U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
SEC Seal
Home | Previous Page
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading

Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99

  
Author:  "Alan J. Barnes; MDCM"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I feel that current procedures which provide for provileged 
communication to brokers and analysts is unfair to the individual 
investor and contrary to general principles of equal access to 
information.  We do not permit insider trading, why do we countenance 
insider information which has the effect of favoring the few over the 
many.  In the day of the Internet and many more individuals 
participating in equity investments, it no longer makes sense to 
perpetuate out of date methods such as these.  I hope the SEC will cast 
a vote for democracy and not continue with the presumptuous attitude 
that they can best protect the uninformed public by restricting access 
to important industry information.
Sincerely yours,
Alan J. Barnes, MDCM
--
Alan J. Barnes, MDCM
Student Mental Health Service
University of Florida
P.O. Box 117500
Gainesville, FL 32611-7500
     
Telephone:  (352) 392-1171
Fax:  (352) 846-1030
E-mail: abarnes@nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu
     
     

Author:  "George L. Beck"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  6:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
     
     
This is to add my own thoughts to this issue:
     
1.  I do my own research, and view analysts as competitors.  I therefore 
feel they should not have access to information that is not available to me, 
and all other investors.
     
2.  I do go over reports, prospectuses, and feel most individual investors 
do also.
     
3.  Analysts do not in my opinion make the markets less volatile, in fact 
they probably make the markets more volatile with their buy, sell, 
outperform, underperform pronouncements.
     
4.  I think they put their own spin on negative (and positive) information 
depending on their companies relationship with the company in question. 
There are many conflicts of interest that should be eliminated.
     
In short analysts are no more entitled to privileged information than anyone 
else..................
     
George L. Beck  (private investor)
gbeck@carolina.rr.com
     
     

 Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
The comments by the SIA on the proposed regulation certainly would have had 
some validity when I joined an investment club operating under the rules of 
the National Association of Investors.  I am an economist by formal training, 
and a systems analyst by profession.  Up to that time I had had no serious 
amount of time to manage my investments so I had put them in Vanguard Index 
Funds where they prospered.  The Club was fairly new and most of the well 
educated members (to my surprise) more or less fitted the SIA's concept of 
today's investor.  Fourteen years later most of the same people are still 
members.  They can read a balance sheet with any auditor, they follow CNBC 
type programs on TV, they are astute at reading "body english" in personages 
appearing there, and many of them do stock selection guides for their 
personal holdings.  They must do one before presenting a buy or sell 
recommendation to the Club.  They also frequent a large variety of sources on 
the Internet.  The American Association of Individual Investors has also done 
a tremendous job of teaching a host of people the investment facts of life.
    I took a copy of the recent article by Bill Barker on the "Motley Fool" 
about this proposed regulation to my beauty shop this morning where the 
technicians are independent business persons.  Most of them are members of an 
in-house investment club.  Those who have computers plan to make comments.  A 
waiting patron, a high school student, read the item, copied it, and planned 
to send it to her school contacts.
    Instead of living in a past generation it behooves the members of the SIA 
to devise improved ways of serving their dwindling number of clients.
     
Florence B. Casey DPA
L/Col USAF (ret.)
FCasey9851@AOL.com

 Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:15 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Comments on Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
To Whom It May Concern,
     
I believe the public should receive the same financial news at the same time 
that the analysts are receiving it.  There is absolutely no reason why chosen 
analysts should receive financial news that is not being revealed to the 
public. 
     
Many fine companies now allow individual investors to join in on the analyst 
conference calls. They also post the recording of the calls on their 
websites. These are the kinds of companies that are interested in being fare 
to all shareholders no matter who they are. I believe all companies should 
have to allow individual investors access to the conference calls or should 
have to post their news through the wire services for all to receive at the 
same time. 
     
How can you possibly believe that individual investors are not intelligent 
enough to digest financial information and make their own well informed 
decisions? 
     
The news media and the analysts have gotten way out of hand in covering the 
marketplace. Stations like CNBC broadcast market "noise" all day long. The 
newscasters sit around and analyze every piece of news from Wall Street by 
adding their own ridiculous reasoning behind what the market is doing. Then 
they invite the analysts to come on and add to the babble. Rarely do they 
back their opinions with concrete facts. Much disservice is being done to the 
individual investor by allowing these shows to get away with what they do. 
     
Do you call that kind of financial news reporting a service to the individual 
investor? 
     
