Author: Boyce Lancaster at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:21 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
I strongly disagree with the Securities Industry Association stance that
we, the small investor, cannot make our own decisions regarding
investing. I must strongly oppose any attempt on the part of Wall Street
to limit the amount of information we, the public, receive, and also oppose
the suggestion that they get information first. Wall Street analysts are
welcome to help interpret information all they wish, but we should all
receive that information simultaneously. Otherwise, I believe that is
dangerously close to a type of insider trading, since they receive crucial
information and can act upon it or help others act upon it before the rest
of us.
Sincerely,
Boyce D. Lancaster
Author: "Lorenzo; Richard; C ()" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:33 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support proposed regulation FD. It is common sense. Full
disclosure is the foundation of our economy, and in making it stronger, we
will strengthen the economy. Once approved, it will benefit not only the
common investor, but the securities brokers who oppose it in increased
retail trading. "Regulation FD" will be seen as obvious as the air bag
regulations which were opposed by the automobile industry.
I commend the SEC for proposing this change.
Sincerely,
Richard C. Lorenzo
AT&T Solutions
rlorenzo@solutions.att.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:52 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:FileNo.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I vote NO to withholding stock co. information from the public. Grace
Lawrence
Author: Steven Ledbetter at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:01 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I consider the proposed SEC rule change to be a long-needed blow in the
positive direction that levels the playing field for those individual
investors who wish to take a more direct and active role in their
investments without being forced to have their information filtered
through the interpretations of the professional analysts whose sole
purpose in opposing the rule change seems to be protection of their
current position as gatekeeper of information.
Undoubtedly many investors will prefer to continue to use the work of
analysts, who may provide a helpful function in explaining complex
issues to them. But why penalize those individual investors who have the
ability and the desire to undertake their own analyses, and who deserve
the right to have information made directly available to them? With the
current emphasis on open access to information made possible by the
internet in recent years, anything other than the implementation of the
proposed rule regarding fair disclosure of information from publicly
traded companies to the public would fly in the face of everything that
is happening in American society today. Many of us want to accept the
responsbility and the challenge of analyzing information ourselves, and
we are tired of the cronyism that the old system protects.
Steven Ledbetter / SL Enterprises
Newton, Massachusetts
Author: Urs Lehmann at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 3:34 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It's time to level out the playing field. Stop preferring one investors
class over another one.
Author: "Maddox; John (J.M.)" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:42 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to make known my opinions on the proposed rule:
I am in favor of the rule, as it will go a long way to eliminate the current
situation which distorts today's market.
The disclosure of information to selected analysts, and not to the public at
large, allows the receiver of this information (and selected clients) to
benefit at the direct expense of the average investor, and therefore
distorts the market for a given security.
There is no beneficial service provided by the analyst which outweighs the
harm done to the market overall.
In fact, the relationship between a given analyst and the company or
industry that they cover in itself is a violation in principal of the
insider trading rules.
I disagree with assertions that this rule will limit disclosures by
companies, as it will remain in their best interest to make public the same
information that they are providing today.
John M Maddox
Senior Research Engineer
Author: "Mark Martinets" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:24 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs/Madams,
I would simply like to express my opinion on the proposed regulation and
that is that I am opposed to selective disclosure. I don't believe it
to be in the best interest of the public. The argument is that analysts
should analyze the data and present their opinions to the public and the
public should base their actions on those opinions. This is wrong.
This country is based oin freedom, which includes freedom to make one's
own decisions. Analyst's opinions regarding investments can range as
wide as the opinions of the public in general. This country is a
democracy, which means the majority rules- please let the majority rule
in this case.
Regards,
Mark Martinets
--
Mark Martinets ph: 512-895-3212
Body Elec. & Occ. Safety Div. fax: 512-895-3236
Transportation Systems Group pgr: 800-759-8352, pin#1555969
Motorola SPS
mailto:Mark.Martinets@motorola.com
Author: Steven Mason at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 2:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom ever it may concern,
I highly support this proposed regulation.
Information just as intellectual property is a valuable commodity.
Allowing information given to one group, even pro ported experts, does
nothing but put those without the information at a disadvantage and no
better than the insider trading that has been agreed to as a terrible
and justifiably unlawful action.
All information has to be interpreted and the ability to do this will
still be in demand by those not able or willing to take the time,
therefore, analysts will still be in demand.
