Subject: Regulation FD

Date:    03/07/2000 10:31 AM
     
     
This is a comment on proposed Regulation FD.
     
It appears to me that most, if not all, of the substance of proposed 
Regulation FD already is covered by federal securities law. Apparently, the 
SEC's desire is to underscore the prohibition against disclosing material 
nonpublic information selectively to Wall Street analysts and major 
investors. The SEC already has jurisdiction over these practices, and it 
appears to me the issue is one of enforcement.
     
Public companies already have found that the liberal use of "safe harbor" 
provisions in public communications provide no protection from opportunistic 
shareholder litigation led by law firms that specialize in the practice. 
Many companies already refrain from commenting on earnings expectations in 
conference calls because of the failure of securities law to prevent these 
disclosures from being used as the triggers for lawsuits.
     
Proposed Regulation FD appears to imply that if we do anything at all in 
individual conversation with analysts to help them to model our future 
performance, we risk being accused of selective disclosure. How will they 
interpret our three-month silence? Or should we hold conference calls more 
frequently to discuss our performance? Our company's performance is highly 
variable within a given quarter; a mid-quarter update might be misleading 
especially given the absence of historical context.
     
My view is the effort underlying proposed Regulation FD is more likely to 
force public companies to shut off communication rather than push 
information through different channels. The result for many companies, 
though abhorrent to me, may be that they leak information to analysts on an 
even more selective basis, and that the chosen analysts would communicate 
what they learn even more selectively--not in published comments that could 
be traced back to the source, but through phone calls to a few favored 
clients. In the time of the day trader and exaggerated trading volume led by 
non-bank market makers, it is easier than ever for institutions to disguise 
their trading patterns, leaving the SEC with nothing detectable to punish.
     
An effort to restrict companies' individual discussions with analysts must 
go hand in hand with true protection of companies' rights to make 
forward-looking statements in public communications. Otherwise, the result 
will be silence.
     
Regards,
     
Randle G. Reece, CFA
Investor Relations Officer
StaffMark, Inc.
234 E Millsap Rd
Fayetteville, AR 72703
(501) 973-5354
Fax (501) 973-7910