Do you think the kind of reporting being done by CNBC is better for the 
investor versus the investor receiving the same information as the analysts 
are receiving in a closed conference call? I don't think so.
     
It seems to me that the big money managers are the ones who cause most of the 
market volatility. They panic and move money into and out of the market on 
the slightest bit of news. All they care about is what is happening in the 
next quarter or two.
     
Most individual investors care about the long term and will stay with a 
company through thick and thin. Those that do not stay in for the long term 
are the ones who are being influenced by the short term views of the analysts.
     
I receive annual reports on all of the individual companies that I own and I 
read every one of them. I want to know about the companies that I am invested 
in and I believe there are a heck of a lot of other investors out there just 
like me.
     
Why do you think so many companies have been or are now offering direct 
purchase of their shares through Dividend Reinvestment Programs and Direct 
Purchase Programs? Because they want the individual investor to buy their 
stock. They know these types of investors are loyal customers and loyal 
shareholders who will stay with them through thick and thin. To me that says 
something about how important the individual investor is to the marketplace, 
and having that level of importance means we deserve the same financial news 
as Wall Street money managers and analysts are getting.
     
Thanks,
Steven W. Clark
     
     

 Author:  "Jerome Dayton"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  3:55 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
     
     
SEC-
     
I am in favor of the proposed rule.  Requiring that company's disclose the 
same information to the public at large as they do to analysts "evens the 
playing field".  There is no good reason that analysts should have a 
monopoly on this information as information is power.  Claims that the 
public can't interprete the information correctly smacks of self serving 
elitism.
     
Sincerely,
     
Jerome Dayton
Private Investor
     
     

 Author:  Edwartz@aol.com at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I certainly feel that any and all information that is available to analysts 
should be available to the public and all investors in particular.

 Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:56 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
As an individual investor, I expect the SEC to work toward a level playing 
field for ALL investors, large or small.  This means equal access to markets 
AND equal access to information.  The big boys already have too much of an 
edge and they use it to make a fortune off the rest of us.  Check the 
salaries and profits.  As to the value of analysts... that's a joke.  Even 
CNBC refers to them as "penguins".   Analysts are simply part of the sales 
team and tell us whatever will make their firms the most money.  They 
downgrade stocks to buy cheaper and upgrade once they've got enough in 
inventory.  Daytraders see it all the time on their Level II's.  And if you 
want a measure of their objectivity, then look no further than the analysts 
rankings.  Relative to the Strong Buys and Buys (1's and 2's), you'll see 
very few Avoids and Sells (4's and 5's).  The SEC is already way behind the 
curve on unfair practices.  Don't add another problem.
     
Gary Erickson

Author:  "Doug Essinger-Hileman"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-9
------------------------------- Message Contents 
It seems strange to me that in a country which was built on the notion 
that all are created equal, and that a free press was necessary to 
stimulate the free exchange of information, ideas and discussion, that 
the SEC would hesitate for a moment to maintain an investment 
climate in which information, ideas and discussion were limited.
     
Doug Essinger-Hileman

Author:  "edfenton@mindspring.com"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: "edfenton@mindspring.com"  at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
The rule you have proposed to require fair disclosure of information is long 
overdue. Mr Levitt has long advocated transparency and the avoidance of 
selective disclosure of information to 'insiders'. I cannot understand what has 
taken so long His words, however noble, mean nothing without this rule.
     
Without this transparency, insiders will continue to use their unfair advantage 
to manipulate this information to their financial benefit and to the detriment 
of the general public. 
     
Thank you very much.
     
Edward N. Fenton
1930 Harbourside Drive
Unit 147
Longboat Key, FL  34228-4222

     
     
     

Author:  "Glen F"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  5:53 PM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I just read the an article about the proposed SEC plan to ban to selective 
disclosure by mutual fund companies.
     
I would like to go on record as supporting this measure.  It improves market 
efficiency when information is equally available to all participants.  That is 
simply basic economic theory.  Making information more widely accessible will 
allow the market to better reflect underlying value and reduce the potential for
price bubbles to occur.
     
It can only be beneficial to the market for the SEC to move forward with this 
plan.
     