To not level the playing field with this regulation and others like it
gives the perception of possible collusion between companies and their
favorite analysts, whether this is the case or not.
The argument that I heard given that only management spins information
does not hold up especially in when viewing or reading anything written
by competing analysts. Investor still have to interpret what they hear.
At least with this regulation in effect we can analyze what the
analysts say with the same information and can better weigh our
decisions.
Sincerely,
Steven Mason
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:31 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please support the little guy's right to full disclosure when the big boys
get that info. Selective disclosure in my business as a REALTOR does not
work, why should it work with my investment knowledge?
Jeff McAnally
Barker Realty
11519 Woodside Ave
Santee, Ca 92071
Author: "McCrackin; Lynn" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:38 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
Selective disclosure is wrong. In a nutshell, you are catering to a special
interest group who is not going to be able to such an easy living if you
level the playing field. You are also making the the assumption that the
people being given select information have their client's best interests at
heart and can not be more competent than their clients unless they they have
special information.
Lynn McCrackin
145 Chadwick Drive
Helena, AL 35080
lynn_mccrackin@hotmail.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:55 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen:
As we progress ever further into the "Information Age", it is becoming more
than apparent than ever before that knowledge is power. The securities
industry (the "insiders") quite understandably would like to maintain the
status quo. This attitude is self-serving, anticompetitive and contrary to
free market principles.
The industry's claim that selective distribution of information to analysts
and other insiders contributes to market stability is bogus. This might be
true to some degree if the analysts' conclusions were public, but this, of
course, is not the case. What it truly amounts to is that certain subsets of
the investment community are party to information critical to sound
investment decisions that the majority of investors cannot access.
It is difficult to see the logic behind the original decision that the
private use of what should be open access information is in the public
interest. The securities industry's "we know best" attitude may mask its
fear that the "analysis" it sells to the public will be revealed for what it
is: in most cases, mundane logic draped in doublespeak that cannot withstand
a critical review given the same set of facts and that relies on inside
information to maintain its superior position. The vast amount of investment
data currently available precludes any one individual from gaining true
expertise in more than a few areas of the investment field. There will
always be a market for incisive commentary and analysis on investment issues.
I urge you to proceed in implementing the captioned rule, along with any
other proposals that will "level the playing field" for everyone involved in
the investment arena.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
D.H. McCright
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:27 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am for the new fair disclosure rules. Marilyn Meehan
Author: "Joe and Helen Mehrkens" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:17 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: "Mary E Schultz" at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am urging you to adopt the proposed regulation that requires businesses to
disclose the same degree of financial information to the general public as
they currently provided to just the Wall Street analysts. I disagree with
the rational provided by the SIA. Exclusive and limited information rights
do not necessarily lead to a more efficient and less volatile market.
However, I do agree that limiting information can protect the great
advantages now afford to the interests represented by the SIA -- which is
responding like any other special interest group would. Joseph R. Mehrkens,
Individual Investor (full-time).
Author: Philip Meidell at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:55 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The notion that publicly traded companies have been able to divulge
important information about the state of their business to an exclusive
segment of the trading public is ludicrous. Selective disclosure, as has
been practiced until now, is what one would expect to encounter in other
countries, not in our home of free enterprise. I wholeheartedly support
the efforts of the Securities and Exchange Commission to correct this
currently skewed situation.
Sincerely,
Philip Meidell
Sudbury, MA
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 2:01 AM
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 state that I believe that companies should NOT be allowed
to selectively release information. If information is to be released, it
should be released to EVERYONE, not just select analysts. I would like to
see your organization change the rules to stop companies from picking and
choosing who they release information to and have them release information to
everyone.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Linda Michela
Author: "Steve Miller" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:49 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Selective Disclosure is a license to steal. TIme to end it !
Dr. Steven Miller, Ph.D.
Author: ani at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:21 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation: File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To: The SEC
From: Jim & Anita Pauwels, The Pals Group, Inc.
Re: End Selective Disclosure
Please follow through with your plan to end selective disclosure to
Wall Street by companies. Open the stock market to become a truly free
market, open and available to all, to keep our market economy strong.
Thank you,
Jim and Anita Pauwels
The Pals Group, Inc.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:36 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
I hope the SEC will pass this rule & help level the playing field a bit for
small investors such as myself. Wall Street & 'professionals/analysts'
already have far too many advantages.
Thank you.
