Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: patron at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 5:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
TO: jonah@CS.berkeley.edu at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To say that the "alternative model of millions of individual investors
and potential
investors poring over prospectuses and periodic reports is highly
theoretical and out of sync with the real world" is to be out of sync
with the real world. More
and more, individuals like myself are taking their own retirement funds
into
their own hands and investing them on-line. To deny us the access to
the same
information given to Wall Street analysts would be elitist at best.
I strongly urge that Fair Disclosure to the public be allowed so that we
can better
make informed decisions on our investments.
Jeff Anderson-Lee
System Manager, Digital Library Project
ERL, UC Berkeley
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:48 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: stewart@battleborn.com at Internet
CC: LCALV@aol.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on your consideration of Regulation
FD (S7-31-99).
I encourage your adoption of the Full Disclosure rules. Individual Investors
should be able to rely on our system to fairly disseminate information. The
internet has brought an immedicacy to the information dissemination process
that demands public companies fully disclose important information and not
allow a few subjectively chosen analysts to have a time advantage over other
interested parties and investors.
I've read other file arguments pro and con, and find nothing to deter my
strong feelings for full and fair disclosure.
I am a CPA currently in private employment who previously was in public
practice for more than 20 years. My profession fully endorses and insists on
fair and complete disclosure of any information material to a company's
financial statements -- the same should be true in ALL means of information
dissemination.
Thank you for your time.
Larry C. Apple, CPA
lcalv@aol.com
Author: Adam Brod at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern;
I can't come up with a single reason, in this democratic county, why
information should not be equally available to everyone. Unless, of course,
I am a Wall Street broker in which case I would love to keep as much
information as possible.
Please change the rules to make investing fair for everyone.
Sincerely,
Adam C. Brod
Author: "Mitch Butler" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 2:28 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Regarding proposed regulation FD, we applaud and agree completely with the
"Comments of W. Hardy Callcott, SVP, General Counsel, Charles Schwab & Co.,
Inc., April 20, 2000" found on http://www.sec.gov/rules/s73199.htm. We urge
you to adopt the Conclusions set forth in that letter.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.
Mitch Butler & Family
Sunnyvale, CA
individual investors
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in support of the SEC proposed changes to the "selective disclosure
rule."As an individual investor, I believe that fairness in disclosure is
essential in order to build trust in investing. Thank you.
David Causey
3314 Seven Springs Rd
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Author: "Richard Clemens" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
This seems, once again, of the Government believing they know more than the
people and what is good for the people. The SEC appears to want to help "Wall
Street" keep their jobs.
Public information about public companies should be available to everyone
simultaneously.
Keeping information private or releasing to the privilaged few is not fair and
should not be done.
Richard S. Clemens
Controller
Gnots-Reserve, Inc.
Author: gwcole at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:59 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regilation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Allowing Wall Street Analysts information without simultainiously giving
the public the same news is WRONG.......!!! This is news from PUBLICLY
traded companies. Make it PUBLIC information. George W. Cole
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 5:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
I do not think it is fair for bokers to get informatiom ahead of the
release of the data to the public. They ar e not interpretting the news for
me. They are advising their big customers to buy or sell. This amounts to
insider trading and should be treated as such. Yours respectfully, John
Conlin
Author: "imtheedon" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 5:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
ASCII text message.
It has been clear for some time that there is a great inequity between the
information which some companies choose to release directly to the public
and the information which certain members of the investment community have
access to. This is evidenced by the great disparity in methods of disclosure
that various companies use.
It is also evident that individual investors would benefit from more direct
access to all pertinent information regarding the companies that they own.
Further, a reasonable observer might presume that a greater dissemination of
information within the entire investment community would result in greater
efficiency of the markets, as more and more people gain simultaneous access
to the same data set.
In addition to the investment community, the greater society at large might
well benefit, as other constituent groups beyond investors gain greater
insight into the companies which affect them.
It is for all these reasons that I submit this comment in support of the
proposed Regulation FD.
In the interest of disclosure, my affiliation as regards this issue is that
of an individual investor.
Thank you,
Don Davis
North Bend,Washington
Author: Patrick DeShon at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 3:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think that the rules ought to be changed to give
investors the same access to
information as "Wall Street" insiders. I've heard many
experts opinions that individual
investors should not have access to these types of
information. I disagree. I am an
individual investor and my returns are often better
than the so called experts.