Also I would liket to add that disclosure on a daily basis of the short 
position and the short/covering each day. There is no reason that this 
information should be available only to specialists and market makers in 
an open society. 
The current habit of disclosing this data when they are essentially 45 or 
more days old is a travesty. Similarly, they withhold the activities of the 
NYSE specialists for two weeks, a no-no in an electronic information 
age, IMHO
     
Sincerely,
     
Glen Fleharty
     
     

Author:  "Edward F.Fokken"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  4:28 PM
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"
     
Sincerely,
Edward Franklin Fokken
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:54 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed rule fd file s7 31-39
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I feel  that public companies should no longer be allowed to leak information 
to favored analysts. I feel all info shared with analysts as surrogate press 
for the public should be made simultaneously on their Investor relations page 
of their website. 
     
At that, investors are not likely to be checking the  websites of the 
companies  whom they have invested in at the precise time aqnalyst 
communications are posted. Companies will post at the time least likely to be 
viewed by the public, like the beginning of a long weekend. Perhaps as well 
their should be an option on the site for investors to get mail that an 
investor relevant message has been posted.
     
R. Gambel
Metairie, LA

Author:  "Thomas Gates"  at Internet
Date:    04/20/2000  5:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
SEC:
     
Please continue to keep the securities market safe for the individual investor. 
Stop the brokerages from monopolizing and using those private conferences calls 
for their own gain.  I don't need an analyst to tell me what to think.  I just 
want to be able to act on information at the same time everyone else does...
     
Respectfully,
     
Tom Gates
Just an Individual Investor
     
     
P.S.  WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO OPEN UP INFORMATION ON BOND PRICES??  Stock 
information is readily available, getting the same on bonds is like pulling 
teeth.  :)
     

Author:  "Ray C. Howe"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  1:55 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
     Please add my voice to those in favor of the proposed regulation in the
subject line above.
    I feel that if any one person or one group is given relevant information
about a company, then everyone should be able to access the same information at 
the same time.  I do not need an analyst to read to me.  I know how to read.  I 
would like to be able to make my own decision at the time of the release of 
information rather than wait until some analyst gets ready to release it to me.
    I am 78 years old.  I do NOT need an analyst for my baby sitter.
                    Ray C. Howe
                    2261 Tuolumne St. #388       
                    Vallejo, CA 94589-3402
     

Author:  "Tourist Insurance Services; Inc."  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  4:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I believe companies should make full disclosure of all financial data to 
the investing public instead of limiting distribution of that data to 
financial analysts.
Ron Iverson
1855 Smith Lake Road
Kalispell, Montana   59901
     
ron@tidirect.com
Tel     406/ 752-5484
Fax     406/ 752-5839

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  6:58 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
1) Is it true that "it hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary 
and valuable function in the U.S. capital markets"? Is it true that to 
perform that necessary and valuable function they need better information 
than the participants in the market?
     
2) Is it true 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"?
     
3) Is it true that analysts make the markets less volatile?
     
4) Is it true that analysts spend much of their time ferreting out negative 
information about companies?
     
David Kancsar

Author:  "Bob Klobnak"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  6:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:  File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I strongly oppose the legality of public companies leaking corporate information
to selected ,or small groups of, Wall Street analysts in advance of such 
disclosure to stockholders or the public at large.  I should hope for full 
disclosure and a more-level playing field.  Thank you.
     
Robert W. Klobnak
1646 Sycamore Ct.
East Peoria, IL  61611
     
     
     
     

Author:  Robert Kulagowski  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  4:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I firmly believe that the Full Disclosure measure should be passed. 
Wall Street insiders should not be members of a priviledged class of 
investors.

     
     
Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99" 
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I have read the article posted on The Motley Fool regarding the lobbying by 
Wall Street financial services.  I am greatly dismayed that these backdoor 
analyst meetings occur and have been condoned by the agency that is supposed 
to look out for the small/individual investors.  Please count this response 
as a vote against this proposal.
     
Librado R. Lopez
Dell Computer Corporation

Author:  Rob  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  5:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I would just like to state for those concerned that I think the argument 
that any class of people should be entitled to priveledged information 
on a regular basis in the arena of investing is ridiculous.  I am 
strongly in favor of a rule that requires companies to make material 
information available to the entire community simultaneously.  Granted, 
the analysts are opposed to it, but I haven't seen any evidence that I 
should agree with their opinions to begin with.
     
Robert Marr
     

Author:  "Bob Martin"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  6:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I am an individual investor and have worked in the business arena for thirty 
years. I have found that my judgements on financial investments, including the 
stock of individual companies, has been as good as or better than advice I have 
gotten from investment advisors. Requiring companies to disclose information to 
the general public at the same time as it is disclosed to advisors/brokers would
greatly benefit me in making quality investment changes in a timely manner.
     
