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: 04/26/2000 2:20 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think the market should be transparent and that I should have the same
access to everyone else so that I can make the right finacial decisions for
me and my family.
Scott Anderson
2622 14th St.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Author: "Eric Bancroft" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 4:51 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FS: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
I support Proposed Regulation - FD. Selective disclosure, in all of its forms,
and irrespective of its motives, is counter to the concept of a fair market for
securities. In this day and age, the current practice of selective disclosure by
companies to analysts portrays a split market, of "haves" and "have-nots". Those
that possess material information before the rest of the market obviously
possess a significant advantage in terms of analysis. They may not be able to
trade on this information prior to wide dissemination, but knowing the impact of
such information before the rest of the market still affords them, and those who
receive their analysis, an advantage when such information is ultimately
disseminated.
The arguments in favor of maintaining selective disclosure do not make sense.
Some have argued that simultaneous disclosure to all investors would impede the
flow of information, result in more volatile markets, and prevent analysts from
effectively analyzing companies. I submit that companies will choose when to
disseminate information irrespective of whether such dissemination occurs to all
investors or only to analysts. Dissemination of material information will in
fact be streamlined, because it won't have to be done twice. Also, market
volatility will not increase merely because material information is available to
all investors sooner. Even if volatility does increase, it is not a reason for
upholding selective disclosure. Fairness should be the overriding concern, not
volatility. Lastly, analysts whose analysis adds value will not be affected by
the loss of selective disclosure. Information is not analysis. Those analysts
who are able to seize on inefficiency on the market will continue to prosper,
and it is entirely appropriate that they do so. However, these same analysts do
not need and should not receive the benefit of inside information.
The fundamental concepts underlying of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are to provide all investors with full
disclosure of all material information, thereby ensuring that the securities
markets operate in a fair and honest manner. Proposed Regulation FD
appropriately extends this reasoning to require that all material information be
available to all investors at the same time. In earlier times, it was possible
to obtain market information before other investors, thereby capturing an
advantage relative to such investors. As communication methods have evolved, the
advantages have diminished, but unfortunately still exist. We live in an age
where instantaneous communication of all material company information to all
investors is possible. We must require this. We must strive for openness,
honesty, and fairness in the markets at every opportunity, not just when it is
convenient or comfortable to do so.
Sincerely,
Eric Bancroft
email: fins@dellnet.com
Author: "rd barnum" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 6:23 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: anyone@smiledoc.to at Internet
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective disclosure is despicable, unethical and should never have been
allowed. Please take whatever steps are needed to stop this pernicious
activity.
Raymond Barnum
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:55 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe any person should have access to any information that a company
releases, not just stock analysts or big Wall Street Firms, etc. I believe it
does a great dis-service to the general public to allow only a select few
access to certain information that could affect important investment
decisions, or other decisions one might make regarding a corporation. Lets
make this a fair game for all players both large and small. Thank you.
Sincerely, Douglas W. Bishop
Author: "bob brill" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 7:37 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
YES
to full disclosure.
Bob Brill
Author: "JC" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 2:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC,
I'm for putting an end to selective disclosure & want to see full disclosure.
James Carr
Author: Andrew Carstensen at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:59 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a stock holder I can't believe it is not the law already,
Andrew J. Carstensen
Author: Kristina Cliff-Evans at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 7:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I agree strongly with the SEC's intention to pass this rule to
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.
As an individual investor, I believe I have the right to know
everything about a publicly traded company that is revealed to
analysts. Please pass the above captioned rule.
Kristina Cliff-Evans
Author: John J Clifford at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 3:27 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I, as a private investor, think that I should have access to any
information that a company I am invested in releases when it is released
to any other party. This seems only fair to me and should be standard
practice as soon as possible.
John Clifford
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 1:08 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the proposed regulation. We individual investors deserve the same
access to information as the securities industry. The industry's claim that
such access will be detrimental is nonsense. If they can have the
information, so can we.
Thank you,
Chris Cole
275 Battery St., #1420
S.F., CA 94111
Author: "Richard Cromi" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 1:48 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs:
I am in favor of the proposed regulation to require fair disclosure. Investors
in publicly traded companies are the owners of these companies and it is to the
investors that information should be freely and fairly disseminated. I fully
endorse and support your efforts to ensure equitable treatment for all
investors.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Cromi
Canton, Ohio
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 1:25 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Any comments made to Analysts should be released to the public at the same
time.