Also, the tools for investing have been made much more
accessible to the individual
investor, but without providing a comparable level of
access to investment
information, we create a much greater potential for
those tools to be applied
improperly.
The tools must be matched with a comensurate level of
information. Let's level the
playing field.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. DeShon
Individual Investor
=====
Pat & Dana DeShon
705 Devon Dr.
Metamora, IL 61548
Ph/Fx: 309-383-3004
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 5:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I understand 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. I am against this practice because it perpetuates a
system where the average investor, like me, is at a disadvantage. Please do
not keep the selective disclosure policies in place.
Laura Grant Dong
Vice President
Covance Health Economics
-----------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission
may contain confidential or legally privileged
information that is intended only for the individual
or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance
upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail transmission in error,
please reply to the sender, so that Covance can arrange
for proper delivery, and then please delete the message
from your inbox. Thank you.
Author: "Sandra Doty" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC:
I understand not surprisingly that Wall Street is opposing full disclosure.
This is not surprising - obviously the democratization of the equity market is a
threat to their ability to extract payment for suspect but authoritatively
delivered advice. If I am going to invest in a company, I insist on as much
information as possible, and resent having any of it withheld.
In general I have a low regard for many analysts - they may have learned
security analysis, but many know little about business, and continue to
demonstrate that fact.
I have to say I am worried about volatility caused by the shift toward online
trading, but change happens. Tell the analysts that, too. Full disclosure is
necessary.
Sincerely,
E. Doty
Author: "Joe N. Gann" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:04 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
All investors need full disclosure, not just the professionals;
re:S7-31-99.
Joe N. Gann
Author: Abraham Goetz at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 4:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Whith the individual inbestors playing an increasig role in the market, it
is high time to remove their handicap due to selective disclosure.
Therefore, I support the proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Abraham Goetz
Author: "Ken Griggs" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 5:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I'm stunned this regulation isn't on the books already. An investor is part
owner of a company and as such, deserves to access to all information
material to that company's performance. The idea that such information
should be provided only to analysts that who may not be invested in that
company at all is appalling.
This regulation needs to be enacted and enforced to eliminate selective
disclosure as soon as possible.
-Ken Griggs
Author: "James Harley" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:34 PM
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
I oppose the implementation of regulation FD. It is insulting that such a bill
would even be contemplated by the SEC and smells of a backroom deal so blatant
and arrogant that I'm embarrassed for the system.
Toss it out.
J. Robert Harley
citizen
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 5:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I cannot possibly think that eliminating the bar against selective disclosure
is a wise step. The argument that it would stabilize the market is patently
wrong. The more individual investors participate in the securities market,
the greater the drag effect and the smaller the possibility of simultaneous
large transactions, which have been shown to enhance the volatility of the
market.
Furthermore, it would be a dangerous return to the old Wall Street days
before regulation and politically an unconscionably irresponsible action.
Erhard F. Hoegger
1513 Harvey Rd.
Ardentown, DE 19810
Author: "(Mr.) Sandy Hoff" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 5:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
April 6, 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:
With regard to my support of any effort to give everyone the
equal opportunity of access to the disclosure of information
which may have a significant influence on an individual's
decision to buy or sell a security, I would say the following.
The Industry's (Brokers') opposition to the ending of "Selective
Disclosure" appears to be as illogical and self-serving as it is
whiny. In a letter to Mr. Katz* dated April 6, 2000 purporting
to represent the views of the SIA on the subject, the SIA whines
about, among other things, the fact that the rule changes would
not effect equal disclosure of, or access to, trade information
by "all" of "the public". This is, they explain, because, simply
(as put by them), "some people would hear it (released
information) before others".
Among other things it is said in that letter, again in opposition
to any change, that, "Investors who instead of working follow
their stocks at the office will have an advantage, including
especially the ability to trade immediately in a more liquid
market, over those who wait until they get home from work." Of
course that is already the case, isn't it?
In fact, isn't there a word for people who may generally be
classed as "Investors who instead of working follow their stocks
at the office"? Aren't they generally called "brokers"? And so
it would seem that their own letter is an admission that any such
rule change, which they vigorously oppose, will have little (if
any) effect on them anyway, does it not?