Please make the change to have general public disclosure of this information.
     
Thanks for your consideration of my input.
     
Bob Martin
bmart50@hotmail.com
     
     

Author:  "Denis & Jane Moody"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  4:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File # 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Dear Sir/Ms
     
As an individual investor observing and listening to the activities of Wall 
Street over the last few weeks I am appalled at the influence the so called 
Wall Street Analysts and Investment Houses have had on the markets.
     
Who has caused the so called "overvaluation" of many stocks?? - not 
individual investors - rather it has been the analysts who continually 
upgrade stocks with outrageous "price targets"   Why do they continually set 
outrageous price targets that do not conform to old P/E evaluations and then 
say the market is overvalued?
     
Who sets the price of the IPO's?  The Investment houses of course and who 
benefits when the IPO's soar to ridiculous prices - why the Investment 
Houses (and their prized clients) of course?  It is my belief that the 
company who is issuing the IPO eg UPS should be the beneficiary of the 
offering and if the Investment Houses did this evaluation properly and 
correctly then there would be far less speculation after the issue date.
     
There is no doubt in my mind, especially after the comments of Merrill 
Lynch, Abbey Cohan and the Microsoft analyst from Goldman Sachs, that they 
have influenced the market - to whose benefit??
     
As an individual investor and with access to the internet I definitely DO 
NOT need any analyst telling me I am ignorant and not capable of discerning 
ALL company information made available so please make ALL information 
available to everybody at the SAME time.
     
Also I disagree that the analysts and Investment Houses benefit the market - 
they MANIPULATE it to their benefit, hence the need for more openness to ALL 
at the same TIME.
     
Yours truly
     
Denis E. Moody
     

Author:  "thomas murphy"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  4:35 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I would like to add my voice to the chorus of individual investors who are 
opposed to continuation of Wall Street
insiders "good-old-boys club." With approximately half of American families now 
invested in the stock market, and with
the obvious democratization of the stock market as evidenced by the burgeoning 
numbers of investors using discount
brokers, there can be no place for such self-serving elitism as is represented 
by the "full-service" (read high-priced)
brokerage industry.
     
Thomas A. Murphy

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  5:24 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:  File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
     
     
I support Full Disclosure for the individual investor.  If we are kept in 
the dark regarding information relevant to making informed decisions, in 
both buying/selling stock, then we only add to the chaos.  Given what I've 
seen in recent years, I don't think having all the information will matter 
much from a negative perspective.  Unless, it's because of a few being 
afraid we won't need their 'expertise' anymore, or worse yet, they are 
afraid we will upset the apple cart by making stupid investments.  Pardon 
me, but I think that has been happening for years already.
     
Isn't it time in America 'We The People' are held accountable for our 
actions, our behavior, and our lives, including but not limited to how we 
as individual investors choose to invest our hard earned dollars?  Give us 
access to the same information professionals have so that we can make the 
same 'educated' guesses!!
     
Regards,
     
Sandra S. Myers,
Individual Investor
     
     

Author:  T Nichols  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg. FD:FILE NO.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
SEC,
Please take your responsibility in hand and do what is right for 
investors on this matter. Far too many investors have been taken 
advantage of and led astray and "bilked" by the established brokerage 
firms, I know from personal experience.
     
Why should a select few have information available and not the investing 
community at large?
     
Troy Nichols
     

Author:  Greer North  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  3:58 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation  FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
As an individual investor, I wholeheartedly support this proposed 
regulation.
     
C.G. North
     
     
     

Author:  "greg paige"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  6:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I think its absurd to consider that we are better off having a limited number of
analysts be privy to more informaiton than the individual investor.  I think 
anyone supporting this thought is simply being protective of their own self 
interests.  
     
In our open, democratic society I think the only right thing to do is to level 
the playing field and permit all investors and analysts to get all the same 
informaiton at the same time.  As an indivdual investor I fully support the rule
providing fair disclosure to all, so 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.
     
Greg Paige
73  Marshland Ct.
Troy, NY 12180
518-271-8465
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:36 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: RE:  fair disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents 
The idea that companies should disseminate information in a discriminating 
manor degenerates our constitution.  Of the people, by the people, for the 
people - equal treatment.
Tracy Palmore
902 Wandering Way
Allen, TX  75002
972-727-6346 

Author:  "Periyasamy; Siva"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  4:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
As an individual investor I would like to see information disclosed to 
all...not just Analysts. We deserve the same information. 
     
