far-fetched to think that millions of individual investors may
already be researching thoroughly the companies in which they own
stock. Fair Disclosure would simply level the playing field, and give
COMPLETE information to the individual investor.
In addition, the SIA suggests that Fair Disclosure would lead to
"sessions at regular intervals open to a number of analysts, with
listen-only access to the media and the public. These are likely to take
on the orchestrated character of a Presidential news conference in which
members of the audience are authorized to ask one question, and perhaps
a short follow-up question, but not a series of questions in dogged
pursuit of the facts. Undoubtedly, the questions from the different
participants will not be coordinated or follow in any logical order or
comprehensive way." I don't even know where to begin with this one.
This conjecture is so farfetched as to be laughable. Does the SIA know
so much about publicly traded companies that they can predict how future
meetings will be run? This is a scare tactic, pure and simple. The SIA
is trying to scare individual investors into thinking that Fair
Disclosure would actually result in less information being released to
the public. Who among us can accurately predict, at this point, the
type of meetings which issuers would hold if the Fair Disclosure act
were passed? I could just as easily predict that these sessions would
result in the asking of new and different questions which would never
have been asked under the current format. The SIA seems to be
desperately trying to justify its own existence.
The SIA knows that analysts cannot predict the direction of a stock with
any more accuracy than a self-taught individual investor. Knowing what
questions to ask so that someone can "ferret out" negative information
is not a gift from God granted solely to analysts. As a matter of fact,
analysts seem hesitant to make negative statements about a company (lest
that company need financing a year or two down the road, and refuse to
do business with the analysts employer because they remember the
negative comment). How often does one see an analyst assign a "sell"
rating to a stock?
Individual investors are not children. They do not need to be
protected. Let them make their own mistakes. Certainly they cannot do
worse than the analysts, whose recommendations have guided over 90% of
mutual fund managers to UNDER PERFORM the market in recent years.
Fair Disclosure is overdue. It needs to be enacted now. We live in a
free, democratic country. If a company wants to be traded publicly, it
has a duty and obligation to the citizens of this country to provide all
relevant information to the public at large, not just to a select few
analysts.
Respectfully submitted,
Duncan M. Granger, M.S.
40 North Lime Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Author: "Dylan Groven" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:26 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I see no justifiable reason why some information regarding publicly traded
companies should be disclosed only to a select group of analysts. Let the
information be disclosed to everyone and allow the gifted analysts to prove
their worth without hiding behind a curtain of secrecy.
--------
Dylan Groven
Nortel Networks
Department 1U38
ESN 395-4434
(613) 765-4434
dgroven@nortelnetworks.com
Author: "Barbara Haugen & Charles Widdicombe" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:58 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have been investing in the market for 20 years. The last few years I have
been doing so through a discount broker. By handling my own investments, I have
greatly improved the rate of return.
The amount of money that we have to invest just isn't very enticing to a full
service brokerage. We don't have enough money to warrant their best service. I
watch my stocks far more closely than anyone else ever has.
Those of us without much money to invest can participate more fully in the
market, pursue our version of the "American Dream" if you will, in large part
because discount brokers don't eat up what little we can invest with fees.
I am still just as much an owner of these companies as anyone else. You will be
deciding shortly what ownership rights we have. Does owning more stock, in
essence having more money to invest, make you "more equal" in the eyes of the
SEC? How will I ever be able to participate fully until I am allowed equal
access to information?
To be redundant, if I buy 20 shares of a company in which someone else can
afford to purchase 2000 shares, they should not get access (through their
broker) to information before I do. By allowing companies to pick and choose
what information they disclose and to whom, you would be reinforcing the idea
that the stock market is only for the wealthy.
I left full service brokerages so that my money will grow. When full service
brokerages get information before the rest of us, they use that information to
manage clients' accounts. By continuing to allow selected disclosure you would,
in essence, be allowing unfair advantage to those with wealth...not at all an
American ideal.