Why is it, then, that they insist on their present and
unchangeable advantage be perpetuated as a right rather than a
great privilege? Why then does this group lobby heavily in favor
of making (or continuing) their great advantage to be, more than
a privilege of circumstance, a RIGHT of circumstance? What
possible basis could the government have, in view of our
constitution, to continue to actually promote and enhance such a
de-facto privilege?
I find such a position laughable. It serves SIA self interest by
trying to confuse what should be (rightfully) equal OPPORTUNITY
for access with, well what...force equal access? Their
alternative, then, is what? The status quo, being non-equal
opportunity for access?
In essence it seems to me that this whole argument is really
about an institution, "the broker", which is becoming as obsolete
as
the Electoral College, and for the same reasons: communication
and education.
Their (collective) objection to the simultaneous release of
information to all, that "some would hear it before others", is
indeed laughable. It will always be that way, and IS that way
under current practice...except that current practice makes sure
it's the brokers that hear it first. Of course, they want to keep
that state of affairs.
There are things to be said in opposition (that are intelligent,
unlike the SIA position), but it would seem that the public's
rights concerning fair trade exceed any special needs and
considerations in this matter.
Sincerely,
Sandy Hoff
Austin, Texas
* http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s73199/spencer1.htm
Author: "Bill Holland" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sounds like a good deal for individual investors like me. I'll vote FOR the
proposed regulation.
William B. Holland, Jr.
Author: "Innes; Alex" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support the SEC's objective of eliminating selective disclosure.
Selective disclosure, provides an unfair advantage to certain analysts and
investors, and erodes credibility in the market place.
I am in favor of Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Alexander W Innes
856-423-7067
Author: "Walter W. Jolly" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:04 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation EF: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support a rule which makes disclosure of information to
analysts open to the public as well. I doubt that the current system has
all that much to recommed it.
Author: "Steve Jonson" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 2:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective Disclosure is un-American! Stefan Jonson.
Author: "Andre Khadr" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:08 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of the proposed rule. All investors should have equal access
to all information. The information age is here to stay. Today's economy can
not succeed without equal access.
Thank you,
Andre Khadr
Author: "Bob LaFreniere" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Full disclosure is the only American choice. I can get huge amounts of
information through FOI, why should we hide "public info" from the public?
Please "FULL DISCLOSURE"
Bob LaFreniere
7 Carriage Drive
Exeter, NH 03833
Author: "Little; Eric" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 5:32 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: "Little; Eric" at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support this proposed rule.
Eric Little
MTS Systems Corporation
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:24 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am very much in favor of the proposed Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure), and
believe the Commission is correct to be concerned about the increase in the
number of "selective disclosure" incidents. It is obvious that anyone having
access to superior corporate information, whether that superiority is in quality
or timeliness (or both), has a distinct and unfair advantage over other
investors. Companies should give out important information fairly; what fairer
way than to share with everyone equally and publicly? Anything less does indeed
strongly resemble, if not actually qualify as, insider trading.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Lorenz
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:34 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of the proposed regulation. I think individual investors
should have the opportunity to have access to Companys' information at the
same time as its made available to the brokers and analysts.
John Lynch
2312 Bayside Ct
Lisle IL 60532
Author: "Jill & John Manz" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing to support the new fair disclosure rules. As a shareholder with a
stake in the companies with which I hold, I resent the fact that I am unable to
access pivotal information at the same time as analysts without my financial
risk in the well-being of the corporation. This only serves to help line their
pockets at investors' expense.
I am fully capable of considering information presented to me. I resent the
implication that providing the shareholders the same information at the same
time would not serve my best interests. I am the judge of how my money is
allocated, and I deserve the right to hear everything that the analysts do, when
they do. When analysts are held accountable for the accuracy of their
predictions, this will level the playing field even more.
Thank you,
Jill Manz
Author: "Peter McKay" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly believe that investors are entitled to fair disclosure to all
interested parties. Any deviation from this puts individual investors, such
as myself, at a strong financial disadvantage.
I request that this disadvantage be eliminated, and that I be allowed to
make timely decisions considering all known facts.
Thank you,
Peter McKay
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD File # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen.
