Author: at Internet
Date: 05/01/2000 2:16 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: DELMARnyc@aol.com at Internet
Subject: OPEN FINANCIAL INFORMATION CHANNELS NOW!
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear S.E.C.
RE: Open Financial Information channels now!
I strongly believe that all channels now available soley to analysts
and industry insiders should be accessible to the general
public investmentment community, so as to convey all pertinent
and relevant information in a timely manner.
This will allow for a much more level playing field, and will
allow the same privilege to individual investors as the current
tightly held investment community currently enjoys!
Truly,
Basil A. Boziotis
Indvidual investor
delmarnyc@aol.com
P.S. I thank the fool.com for bringing this issue to my attention.
Author: "Chuck Burns" at Internet
Date: 05/01/2000 11:12 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Opposed to Seletive Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
I favor Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
Burns & Company. Consulting for Results, Administration with Intelligence.
Author: paul at Internet
Date: 05/01/2000 9:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: NO
------------------------------- Message Contents
Mr. Jonathan Katz
Secretary
Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Katz:
As a financial planner, I am concerned about two proposed rule
changes I have read about under consideration by the SEC. One would allow
representatives of major broker-dealers to avoid the disclosure rules that
apply to investment advisors, and the other would change the disclosures
required of investment advisors. The combined effect of the two rules would
be very adverse to both the investing public and to equality in the
marketplace.
The first change has been called the "Merrill Lynch Rule" in the press. The
large national firms have begun advertising themselves as if they were
offering fee investment advisory services. If they want to do that, and
offer those services, they should be subject to the same rules as others
offering similar services, namely the rules applying to RIA's.
They claim an exemption on the basis that such advisory business is
"incidental" to their main business. While it may be a small part of their
total gross revenue, the test of whether a practice is "incidental" should
be
its role in the relationship with their clients using the service. For
those
clients, the advisory services being advertised are not "incidental" -- they
are central to the relationship, and indeed are the reason the relationship
exists at all. If this were not the case, why are the newspapers
and magazines full of how important is this new way of doing business.
Those
people are not advertising brokerage accounts, no matter what they might say
in their filings with the SEC.
I have been a financial planner and investment advisory representative for
12
years. I have worked with many people who have been clients of
major brokerage firms. My experience has been that they are rarely told,
and
even more seldom do they understand, how they are paying for the services
and
advice they receive. This is a serious failing, and the SEC should promote
more disclosure, not less, from these firms toward their clients. One
purpose of the RIA brochure rules is to
assure that clients understand the potential conflicts and motivations of
the
people giving them advice. Clients need this protection at least as much
from large firms that manufacture product, underwrite securities, offer
custody services, and then deliver those products through "consultants" as
they
do from independent advisory firms.
The second rule that concerns me is the proposed revision to the ADV
language, and specifically the materials to be provided to clients. The
language describing the changes suggests that all commissions create
conflicts of interests of a different kind than any fees do. Paragraph after
paragraph talks about how customers can be hurt if I'm advising them to own
an in-house mutual fund, or receive soft dollars, or requiring them to use
my
firm for custody when most advisors don't require this, and on and on.
There are two aspects of this line that concern me. First is the assumption
that it's really dangerous for a client to work with an investment advisor,
especially one who takes commissions. Many times the cumulative amount of
annual asset-based fees are much greater than commissions paid up front.
Maybe
the services provided justifiy the fees, but fees aren't always in the
client's best interest. Every compensation system creates its own set of
incentives and potentials for abuse. A good ADV form, coupled with good
public information, can help clients decide what form of paying for help and
advice would work best for them. Sometimes it can be asset-based fees,
sometimes it can be commissions, project fees, or it could be hourly fees.
The second problem with these rules is the even bolder assumption that
clients of big brokerage firms don't need any on these disclosures. Did the
people who drafted the rules on the new ADV form talk to the people who
drafted the Merrill Lynch exception? Read the two rules side-by-side, and
tell me this is a regulatory scheme that makes sense and protects customers
consistently. All of the problems customers are warned about in the ADV
form apply in spades to the services provided under the new "fee advisory
(oops, not really advisory) relationships" pushed by Merrill, Smith Barney,
MSDW,
Pru, and the others.
So in conclusion, let everybody who wants to give advice to clients provide
the same level of disclosure, and have that disclosure be comprehensive. A
well-informed public will choose providers that meet their needs. Some will
choose big firms, some want independents, some want to do it themselves.
Some want to pay fees, some prefer commissions, or a mixture. The SEC should
promote honesty and openness and fairness, and let the market determine
which
model is best.
Thank you for your consideration of these views.
Sincerely,
Paul K. Fain, III, CFP
President
Asset Planning Corporation
NASD Broker/Dealer Member
SEC Registered Investment Adviser
Author: "Michael Gillespie" at Internet
Date: 05/01/2000 10:01 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: at Internet
CC: at Internet
Subject: STOP Selective Disclosure NOW Proposed Regulation FD: File N
------------------------------- Message Contents
The American dream is based on the equality of all people, not a select few
on Wall Street being provided information that the general public is denied.
The SEC is there to protect the citizens not serve special interest of a
select group on Wall Street.
All Information should be available at the same time to all investors big or
small, analyst or not. The basic idea of transparency is fundamental to a
properly functioning market. Without complete transparency the cornerstone
of faith in the market is undermined leading to a lose of credibility that
the foundation of our entire American System is based on.
This is the type of action that America cries out against in other countries
where the market is not transparent and is rigged against the population.
Is this the system we want to have in the United States also. Stop this
now.
Michael Gillespie
1441 Piikoi St., #504
Honolulu, HI 96822
Author: "Brit Kamrow" at Internet
Date: 05/01/2000 10:32 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: open disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor, I would expect access to the same information
given to brokerages and analysts.
Brit Kamrow
2817 Dupont Ave S.
Minneapolis, MN 55408
Author: "John Kavanagh" at Internet
Date: 05/01/2000 4:25 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: RE: Proposed Regulation FB: File No. S7 - 31 - 99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe all investors should receive the same information at the same
time. WE DO NOT NEED PROTECTED BY THE BIG BROKERAGE FIRMS.
JMK
KAVANAGH associates
10585 Rookwood Drive
San Diego, CA 92131
* Voice 858.549.6744
* Fax 858.271.0867
* Cell 858.735.3500
Author: "Labenow; Adam" at Internet
Date: 05/01/2000 1:45 PM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Technical specifications for the EDGAR Modernization on May
------------------------------- Message Contents
Good Afternoon,
Where and/or how can I get the detailed technical specifications pertaining
to the upgrade to EDGAR 7.0 later this month. If this is not the right
contact please point me in the right direction.
Kind Regards,
Adam Labenow
Author: at Internet
Date: 05/01/2000 5:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Selective Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
I oppose subject above
Author: Dennis Taylor at Internet
Date: 05/01/2000 10:06 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Reg FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support your effort to stop selective disclosure and encourage the
commission to pass Regulation FD.
Sincerely,
--
Dennis Taylor
Staff writer, Banking and Finance
San Jose Business Journal
ph: 408-299-1852
http://www.amcity.com/sanjose
Author: at Internet
Date: 05/01/2000 1:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Selective Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am for ;
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Mike Walsh