Sincerely,
Barbara Haugen
Author: "Haze; Paul" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:06 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I for one would like to see full disclosure on all meetings held between
analysts and any Company (That is where more than one analyst is meeting
with the company ). I would also like to have the opportunity to ask or
submit questions to be asked at the meeting.
I do not think I have the right to attend or even listen in to "Live
coverage" but should be brought up to date in a timely fashion.
I feel analysts do have the right to Private meetings (one on one) just as
I have the right to call the same company and ask the same or similar
questions.
I strongly feel that the information should be disclosed to the public, by
the company, in a timely fashion.
Paul Haze
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:49 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear sirs:
Throughout human history, those enjoy special privilege -- whether in power,
wealth, or access to information -- usually seek to maintain their advantage
over others.
When forced to publicly defend their superior positions, they use elaborate
arguments, most of which boil down to the following:
1. others are incompetent and must be "protected" by the existing elite
2. any change in the current pecking order will be destabilizing
3. democracy will lead to chaos and ruin
These arguments are lies.
For all the inequities of human nature, this country remains the best hope
humanity has for the creation of a society that can be rightly be called
fair, just, and equitable.
Please: LEVEL THE DAMN PLAYING FIELD.
I strongly support the proposed reform regulation to do away with selective
disclosure.
Sincerely yours,
Bill Herbst
individual investor
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:54 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am voting for full disclosure to the public.
CASSANDRA Y. HOLLEMON
Author: "Gregory D. Johnson" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:39 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is time for the SEC to require companies to give its smaller shareholders
the same information, at the same time, as large institutions.
You can look at many stocks and see that you are too late to trade on the
information because it appears that others know the information earlier than
you do.
The other disturbing area is the selective audience for conference calls. One
example that I know of and that I have a large investment in is Snap-on
Incorporated (SNA). The never give out the number to their shareholders and
at the end of 1999, the number wasn't an 800 number. I believe that this
discourages investors from listening to the call. The playing field needs to
be leveled.
Gregory Johnson
Author: Bob Kendall at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 7:59 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen:
Please count my voice in the chorus of those in favor of the subject
regulation.
I am a private investor with no professional tie to the financial
community, and I find it appalling and arrogant that the purported
experts in the field of investing feel that we cannot understand and
filter raw corporate data on our own without their expert analysis.
(Keep in mind that it was many of these same experts that first started
telling us it was time to "buy on the dip" in early March of this year.)
No, thank you, I feel quite capable of digesting market data on my own,
and making my own decisions without Wall Street's assistance.
While I've got your ear, I might suggest two other areas that you might
want to consider:
1. Anybody calling him/herself an "analyst" should have to publish
their personal portfolio.
2. You have got to put a stop to the "whisper number" nonsense. Either
these people have an earnings number that they believe, or they don't.
Publishing one number and then going around "whispering" another is the
most cowardly approach to that job that I can imagine.
Thanks in advance for taking the time to consider my opinions,
Bob Kendall
1742 Bonaire Way
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-642-7510
Author: "Billy King" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:07 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
We who are managing our own portfolio are entitled to the most complete
information available. Brokers have long tried to keep everything close to
chest but it is high time all info was shared with the people purchasing the
equities. Make all available to us.
Author: "Korb; David" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC :
As an investor in publicly traded securities,
I feel I have stake in your proposed regulation File No. S7-31-99.
It is manifestly unfair that analysts and market makers be given information
on publicly
traded companies which is not readily available to all investors. The
market is "efficient"
in that the price of a security accurately reflects all of the information
about that security.
To give information to one group and allow that group to disseminate that
information to
the rest of us is wrong.
That is the kind of control that a loving parent has over their children. A
child needs to be
protected by their parent. Well firstly, I am not a child and do not need
to be protected
from myself. And secondly, the analysts are not "loving parents" - they
have their own
special interests, and frankly should not have this control.
Please open access to publicly traded companies to ALL investors.