Siva Periyasamy
     

Author:  Phillip Phelps  at Internet
Date:    04/20/2000  10:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
My name is Phillip Phelps and I am writing in support of the proposed 
regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99. I believe that the current practice of 
disseminating information to analysts, and other entities in market 
influencing positions, before allowing the general public access to the 
same said information borders on criminal.
     
We currently have in place insider trading regulations which do not allow 
employees of a company to trade their companies securities until a 
reasonable time after earnings have been announced. This regulation was 
enacted, I believe, to prevent sources close to knowledge from having an 
unfair advantage in the market, yet the activities the Wall Street analysts 
participate in seem to violate this same spirit by allowing wealthy clients 
of large brokerages to get the jump on the Street and either make larger 
profits or avoid losses whichever the case may be.
     
I believe that based upon the current investing statistics, you must 
realize that a large portion of the voting public is invested in the market 
in one form or another. I believe the general public deserves the right to 
make properly informed decisions on where they place their hard-earned 
money without the specter of unseen "Big Money" stacking the deck before 
the cards are dealt to them.
     
I would like you to pass Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
     

Author:  "Lisa Richards"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Please level the playing field by requiring full disclosure of publicly 
owned companies to all of the public, not just to privileged "professional" 
investors.
     
Lisa Richards
P.O. Box 71
Marlow, NH 03456
     

Author:  "RR3"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  6:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99" 
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I am opposed to this rule and ask that it not be accepted. 
Thanks, R.S. Rife 3rd
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:36 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Giving the public a fair chance
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Proposed Regulation FD..Let the public have a fair chance evaluating there own 
Investments..This is America I have lost many family members fighting for the 
freedom that we now enjoy..Pass regFD,...This is a free enterprise 
country..why should we trust analyst with our money..would you?Its not fair 
trade to withhold Info to a chosen few..That is communism
     
                                    Sincerly,
                               Keith L Roberts  
                                 Loan Officer

Author:  "Keith"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  3:54 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I am an idividual investor, and am in support of Proposed Regulation FD: File 
No. S7-31-99. The stock market is a place of investment. When you purchase 
shares in a compnay, you purchase the right to participate in the future 
earnings in that company, as well as the right to fair and equal access to 
information regarding that company that may impact your decision to continue to 
be an investor in that company.  What we have now (and has been the practice for
far too long) is the ability for selected analysts to receive important 
information first, information they are allowed to trade on. This information 
then gets to brokerages and firms trading securities, who also can buy or sell 
on this news. The LAST person to get this news is the individual investor. Is 
this a level playing field? I think not. This is legalized inside trading, and 
should be abolished forever.
     
The internet and access to quick information today allows us to make more 
informed decisions. I'm sure the 'good ol' boys' would like the SEC to think 
that we are too inept to use company information before they have a chance to 
'interpret' it for us, but that's not the case. This obnoxious practice, that 
has put very lucrative profits in their pockets, only serves to make the market 
appear not reliable. The advent of the Information Age will eventually force 
this practice out of existence, but I do understand their resistance, and their 
attempts to drag out, what has always been a solid and unfair advantage for them
to make millions. Please end this practice, and put some integrity back into the
market place.
     
Signed - Ronald Keith Rosenlof
04-21-2000
     

Author:  kyle  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  6:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
dear sir/madam,
     
more information for all of us in the marketplace can only help. 
professional analysts can provide some useful interpretation but 
impeding/delaying the raw data from the rest of us, does not improve 
their function.
     
please vote in favor of freer flow of financial data.  don't favor the 
SIA's obviously vested interests.
     
thank you.
     
kyle saunders  ( individual investor since 1986 ).
     
fort worth tx.

Author:  "Adam Sheridan"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I am disturbed by the SIA's lobbying effort against this rule.  From reading 
the text of their filing it is apparent that the SIA considers individual 
investors akin to lemmings.  The SIA makes the following assertion:
     
"We believe that communications between [a company] and individual analysts 
or small groups of analysts contribute to the overall mix of information in 
the marketplace, greater accuracy of market prices, less volatility and, in 
general, greater efficiency...."
     
This is illogical.  The idea that providing important information to only 
the privledged few is going to make the market more efficient is flawed. 
Only when all investors have access to the same information can the market 
approach greater efficiency.
     