Robert C. Dantzler
Retired
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 7:15 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of full and fair disclosure to the investing public.
Paul DeFriece
Author: "David Eiland" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 4:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Vote for a level playing field for ALL investors both big and small. With
today's communication systems there is no reason everyone should not hear
financial disclosures at the same time.
David L Eiland
(no company)
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 4:59 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is with great interest, to see that stock brokers want to keep on
controlling the market. With them getting all the news first they can
amongst themselves control the markets. It seems that they don't want
investors to be able to get information that will not make the brokerage
houses money.
F.A.Fischer
Rochester NY
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 1:37 PM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am a non-us citizen investing most of my savings in US companies
because of three reasons
* I believe the best companies in the world are in the USA
* I find the SEC protecting my interests (other regulators in the world do
not do such a good job)
* I am not discriminated because I am a foreigner, I can invest on equal
terms with other investors in the USA
To me it is naturally that everebody gets the same information at the
same time. Believe me, when I compare such a system to the one that exicst in
for instans in Europe were the "old boys network" keeps on stealing from the
small investors, and the laws regulating insiders are mere jokes compared to the
USA, I can only come to the conclusion that the proposal is in the best interest
of all investors.
If you want to protect a system were information is given to everybody
so that they can draw conclusions from that, you are protecting competions on
equal terms.
That is what have made the US great - do not spoil that!
Yours
Goran Frick
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 8:06 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom it may Concern,
A part of our new information economy has been the opening of channels of
communication between companies and their investors. Wall Street firms have
feared and resisted some of the changes and embraced others, but please do
not allow companies to continuie this practice of selective disclosure. IT
IS AN UNFAIR AND REGRESSIVE PRACTICE THAT HAS NO MERIT... other than to give
these Wall Street firms undue advantage to notify their larger investors.
Let's even the playing field, enough is enough.
Sincerely,
Rene Gabri
Author: Jim Gempeler at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 4:07 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
re: proposed Reg FD:
Dear SEC;
Isn't the argument that people need to be protected
from, or are to stupid
to handle the truth, a bit out dated? And even if
the public is "intelligence
challenged" wouldn't this be discrimination to deny
equal access to
information? I find this amusing that someone could
even argue this today
with a straight face.
This is about time that individual investors (the
voting public) have access
to the same information at the same time!
Sincerely
Jim Gempeler
Architect / business owner
Author: "Giglio; David Andrew (David)** CTR **" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 9:55 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I feel very strongly that individual investors are just as able to make
certain decisions than analysts. If Wall Street analysts cannot do their job
without private information supplied only to them, then what function do
they serve? In the information age with unlimited resources to knowledge and
expertise, it is unfathomable that an industry can only maintain its status
quo from the general public by using private information not released to the
general public of individual investors. And to say that it is in my best
interest as an individual investor only further mitigates the attitude Wall
Street purveys that we as the general public are incompetent and need to be
spoon fed. Please, information should be freely given to all who want it,
not just analysts. I am for the proposed regulations giving equal
information to the general public.
David Giglio
Author: "Lloyd Hansen" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:10 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation S7-31-99 End Selective Disclosure!
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I would like to take this opportunity to encourage you to activate
your proposal ending so called"selective disclosure".
As we are all aware, so much of the daily market ups and downs in todays highly
volitile investment conditions are no longer highly weighted toward sound
investment principles, instead they are being moved a great deal by emotion,
rumor and supposition.
In ending selective disclosure, you would in effect be leveling the playing
field for all investors, big or small, by allowing all parties access to
important investment information. It would also end a great deal of the "pump
and dump" hijinks that allows analysts with a stock to grind to run up a stock
for resale purposes.
Please vote for abolishing selective disclosure.
Thank you,
Lloyd Hansen
365 W. Cameron Bridge Rd.
Bozeman, Mt. 59718
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 8:10 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor I must support any and all regulations that ensure
that companies do not selectively disclose information to any person or
organization where they are not anticipating entering into a contractual
relationship.