David Peacock (small-time investor)
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 4:11 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hmmm.
Access to information that some people but not everyone has, to do with what
I wish, include exploit a potential rapid increase or decrease in a company's
price and/or popularity.
Certainly doesn't sound FAIR, nor like a true market-based system.
Thanks for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
Brian Perkins
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:17 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: File #S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I don't understand why Wall Street Firms are given information that is not
available to me a member of the public. It's time for this to stop. I have
heard many argumentsand they simply don't make sense. This current policy
sounds like a form of insider trading to me!!! It's time to make the trading
floor equal. If I make a mistake, I make it. I don't want to pay a broker to
make it for me.......
Marian Phillips
Simply Wonderful
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is proposing to change the rules
that currently allow companies to give important information to Wall Street
analysts without simultaneously giving the news to the public at large.
As a small stock invester, I am in complete agreement with the purposed
changes.
All we ask is a level playing field.
Sincerely
Penelope A. Porter DVM
Tucson Az.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:32 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
I am a very active trader in that I own many shares of up to 14 companies at
any point in time. I strongly favor equal access to information from the
companies I own. Providing the information relative to the performance of a
company ahead of time selectively to a few profeshional analyst is clearly of
no value to any investor other than the few analyst and their respective
companies. Change is needed.
Tom Quinn (TQUIN45@aol.com)
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:06 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I don't think it is fair to give Wall Street analysts selective disclosure.
Please allow the public at large to receive all information simultaneously.
Thank you.
Kathleen Raimondi
Author: Greg Rambat at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:44 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: file No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing to voice my support for leveling the playing field with
regard to receiving important information on the stock market/stocks.
Selective disclosure is wrong.
Greg Rambat
Author: "Dwight Reynolds" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:33 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support proposed legislation to eliminate the practice of selective
disclosure. The current system is patently unfair to the individual
investor and smacks of crony capitalism. We need to be example to the
world - and defeat of this measure would send the wrong message to our
trading partners.
Dwight Reynolds
Author: Laurie richings at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:15 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe selected disclosure is a gross injustice to the general
investing public, of which I am a memeber.
Selective disclosure means that the receipients can immediately make the
decisions regarding financila markets and those not "in the know" will
find that the market has gone against them, either up or down while the
priviliedged few are able to profit from the news.
The individual investor is better informes about finanacila matters than
the suporters of select disclosure would have the governmment believe
Thank you for the opportunity to make my thoughts known,
Laurie Richings
Author: hadley101 at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:08 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Regulation FD S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC,
I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion on
proposed Regulation FD. I value the analysis of the pros on the street
but they are like politicians and have their own agenda. Rarely have I
seen a sell rating on a stock. I don't have the privilege of taking
companies public but this is only one point, I am well aware that
analysts have to butter management teams to be privy to information.
I will welcome any change that involves an open playing field and
holds these guys to a higher degree of professionalism and scrutiny.
My financial future is in my hands and I would
like to disseminate reports on my own and compare to the results I
get to the street's. For this reason I need to deduct my own opinion
as my future is as stake. I already feel that the street has an unfair
advantage when they receive important information and make trades
according what the information is. This lack of free flow of
information is a black eye to the supposed efficient and fair market.
I rarely hear any news regarding the SEC catching anyone front running
and feel this regulation is just an appeasement to the so called Dumb
Money. Remember this is what we are called and this is because they
are privy to secret information. They keep it from us and taunt us with
it. I don't plan on staying in the market as I have better opportunities
for my money. People lost faith in the markets before and we all know
what it did to our country.
Hadley Robinson
Individual Investor
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:31 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs,
Please register this email as opposition to restricting the flow of vital
corporate information to the general public as proposed in subject
regulation. To indicate that investors, stockholders, and "owners" of public
corporations should be denied access to crucial data unless it has been
filtered by so called "experts" is absurd. These "experts" have been
forecasting "bear markets" for years! Thank you for your time.
M. E. Roeling
Mandeville, LA
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:23 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File n. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Keep the playing field level. I am not a cretin, and am able to read and
digest financial information. I fear that analyists will have an advantage to
selectively give out information. Further, who says they really have superior
wisdom or judgement. I strongly oppose the rule.
phronzone@aol.com
Philip H. Ronzone (individual)
Author: "Saunders; Joe" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:57 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC friends
I think it is high time the rules for disclosure were changed so that
everyone gets the same information about a public company at the same time.