David Korb
dkorb@sempra.com
Author: "ELN/lavayerobert" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:32 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: PROPOSED REGULATION FD: FILE # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
CONGRATULATIONS:
IT'S ABOUT TIME THAT THE SEC TOOK SERIOUS STEPS TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD
FOR THE INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR TO HAVE THE SAME DATA AT THE SAME TIME AS THE
LARGE BROKERAGES.
IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT THE BROKERAGES HAVE BEEN MANIPULATING THE MARKET BY
HAVING THEIR ANALYSTS DEPRESS SPECIFIC MARKET SECTORS WITH THEIR GLOOM &
DOOM PREDICTIONS. ONLY TO BUY LARGE BLOCKS OF THOSE STOCKS FOR THEMSELVES &
THEIR INSTITUTIONAL PLANS, ARMED WITH INFORMATION RELEASED TO THEIR ANALYSTS
BY COMPANIES PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT THE NEWS.
CONSEQUENTLY, THE INDIVIDUAL HAS EITHER MISSED THE UPWARD MOVE, OR BEEN
CAUGHT IN THE DOWNWARD MOVE.
IN EITHER EVENT. THE INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR HAS BEEN THE LOSER, WHILE THE
INSIDERS HAVE MADE MAJOR PROFITS.
IT'S BAD ENOUGH THAT THE DAY TRADERS HAVE FORCED LARGE DAILY EXCURSIONS IN
STOCK PRICES, THRU QUICK PROFIT PLAYS, WITHOUT THE BROKERAGES AMBUSHING THE
INVESTORS WITH THEIR PREMEDITATED TACTICS.
LET'S GIVE THE INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO MAKE A CALCULATED
DECISION TO PROTECT THEIR PORTFOLIOS.
THANK YOU,
Robert C. LaVaye
Author: Ann MacArthur at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:20 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Ladies and Gentleman:
I would like to add my comments to those already made regarding selective
disclosure rules. Any potential change to open up the stream of information
going to individual investors, is, I think, a good one. Having been an investor
in the market for a number of years I have valued the increasing information
that is available through the web and other sources over the years.
I find that individual investors are a smart group who like to pay close
attention to the companies that they have invested in and are able to make their
own decisions about the importance of certain announcements by companies. Those
companies that respect the individual investor enough to provide information to
all benefit by increased investor confidence. To level the playing field by
eliminating the current system of selective disclosure is a move that I support
and that many individual investors I know will appreciate.
Thanks for your time,
Ann MacArthur
anncm@earthlink.net
Author: "Carol Marquess" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:10 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I spent more than fifteen years in the finance industry (commercial banking
and some investment stuff) and was continuously amazed at the amount of
insider info and inappropriate division of information that was offered to
us, as opposed to the general stockholder community. Please adjust the reg
to insure fairer and across the board treatment for all investors!
Author: Carole McMurray at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 12:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The public should be informed at exactly the same time as analysts &
brokerages.
Dennis & Carole McMurray
Author: "Kathy" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:12 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
If this is not passed then all information companies get should be classified as
insider trading and they should not be able to act on it.
Kathy Mettler
frances@mashell.comAuthor: meg parsons at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:07 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an Investor I am appalled that you would even consider allowing
someone to have information before the General Public.
Meg Parsons
Author: "Bruce O" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:52 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in strong support of this regulation to stop information transfer to
analysts and no the public.
Bruce Ostrout
MediaPipeline
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:53 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File NO. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
level the playing field.
walter pearce
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:01 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam:
As an individual investor, I applaud and look forward to the referenced
proposed regulation becoming law. It is consistent with the tenant of
"freedom of information" that has and will continue to help reinforce our
nations commitment to freedom and economic progress. Thank you.
Eric Prim
3707 W. Glen Dower Dr.
Fredericksburg, VA
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am greatly in favor of eliminating selective disclosure by companies to
analysts before release to the general public.