Wall St. analysts do not in any way qualify for special treatment in the
disclosure of information. However, the added value of the Wall St.
community should be in their breadth of research and opinion (i.e.,
expectations of a company within an industry, or an industry within an
economy, etc.).
Companies publish various SEC Forms to disclose what is already determined to
be material information. Why should there be another avenue for a
'privileged' few?
Perhaps ''conference calls" and other "restricted access" communications
should be recorded and filed under a new SEC Form for public record?
The SEC does a great job in difficult circumstances. We rely on you to keep
the playing field level. Keep up the good work!
Dennis Heath
Garrison, NY
Author: "Lee Holmes" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 2:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam:
Earlier this week I supported not giving analysts an advantage over the public.
I wish to amend my comments.
I am persuaded by George Gilder's editorial in the 4-24-00 "Asian Wall Street
Journal" that with the Internet, the Inside Information prohibition gives an
unfair advantage to such insiders as Warren Buffet and venture capitalists who
have complete access to company information, and the prohibition should be
abolished.
Gilder points out that with anyone able to talk to engineers and other members
of a company, robust discussion would be encouraged, and companies' First
Amendment rights would be restored.
Therefore, I recommend that analysts should have no advantage over the public,
and further that as soon as possible, the Inside Information prohibition should
be abolished to allow as much information as is available, and which a company
wishes to share, be given to the public.
Sincerely,
Lee M. Holmes
Author: "sieg" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:31 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please change the law so that disclosure of company information is done in a way
that all investors, big and small, have access to the same information at the
same time.
Sieg Hoppe
1213 East 2nd Street
Mucatine, Iowa 52761
Author: "Candice Hungerford" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 3:02 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of leveling the playing field and support the SEC's proposal
to prevent release of information to Wall Street and not the public at
large. Knowledge is power for everyone!
Candice Hungerford
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:55 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: george.j.iwaszek@intel.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I support the SEC's objective to reduce selective disclosure by adopting
Regulation FD. I have read Chairman Levitt's statement (15 Dec), the
Regulation FD fact sheet, and other information available on the SEC web
site. I have also studied the response from the Securities Industry
Association as well as comments from my fellow individual investors. I
conclude this regulation is good for the market and good for investors.
Thank you for considering my opinion.
George Iwaszek
Albuquerque, NM
Individual Investor
Author: "Steven Garrett" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 11:08 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
Selective disclosure is no longer a viable option in this day and age when
more and more investors are going online to handle and make their own
investment decisions. I support your move to "level the playing field" with
your proposal to make all important company information available to the
public as well as Wall Street analysts at the same time.
Sincerely,
Gloria Kalisher, M.D.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 2:42 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
This proposal gets my vote of approval. Its about time us individual
investors, and more importantly, us company owners, receive all company
information at least at the same time as the analysts and institutions, who
may not be owners of the company, and who certainly do not have our interests
at heart.
Lewis Karl (self employed)
200 James Drive, SW
Vienna VA 22180
Author: Avinash Karnani at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:44 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
End Selective Disclosure
Please.
Thank you
Avinash Karnani
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:09 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I, an individual investor, support the elimination of selective
disclosure.
Rob Kirkland
Downingtown, PA
Author: "Craig Klementowski" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 1:30 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I just wanted to drop a line and say I support the proposition to end
selective disclosure. I urge you to pass this for the benefit of all
individual investors.
Craig Klementowski
Author: marian lazickas at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 7:38 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD file # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs: Selective Disclosure is the same thing as insider trading. It is
time to eliminate this unfair and (should be illegal) practice.
Now go do the right thing.
Marian Lazickas
Author: "Lawrence Leonard" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 6:24 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
It is my hope that the SEC will move to enact the proposed regulation for
more open disclosure. I realize that many large investment firms make more
money from the current disclosure policy, but I feel that in today's open
market this is simply unfair. As more and more people invest independently,
the market gets larger and stronger. These people need information on
companies to be open and readily available to make informed investment
choices. I therefore ask you to move to enact the proposed regulation FD:
File No. S7-31-99. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Lawrence Leonard
Miantenance Supervisor Scarafoni Associates
Williamstown, MA 01267-2107
Author: "Andy Lewis" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:49 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I'm writing in support of the proposed regulation. Here we are in the
information age, in a democratic society, and yet the Wall Street powers
that be see fit to be filters of information to share holders of companies.