I also believe it is time for rules on when trading can be done to change.
Everyone should be trading at the same time or twentyfour (24) hours a day.
After hours trading should be for all to use.
Joseph Saunders
Author: Phillip Schwarz at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:04 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
You need to allow all investors access to news and info. released from
public companies, at the same time. Fairness must prevail. Analysts
shouldn't have any advantage in the timeliness of news releases. Do not
run over the small investor.
Thank you,
Phil Schwarz
Reg. Rep.(Ser. 7)
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:02 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is inconceivable that there is any question that full disclosure should
not be the rule. Anything other than full disclosure is simply deception.
Full disclosure is what disclosure is all about. The SEC is supposed to be
protecting the public. What better protection than the proposed rule?????
Put the rule on the books.
Carl Shannon
bckacres@aol.com
Author: Steven P Smith at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:44 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20549
Re: Proposed Regulation FD, File No. S7-31-99
Dear Mr. Katz:
After having read several of the arguments For and Against Proposed Rule FD,
I am firmly in support of this Regulation.
It is clearly time to level for playing field.
I am in agreement with the letter from W. Hardy Callcott, Senior Vice
President and General Counsel, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. in its entirety.
Selective disclosure in any form is an injustice to the shareholders of any
company.
I find the arguments of the National Investor Relations Institute and the
Securities Industry Association intriguing to say the least. While they
appear to be in support of full disclosure, their concerns that analysts
might be falsely accused of inappropriate use of inside information due to
insufficient definition of terms, is suspect. I find their arguments to be
statements of how easily full disclosure can be thwarted no matter how the
law is written. This, in my opinion, is a very important statement for them
to make, and they should eliminate the excess verbiage, and just say it!
E.g., WARNING: You are entering a Den of Inequity in which the information
you receive has been used to enrich the purveyors of such information and
their wealthiest clients. Beware! You are at an extreme disadvantage!
In the end, it should be noted, that shareholders of companies have very
little choice as to where they put their "nest egg." Current interest rates
in secure investments are extremely low (perhaps artificially so) and
heavily taxed, making profitable non equity investments practically
impossible for the average person. The average American is in fact being
forced to put their hard-earned, already heavily taxed dollars, into the
equities markets because of this obvious inequity, and the result has been
the largest transfer of wealth to the top 1 percent ever in a democracy.
Furthermore, while wage inflation is intolerable in the eyes of the Federal
Reserve Board, equity market inflation benefitting the Boards of Directors
and upper echelons of large institutions is little more than "irrational
exuberance" of those who have no choice as to where they put their money.
The SEC must do all that it can to stop the manipulation of the market by
the few for the benefit of the rich.
While I am sure there are other issues of equal importance to this one,
leveling the information playing field is at the top of MY list.
Thank You,
Steven Smith
Sacramento Ca
Author: "Greg Spencer/TechServ/ATL/SONE" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:48 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Greg Spencer
S1 Corporation/Atlanta Office
T: +1 678 421 4683
E: greg.spencer@s1.com
Visit us at http://www.s1.com
"Empowering financial institutions to improve their customer's world."
Author: "Bernice A. Stanhope" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:24 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File#S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Wall Street Brokers don't think individuals can make intelligent decisions
regarding their investments. If 90 to95% of these "professional" managers can't
beat the S&P 500 in the market, doesn't that speak volumes for the case of
complete disclosure for all? Bernice A. Stanhope
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:20 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hello,
I am writing to voice my support for requiring full and complete disclosure of
information to the public investment community, not just to analysts. It is far
better to allow people to examine the data for themselves and make their own
decisions. At least in that case there is a possibility of an intelligent,
informed decision. The continue of selective disclosure, on the other hand,
would relegate the investing public to making decisions "in the dark", and in
that case a good decision cannot be made, even if one is occasionally correct by
luck.
I urge you to ignore the self-interested positions of the brokerage and analyst
industry. If the public is to take intelligent control of their financial
well-being, full information is required.
Thank you.
John A. Stein, Jr.
15108 Birmingham Drive
Burtonsville, MD 20866
301-549-2778 (h)
301-428-7063 (w)
Disclaimer: For convenience I am using my email account at my job, but the above
opinions are my own and in no way reflect the opinion of my employer.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please stop selective disclosure to analysts. I research and invest
"on-line". Often, itappears quite evident that analysts currently have info
that I am not privy to which would influence the results of my research and
investing.