I am aghast that the SIA considers the individual investor "not intelligent
enough to make their own decisions" and that the SIA is "protecting ME" from
"ignorance and emotion." Please, spare me. The arrogance of the SIA is
unbounded. Please follow through on your current proposal for fair disclosure
of information by publicly traded companies. I am a college graduate with a
masters degree, needing no so-called "protection" by insiders. Level the
playing field. We do not need less democracy, but more.
Sincerely, Michael Morrissette
Author: Kurt Oliver at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 5:55 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective disclosure has defrauded countless investors of untold millions.
I am in total agreement with the proposed regulations to restrict the
practice.
As a private investor, I have found it very difficult to glean
up-to-the-minute information that would help me make timely and profitable
decisions. Often this is due to the information being withheld from me and
the general public, while it is giving to selective recipients, allowing
them to profit, possibly at my expense. This is improper, and should be
stopped. All information being made public should be spread as broadly as
possible, as soon as possible.
Thank you for this forum.
Kurt Oliver
1126 Oxley St
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Author: "Mark A. Orwoll" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I am in favor of the proposed regulation abolishing selective
disclosure.
Sincerely yours,
Mark A. Orwoll, Ph.D.
SRI International
Menlo Park, CA 94025
marko@mask.com
Author: Keegan Patterson at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 4:03 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern,
I am relatively new to investing, but I heard of a measure that would
eliminate the middle-man in the stock market and I just wanted to take a
moment to say that I am very much for this proposal. I think the
American public does have the right to the same information that Wall
Street has and that it would have a tremendous effect on our economy and
on investing in American corporations. Please rest assured that there
are plenty of us individual investors who do take the time to research
companies and are capable of processing the information that is passed
down from various CFO's. Please do all you can to ensure that this
proposal passes and I thank you for your time.
Best Regards,
Keegan L. Patterson
Individual Investor
Seattle, WA 98136
Author: Mark Ralls at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:19 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir,
As an individual investor, I support Full Disclosure in the firm belief
that it will make me a better informed, more savvy, and more profitable
investor. Truth in the market is what the SEC stands for in my mind, and
for the SEC to not enforce FD is contrary to your entire mission.
Sincerely,
Mark Ralls
Author: "Philip Randazzo" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:26 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am an individual investor, and I would like to support amending the current
Selective Disclosure practice. As an individual investor, I have already
assumed full responsibility for my financial future, and the internet is my
primary tool towards this end. Withholding information to only a few insiders
in its own right violates the policies of a free market. In the information
age (in which we all live) this practice becomes pathetically dated.
Sincerely,
Philip Randazzo
Author: "Candis Ross" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File no. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Give the people more information.
Author: "Robert J. Sacker" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 5:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The SEC was formed to serve and protect the PUBLIC not a handful of
private analysts! Full disclosure is the only way to go.
Prof. Robert J. Sacker
Mathematics Department
University of Southern California
1042 W. 36th Place
Los Angeles, CA 90089-1113
Author: "Bob & Jean Sadowski" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 4:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I ask you to please allow us small investors to get the information that
companies now privately give to some analysts. I am a new investor and
am trying to figure out as much about the market myself, using various
source materials. But if only some analysts are given information, how
is a person suppose to figure out what is really happening with a
company.
Personally, I was kind of shocked when I heard this is being done.
Almost sounds like whatever that thing is that is illegal when people
get inside information and trade on it. Cause isn't this, in effect,
what these privileged analysts are doing; getting information that the
rest of us don't have, and then making trading decisions for themselves
and others based on it? Thanks for considering this situation.
Sincerely, Jean Sadowski
Author: "Paul Sakiewicz" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 5:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: RE: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe that information regarding publically held companies needs to be
public ! That means that as soon as a company is required to open its books
to report results, those have to be reported without prejudice towards the
individual investor by "withholding information for a little while for
protecting the dummy individual investor".
Information has to be distributed unbiased and swift to everybody who has an
interest in individual investing as well as institutional investors and
advisors.
Paul Sakiewicz
2440 S. Quebec Street, Unit F
Denver, CO 80231
Please add your comment concerning the above referenced proposal.
Thank you.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 5:35 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Pass it now.
Thornton F. Simonsen
Author: Paul Sonnenfeld at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 3:08 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File Number S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I totally support this proposed rule. I would be a much better investor
and manager of my self-directed IRA, Roth IRA, and daughter's
Educational Roth IRA if I had access to the same information as the
analysts at the same time.