So if I understand this right, I own part of a company, but someone I didn't
vote for gets to decide what information I should receive and how I should
receive it. This practice is simply un-American.
No wonder the establishment of Wall Street opposes this regulation--their
unfair advantage would be taken away. What more evidence of the harm being
done to individual investors than the fact that you almost never see a
"Sell" recommendation from the analysts. If this isn't a conflict of
interest, then what is?!
I urge you to enact the regulation and bring the stock market into the 21st
century, where everyday Americans now have the power to act for themselves,
rather than having to pay brokers who have their own interests at heart
rather than serving their customers. These Americans have the power to act,
they own the companies, and they are entitled to unabridged, unadulterated
information from the companies they own.
Sincerely,
Andrew J Lewis
Software Engineer
Author: Daniel Martin at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 5:28 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hello,
I am a U.S. citizen living in Japan. Please carry through with this
effort to secure full disclose to the public. It serves no fair purpose
to allow selective disclosure. Rather, selective disclosure fosters
suspicion. Moreover, full disclosure would improve market transparency
and discourage foul play.
Dan Martin
Registered Voter in Colorado
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:29 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Mark P. McKinney
A little investor that wants the same info that the "Big Guys" receive.
Author: Dan McNeese at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 4:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please pass this bill and stop the thieves on Wall Street.
Vote YES
Dan McNeese
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 6:28 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I agree with the Chairman's concerns regarding "gamesmanship" and encourage
adoption of a rule requiring open disclosure.
Roger D. Morrison
Author: "Eftimescu; Nicolae" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 11:16 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hello,
It would be fair that individual investors get the same information as
analysts.
Eftimescu Nicolae
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 6:57 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulations FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Ms. Vita Noble
4/26/2000
Dear SEC:
Please stop selective disclosure.
Sincerely, Vita Noble
vitanoble@aol.com
Author: "William Noran" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 6:42 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation fd: file # s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
i want full disclosure for all.......bill noran jax fl
Author: RPainter at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 9:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sir
I am a private investor (in both NYSE and NASDAQ) and I urge you to
ensure fairness and equality amongst all investors.
To allow selective or privileged briefings is to create legal "insiders"
who will have a potentially dominant effect on the market.
Please do not move backwards - make the market fair for all!
Yours faithfully
Richard N S Painter
Author: "k y Philip" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 7:52 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Information about a company should be given to its shareholders first or made
public for all to know of it simultaneously.
Mr. K. Y. Philip
Holding shares of Coca-Cola, and many other great American companies.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 3:16 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to state my view that companies should be required to disclose
the same information to the public that they do to analysts. It seems absurd
to me that a company I invest in, a company I am a part owner of, should be
allowed to give information to an analyst who is not necessarily an owner of
the company and is not necessarily working in my interest, yet not be
required to disclose that same information to me. I, and any other reasonably
intelligent investor willing to take the time, am perfectly capable of making
my own investment decisions. More to the point, I have the *right* to make my
own investment decisions, and I have the right to possess the greatest amount
of information that will enable to make those decisions responsibly and
intelligently. I can scarcely believe that this is even a debatable point.
The investors in a company, those who own the company and have the greatest
stake, are owed honesty and full disclosure of all financial information
relating to that company.
David Ragsdale
Boston, Massachusetts
Author: Tom Ray at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:06 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe that disclosure is necessary. Who are the analysts to say that I
can not properly evaluate what the companies are saying? If it is only for
analysts to hear because us plebians would not understand, how do they know
that I do not have a Ph.D. in Economics and Finance? Who are THEY to judge?
Maybe it should be that any analysts and their employers involved in these
Limited Disclosure meetings should be prohibited from any trading in the
stock of a company having these Disclosure meetings? After all, is that not
insider trading on information? The same thing that employees of a
corporation are prohibited from doing?
Their hypocrisy disgusts me, and if you vote against this Regulation, you
should be disgusted with yourself and prepare to be vilified.