Please ensure that the stock trading / investment community has a level
playing field by requiring that all information being released to analysts is
simultaneously available to the general investing public.
Nga K. Strom
email: annawont@aol.comm
Fairfax, VA
Author: Mike Sullivan at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:49 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of this rule and think the SEC should adopt it. This rule
will not prevent professional analysts from continuing to perform the
same function they do now, interpreting the data and pointing out the
negatives the major companies don't emphasize. Let the individual see the
raw information and compare it to the professional interpretation, this
will be educational and in the long run show the value in listening to
the analyst who examines far more data than company press releases.
Sincerely,
James Michael Sullivan
Author: Dan Sundblade at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:37 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I fully support the Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
I am an independent investor that truly believes that all investors
should have the same access to investment information.
Sincerely,
Dan Sundblade
4024 Brookforest Ln.
Indian Trail, NC 28208
Author: Jacqui Sutton at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 3:04 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I absolutely want the SEC to compel publicly traded companies to provide
FULL disclosure when reporting earnings. I am an individual investor
and I have the right to know whether my investment in a company is
viable based on that company's performance and ACCURATE accounting of
their financial status.
Jacqueline Sutton
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is my belief that todays investor is far more astute and rational than you
give him credit for. He is able to filter volumes of information on a
international, national and local level from several different viewpoints and
forms his own opinion as to the impact of these events. Financial or company
news is only one small part. If you can trust him with 99 percent unfiltered
why worry about the remaining 1 percent.
I vote for open, public disclosure
Sam Sweat
Shearwater Realty Inc.
Author: "William C. Turney" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:02 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am opposed to selective disclosure of information to financial
"professionals". A free market requires equal access to information. William
C. Turney, Owner, Redstone Productions, LLC
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:19 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
April 27, 2000
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
450 Fifth Street, N.W., Stop 6-9,
Washington, D.C. 20549.
Re: Proposed Regulation FD - File No. S7-31-99
Dear Mr. Katz:
I hereby submit for the Securities and Exchange Commission's
consideration this response to Release No. 33-7787. While the existing
regulations may have been appropriate over sixty-five years ago, clearly
they are no longer. This is especially true in light of today's
technology and the broad general interest in publicly traded companies
as well as in the overall markets.
This essential reliance upon information by the public can no longer
justify any delays or preferences of any kind. The interests of all
concerned far outweighs the interests of a few. Accordingly, I am
writing to urge that the Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 be
adopted by the SEC and implemented at the earliest possible date allowed
by law.
Respectfully,
Philip Cajetan de Verges, J.D.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:49 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Wall Street opposes this because the powers that be want to keep the
advantage over the "little guy".
make sure you make your decision based upon the fact that you work for the
people, and the people want fairness and to
STOP SELECTIVE DISCLOSURE!!!!!!
NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
D. Ware
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:14 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: NEILWEAVER@aol.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support your proposed new rules to ban selective disclosure of company
information. As you have seen, this selective disclosure is a disservice to
investors and cannot be considered fair to investors.
Stand by your proposals and incorporate into the SEC rules because it is the
right thing to do.
S/
R. Neil Weaver
neilweaver@aol.com
Author: Richard Weinberg at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:48 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Stop selective disclosure.
The public has a right to know - everything.
Author: "Ralph W" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:57 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen:
No lengthy discourse is necessary -- This regulation should be passed as it
benefits the investing public and, by prohibiting biased favorable
"institutional" opinion via admittance/non-admittance to meetings of selective
disclosure, actually foments the quality of information and analyst opinion
available to the general public whose interests it is your duty to protect.
Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion on this very important
subject.
Ralph H. Weseman Jr.
kempo-kid@hitter.net
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:38 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Members of the SEC,
Thank you for your proposal to level the playing field for the average
American investor.
I cast one vote for your Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
Yours truly,
Daniel J. Wetta, Sr.
103-C Stratford Drive
Williamsburg, VA 23185-2968
Author: "WOLF;ANDREW (HP-Boise;ex1)" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:14 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hey
Change the rules so that all investors can
get the same news that analysts do.
Frederick ANDREW Wolf
5092 Wildrye
Boise ID 83703
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:48 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to you in support of the proposed regulation that would require
companies to 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.
Sincerely,
Clifford Yuen