Burton M. Sapiro
2804 Fairway Drive North
Jupiter FL 33477
Author: res at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: FD File #S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Mr. Katz,
I am writing to express my approval of the proposed regulation
"Regulation FD: File
No. S7-31-99."
As the markets open up to more individual investors, thanks to the
explosion of on-line
trading and self-service brokerage accounts, it is more important
than ever that
information be allowed to flow freely and quickly among market
participants, to include
individual investors. As an individual investor, I have the
majority of my retirement funds in stocks. I feel that I should have the
same information available to me as analyst from Brokerage firms. If I
am unable to understand the information presented, then I have the
option of attaining a broker to help me.
I am a Realtor, and by law we are required to let buyers and sellers
know who we represent and have to provide disclosure of material
information to prospective buyers. I feel as a investor I should have
that same right. If we are unable to obtain the same information that is
available to brokerage companies, you are denying the public the right
to know and in my opinion are stacking the deck in favor of the
brokerage companies.
I sincerely hope that you will come down on the side of fair play .
Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion.
Rodney E. Sawyer
63 Shore Rd.
Otisfield, Me. 04270
Author: "Glenn Shelby" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:53 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
I urge you to adopt the Fair Disclosure
regulation. With the rise of internet
stock trading, the days of broker
controlled trading are waning. The
individual investor deserves to have
access to the same information that only
a select few currently enjoy. Please
adopt this regulation.
Thank you,
Glenn A. Shelby
Author: "Smith; Robert W" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:18 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please accept my wish that this regulation be passed. I do not feel that
analysts are necessary to interpret company data before it gets to
individual investors. I want the same information available to me as the
analysts have. Level playing field and all that.
Robert W. Smith - Agent
American Family Insurance
1721 W Elfindale Ste 304
Springfield, MO. 65807
Phone: 417-831-3699
Fax: 417-831-3812
Author: Alan Stange at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:00 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation
FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hello,
I wanted to take this time to write in support of the fair disclosure
rules. I consider the arrogant attitude of many Wall Street analysts to
be somewhat shocking. Frankly, I don't know anyone that listens to
analysts on Wall Street when making investment decisions; the reason is
that most analysts provide rather biased information.
At at time when the President is considering placing Social Security
investment options at the hands of individuals, the SEC should be
empowering individuals to make their own decisions. We don't need
protection from the government or from analysts on Wall Street to make
our own decisions...and our own profits.
I consider the whole notion of selective disclosure to be rather
insulting.
Dr. Alan Stange
Author: Sara Swafford at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:33 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I'm just a individual investor trying to build a retirement. Companies
releasing information should release to the public at the same time as the
wall street analysts.
Sara Swafford
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:21 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC:
I hope that you will put the proposed regulation in effect. It is unfair
and discriminatory to other investors to have important stock information
released to a selected few who profit upon it at the expense of the rest of
us.
Joan M. Sweeney
Author: "Tolley; Eric [Act 1]" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:07 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99, Outhere Productio
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe that full disclosure is the only way to ensure free and fair
trade. The current system is designed simply to line the pockets of a few
individuals and "protect" the public from its self. Personally I do not
believe that I am in need of protecting.
Thank you for your time,
Eric Tolley
CEO Outhere Productions
Author: "Trapaga; Carlos [MCCUS]" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:29 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
In the interest of fairness, I beleieve information should flow to all
people/companies/concerns equally and without editorial content. Then,
whomever wishes to use the information in whatever fashion, may do so at
their own risk. Otherwise, we should be indemnified of risk by well
intentioned but incorrect analysts who draw wrong conclusions. The model
for this is a a lawsuit brought against a doctor who misreads or
misdiagnoses a test result, and subsequently prescribes an incorrect remedy
to a patient. I do not believe Wall Street can or should have it both ways,
either withold the information and be sued for misreading the signs, or
opwen informatrion access to all and accept the outcome. By the by, the
only places where information is witheld and "edited" are called
Communist/Totaitaria, and not a place one is considered to wish to be.