Thomas Ray
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:18 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
We deserve to know the news of the of the companies we are part owners of,
not a few select analyst. Yes, on Proposed Reg. FD No. S7-31-99
Thank you,
Robert Salem
Author: "George sawdy" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 7:24 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have read the ideas expressed by the Securities Industry Association
lobbying on behalf of its full-service broker members. I completely disagree
with their contention that analysts provide a better service for the owners
of America's public companies by operating in an environment with access to
information denied to the very people who own or are considering owning
those companies. Their contentions betray all common sense.
If it betrays common sense, what is the motivation? SIA desires unequal
access to information by its members' analysts because they resell the
information to the American public. There's nothing wrong with reselling the
information. But making that information more valuable by giving them
unequal access to it, denying equal access to individual investors, is
wrong.
If there is any doubt in your mind that SIA's motivation is less than
honorable, be reminded of Merrill Lynch's contention expressed over a year
ago by its CEO that online trading was the worst thing for individual
investors. A year later and having reversed its thinking, Merrill Lynch is
now offering online trading to its customers. The contentions of the
community of full-service brokers expressed in SIA's filings show more
concern about the market share they are losing to the discount brokers than
concern for individual investors.
I applaud Proposed Regulation FD.
George F. Sawdy, Ass't Professor of Economics
Providence College
gsawdy@providence.edu
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:12 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD : File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Linda Schreiber
J Invest THE SEC needs to think of real people
at the grassroots level! The PUBLIC has a RIGHT to KNOW and have
information.
Author: "Dinesh Somani" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 5:29 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC:
This is in regard to the ideas expressed by the Securities Industry
Association (SIA) lobbying on behalf of its full-service broker members.
I completely disagree with their contention that analysts provide a
better service for the owners of America's public companies by
operating in an environment with access to information denied to the
very people who own or are considering owning those companies. This
contention betrays all common sense. It only shows how low is the
American Investor held by the full service broker community.
If it betrays common sense, what is the motivation? SIA desires
unequal access to information by its members' analysts because they
resell the information to the American public. There's nothing wrong
with reselling the information. But making that information more
valuable by giving them unequal access to it, denying equal access to
individual investors, is wrong.
If there is any doubt in your mind that SIA's motivation is less than
honorable, be reminded of Merrill Lynch's contention expressed over a
year ago by its CEO that online trading was the worst thing for
individual investors. A year later and Merrill Lynch is now offering
online trading to its customers. The contentions of the community of
full-service brokers expressed in SIA's filings show more concern about
the market share they are losing to the discount brokers than concern
for individual investors.
I applaud Proposed Regulation FD.
--Dinesh K Somani
Author: Jacqueline Sutton at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:50 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am an individual investor and I ABSOLUTELY support FULL FINANCIAL
DISCLOSURE on the part of publicly traded companies when presenting earnings
reports. To do otherwise is to perpetuate the "mystification" of
investments, and in doing so, does a great disservice to those of us who are
contributing to this economy.
Jacqueline Sutton
Author: "Ward; Trevor" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 5:06 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
I firmly support the proposal for full financial disclosure
legislation.
Being an independent investor, I feel it that full timely disclosure
of a companies financials to all investors is a right not a privilege. Wall
Street of course believes that this will cause high market volatility.
Nonsense. Having this information available will aid investors in making
prudent decisions with their investments. It is time to level the playing
field as we head in to the new millenium. I trust you will make the right
decision for the implementation of this legislation.
Sincerely,
Trevor Ward
Dolby Laboratories, Inc.
Film Applications Engineer
http://tow@dolby.com
Author: "damian weidmann" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:22 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I firmly believe that the SEC should do eveything in its power to level the
playing field for all investors by promoting fair disclosure.
Damian J. Weidmann
individual investor
Author: "Woodward Edward (crm1eaw)" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 7:24 AM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of the proposal to end the practice that allows the investment
houses access to company information that is not being made available to the
average invested.
Legal, SEC sanctioned insider trading for the large investors is still
insider trading. It is wrong for the investment houses to profit at the
expense of the small investor.
The markets will only function effectively when there is the appearance of a
level playing field.
Regards,
Ed Woodward
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0426b02.htm