Adam Sheridan
     
     
     

Author:  "RoMay"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  5:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 proposes a change that is overdue. 
As a small investor monitoring my own investments, I resent being kept in the 
dark about important information relative to the companies in which I am 
interested.  Having to depend on the bias of analysts rather than being 
allowed to form my own judgments based on the facts in a timely fashion 
leaves me handicapped.  Let's get things opened up.
     
RoMay Sitze
601 S. Melendres
Las Cruces, NM 88005
     
Criticism is most effective when it sounds like praise.  -Arnold Glasow
     

Author:  "Sloroll"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: I respectfully request that you vote for the subject propose
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I respectfully request that you vote for the subject proposed regulation.
     
Thank you
     
Mitchell Siwinski
     
     

Author:  Jim Skipper  at Internet
Date:    04/20/2000  7:59 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Dear Sir:
     
The proposed regulation is fair to the American Public.
     
Jim Skipper
     
     

Author:  Larry Steury  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  6:11 PM
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 strongly support Regulation FD to end the system of selective 
disclosure of information to financial analysts.  Any information that 
is not known to the public is "insider information."  How can it be 
legal to disclose insider information in advance only to analysts, who 
can then use this private information for profit?  How can it be part of 
a fair market?
     
We must have an "open meeting" law to protect the investing public.  If 
company information is released to anyone, it must be released to 
everyone.
     
We must have a level playing field for all investors.
     
Sincerely,
     
Larry Steury
3913 North Hills Drive
Austin TX 78731

Author:  pmthomas  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:32 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
As an active investor in the equities markets, I have appreciated the 
ability the internet has provided for me to research companies and 
investing opportunities.  In fact, it is only the advent of the internet 
that invited me into the world of investing.
     
Selective disclosure of key financial information by public companies to 
Wall Street analysts bypasses the average investor thus leaving us 
disadvantaged.  Selective disclosure acts against the democratizing impact 
of the internet.  Full disclosure, in contrast, is an enabling regulation 
that removes the advantage of advance notice owned by Wall Street 
analyst-insiders for years.
     
Oddly, recent comments from SIA regarding this proposed regulation argue 
that the existing selective disclosure system contributes to less 
volatility.  In fact, however, volatility is usually the product of 
selective disclosure since analysts are able to process the information 
and selectively release it.  This creates the likelihood/reality of 
volatile responses to the released information which can readily be seen 
in stock price charts.
     
I am entirely in favor of full, public disclosure of the information 
currently selectively channeled to Wall Street analysts.
     
Paul Thomas, Ph. D.
     
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  6:55 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
In a message dated 04/21/2000 1:00:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Rule-Comments@sec.gov writes:
     
<< It took me 10 YEARS to finally invest in the stock market because I didn't 
 know who I could trust.  After much SELF education, I made an initial 
 purchase thru a broker, and have since made many more on MY OWN!  My one 
rule 
 is...I DON'T listen to Wall Street.  If I felt I had access to the same 
 information as my broker, I might be inclined to utilize his services more, 
 but for now I invest in spite of the fact that this is not so, and I'm not 
 doing too badly.  Knowledge is power...let's level the playing field!
     
 Forever a Fool! >>
     
Linda Tucker

Author:  "francis g white"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:10 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
dear sirs, and madams,
as an individual investor and citizen of these United States it is in my best 
interest to have the fair disclosure of information by publicly traded companies
to the public. The rule (Proposed Regulation FD) would 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 me.
sincerely
fgwhite
     

Author:  "Marc Wise"  at Internet
Date:    04/21/2000  7:10 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: "Home Marc"  at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Dear Sir/Madam
     
I am writing you to express my views on the above-referenced Proposed 
Regulation.
     
I believe that information should be available to all market participants, not 
just the analysts
from the major brokerage houses.  As you know, the market and the flow of 
information has greatly expanded over the past few years.  In the investment 
area, the SEC has made a major contribution to the free flow of information with
its Edgar database.
     
Years ago I would rarely ever see any SEC filings for companies due the time 
involved in obtaining the information and the associated costs.  The Edgar 
database has save the government money and provided the public with a valuable 
source of information.  We all won with that decision.
     
The free flow of information is critical for investment decisions.  It should 
not just be for brokerage houses or the major company shareholders.  We should 
all be on an equal footing and have equal access at the same time to the 
information. 
     
Thank you
     
Marc Wise 
     

http://www.sec.gov/rules/0421b07.htm


Modified:12/22/2005