The arguments submitted by the Legal and Compliance Division of the
Securities Industry Association are patently self-serving and seek to
maintain a system wherein the "selected few" have an unfair competitive
advantage over the rest of the investment community.
Respectfully yours,
Paul Sonnenfeld
2541 Greenfield Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1916
Author: elavats at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 5:08 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD:"File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen,
I have read your recent comments regarding allowing information to flow
first to analysts who can
interpret them appropriately for the lower classes. Really, we need to
protect the ignorant masses from
themselves for after all, soon they will be demanding equal access to
other types of information which
could seriously upset the profits of the long established companies.
These big brokers and the like have
worked hard to establish the cash cow they have been enjoying.
Let's face it. There is only so much information the average person can
really digest or synopsize. If the
only issue was inaccurate analysis, I would still agree with the
Security Exchange Commission (SEC).
It is thoughtful that the SEC is visionary, in recognizing that the
bumbling investor may lose his or her
money based on the misinterpretation of a 10k report; and, worse yet,
have it affect them in other
ways--like their social life--by not being able to afford
high-maintenance women.
Soon, if these minor pieces of information are allowed to get in the
hands of those unable to interpret
them, the control of the market will definitely shift. It may even
have unpredictable swings--not the
steady and predictable moves of clear analysis. What would happen
next? Heavens, many of these
long enjoyed profits may wind up with the likes of your average astute
investor and worse even yet, those
individual greedy-types called day traders who put all that avarice,
liquidity and arbitrage into the market.
Thank goodness for all the negative information these analysts ferret
out about these companies with
their positive regard for fellow average investors, and amazingly,
without any personal motivation to
enhance their own portfolios as far as timing and self-aggrandizement is
concerned. How can they do
this? They are after all, an elite educated group, in positions of
importance. They are self and SEC
designated denizens to promote the public welfare and promulgate good.
You have shown great
introspection in your decision. I believe you have ruled on what you
believe. Your education and
experience has probably been in the realm of unending zero-sum games. I
say ignore breakthrough
thinking, the deduction and induction processes, and the change
promulgators. Stand tall, inveterate,
poised to protect tradition and avoid circumspection.
As far as those who say, "This is the biggest bunch of unmitigated
bullshit I ever heard of," I say now,
now, that is precisely the inept analysis the SEC is talking about.
Respectfully,
Rik Stavale
Author: "Stoneman; Thomas L." at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 4:27 PM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have read that, "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."
I am opposed to any action that would not simultaneously provide news to the
public at large.
Tom Stoneman
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The playing field should be leveled for everyone. Please change the rules
that allow companies to alert Wall Street analysts to important news before
the general public is told.
Tonia Stott
Author: Rob at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Away with selective disclosure! We private citizens who own the companies
that are giving info only to analysts are not being treated fairly.
Rob Thorpe
Author: "turan" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 6:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File Nl. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Support full (FULL) disclosure only ---no partial disclosure. Lets have
complete honesty by full disclosure.
Sincerely
Mary Turan
445 Tutt Pl
Yellville, AR 72687
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen: My view of this proposed regulation is that
it should be and should have been in effect. My clients
and I believe strongly that fairness must be the basis
for all disclosure by publicly trading companies.
Anything less breeds suspicion of the investing
community. The enforcement of this regulation, if
passed, may be difficult, nonetheless, this would be a
strong statement by the SEC in favor of fairness for all
investors.
I am a Registered Investment Advisor in the State of
Missouri.
Sincerely, Bill Turnage
2705 N.E. 67th Place
Gladstone, MO 64119
email: w.a.turnage@worldnet.att.net
Author: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kh=FCrt?= Williams at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 5:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favour of this legislation.
Khürt Williams
President
Williams Inter@ctive, Inc.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir/Madam:
Allowing any single group or person to have material information on a company
prior to others is inherently unfair and should not be allowed. All
information should be disseminated to the public at large with no exception,
and if not then penalties for not doing so should apply.
Thank you.
Lucien Wong
President
Lucien Wong & Associates, LLC
1036 Mokuhano Street
Honolulu, HI 96825
Tel/Fax 808/396-0188
E-mail lmdnm@aol.com
Author: "Sara Yahr" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 4:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC:
As an active individual investor for over 20 years, I urge you to "level the
playing field" by adopting this Reg.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Yahr
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0427b07.htm