CTrapaga@hotmail.com
Author: "Jerome Travers" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:54 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation fd:file no.s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
For proposed regulation FD:file no. s7-31-99
Hey,it's OUR government
, not some collection of companies and bureaucracies.. thank you
Jerome Travers
Author: hrgcinfo at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:57 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I find it appalling that the SEC would even consider not supplying
information to any and all interested parties. Why require companies to
provide a prospectus? Why require 10K filings?
As more and more investors make use of online (instant) data, they only
become more knowledgeable about what they do and how they do it. The world
is changing and FD S7-31-99 is about keeping up with those changes. Please
vote for this proposal.
Keith M. Vincent, CPA
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:23 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg FD: File S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an investment advisor, I see first-hand what happens when a company first
discloses information to analysts before the public. I get calls wondering
why I did not get the news faster! If we're to have public confidence that
there are favored investors out there, all companies must disclose their
information to all, at the same time, through a public vehicle like a press
conference.
Tom Waymire, President
Yield Management Company, LLC
Author: "David Wierda" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:58 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hello to you all!
Please change the law to make for fair disclosure to EVERYONE.
As someone outside the whole securities industry, I cannot understand why
some information of publicly traded companies has to remain the right of the
people who make money off other people by using that information. When in
the history of the United States have we believed that the common good is
best served by less rather than more disclosure? I know you can find special
examples where that might be true or appear to be true. I do not for a
minute believe that this is one of those cases.
Thank you.
David
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DavidWierda
Author: "J. WITT" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an 10 year veteran of the markets, I am outraged over the "country
club" nature of selective disclosure. The loose rules and regulations
surrounding this "perk" has enabled big-money investment bankers, hedge
funds, mutual funds, etc... to reap god-like profits at the expense of
individual investors. The SEC's unwillingness to equitably regulate
this part of the investment community is a disgrace and belies the fact
that the foxes are guarding the hen house. Mr. Levitt, regardless of
his assertions to the contrary, rarely punishes the large broker,
banker, company, etc... for violating standing SEC law. Instead, the
SEC pounces on the small fry individuals destroying the life of a
delivery person or secretary for trading 500 shares based on an internal
memo they found. Bravo! Meanwhile, Mr. Levitt's "friends" skim, steal,
and inside trade hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars with
impunity or with little more than the threat of a $50,000 fine and
no-contest out of court settlement. Protect your own... right Mr.
Levitt, all in the name of free markets! Give me a break. The selective
disclosure issue is one of many insular reforms that could be easily and
quickly changed. Unfortunately, lobbying and soft-money pay-outs and
"loans" to decision makers by the benefactors of selective disclosure
will likely mean no change. The health of the entire market is at risk
without reform of selective disclosure. To let a few let a few benefit
at the expense of many is reprehensible. As the internet information
wrecking ball continues to barrell through the markets, greater pressure
will continue to be exerted by individuals like me who demand an level
playing field. Hopefully, the SEC is smart enough to get ahead of the
curve and be pro-active and not reactive. For the markets to grow and
be healthy, reform is absolute but knowing how middle-aged white males
want to protect their own "good thing" I am not expecting much...except
for a change of leadership with someone with balls enough to do the
right thing.
J. Witt
Author: Laureen Biczak at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:50 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs,
I am strongly in favor of proposed rule changes to force companies
to give important information to all investors, rather than selectively
to institutional investors & brokerage houses. The current system is
inherently biased & unfair, and is contrary to the principal that all
investors should have equal access to company information, regardless of
the size of their investment position. Your failure to pass this
proposed change in regulations will damage your credibility to the small
investor & to the general public, adding to the perception that the
large brokerage houses hold undue influence over the SEC. As an active
individual investor, I expect the SEC to represent my interests equally
with those of the large brokerage houses.
Sincerely,
Scott Woodside
Author: "Jairo Yun" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:44 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The public should get information at the same time the analysts do. It is only
fair.
Jairo Yun
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0425b04.htm
