Author: David Bechtel
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 9:24 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I find it difficult to believe that anyone would see any rationality in the fact that a few select individuals should receive inside information about an equity prior to a public announcement. This existing set-up leaves the entire market open to manipulation by a few, with inside information. Many individual investors already feel that our equity markets are controlled by "manipulators" or is in "stong hands", as some might say). Why should we believe an analyst anyway ? We are never sure of their motives for whatever they may recommend, most certainly, their main concern is themselves, as it is with all of us. I've not that familiar with many correct predicitions by any analyst, a correct prediction by an analyst is about as rare as scoring a touchdown in the NFL. Score a touchdown in the NFL and the player acts as though it is the first one he has ever scored, the 2 or 3 analysts who've made a correct predicition is on every TV station for the rest of their life, their claim to fame - predicitng the 1987 market crash BEFORE it happened. These analyst spend most of their time collecting private inside information, then making their own investment decisions, then advise their larger clients on this insider information to invest quick, before the public finds out. I see the role of analysts and business reporters as follows - 1. Scare the public into selling, thus driving the equity price lower. 2. Once equity price is down, then the "manipulators" buy. 3. After a little time passes, let out a little bit of good news about the equity. 4. Wait for the public to buy, after short upward price movement 5. Let out more bad reports about equity or again scare the public to sell, sometimes called final shakeout. 6. Equity prices drops again as public gets scared and sells way too soon 7. "Manipulators", "insiders", "strong hands" really buy now 8. Usually a long quiet period follows this "final shakeout" 9. Suddenly, for no apparent reason the equity's price start to rise, sometimes dramatically 10. Public see equity rise, get excited, buy at too high a price level 11. "Manipulators" sell at new high prices, equity drops like a rock, with the public holding the bag. Sounds like great plan for the select few who now are able to participate in insider information, but it is a very bad plan for the uninformed public. Are the "manipulators" really trying to convince the SEC that the public doesn't understand what it reads, but that analysts are the only folks that can deciphor what the equity's management is discussing. What a bunch of b.s. - get a life, get real. I was born at night, it just wasn't LAST NIGHT......... David Bechtel No company association I believe in myself and my abilities I make my own investment decisions I make my own trades (Internet) I believe in LTBH (Long Term Buy & Hold) I only half believe what an equity analyst has to say I never believe what LAWYERS OR NEWS REPORTERS say Most of the time, I don't believe my government officials
Author: Henry Berendt
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 10:01 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I dearly hope that the Securities and Exchange Commission will keep to the sipirt of "free and equal markets" and support/endorse/implement all requirements for fair and equal disclosure of information for publicly traded companies. There is nothing quite as strong preventing investment as knowing that you, as an individual, cannot compete fairly and equally in the marketplace with all comers. I cannot accept the premise that those whose primary livelyhood is investing for others should have a right granted to them by the government to be privy to information concerning public corporations that I, a private citizen, cannot obtain in a timely manner. Please keep the markets free and open. Thank You, Henry A. Berendt Kentfield, California firstname.lastname@example.org
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 11:36 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File #S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I strongly believe that the statements made by the SIA are self serving and designed to maintain the status quo. I have heard no factual presentation showing that what they claim is true. How can the dissemination of information to all interested parties at the same time be bad for individual investors? It can only be bad for those currently privileged enough to get it first since they would no longer be in a position of power or influence. It is about time the individual investor got a break. Free up the information reporting structure. The financial media will not cease to report the data just because they did not receive it as an exclusive release. Maybe this will force the analysts to return to objectively analyzing the companies instead of attempting to be super star stock pickers. Howard Blower Individual Investor
Author: "Kevin Boyer"
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 10:41 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents To whom it may concern: It is my belief that a 'level' playing field (companies releasing information to general public, not just analysts) will actually benefit the marketplace. I have been an individual investor for about 5 years now and believe that analysts are in a position to sway the marketplace (and hence increase market volatility) and sometimes manipulate stocks. It is very difficult for individual investors to get access to the information the analysts dribble out to the public and difficult to validate. In some respects the 'practice of discreetly disclosing important information to Wall Street analysts' gives them great power to hold investors captive to their services. The fact that one does not have to look too far to find analysts with conflicting comments about the same subject hardly seems to support the SIA claims that individual investors would reach the wrong conclusions regarding investment decisions without their guidance. In addition, most companies have their shareholders to keep them honest (i.e. 'spun' financial information can open them to shareholder class-action suits); they (the companies) hardly need the analysts to make sure the financial reporting is presented properly. And last, individual investor confidence in the integrity of the marketplace is far more likely to smooth market volatility. In fact, some of the wild swings in the market place these past few weeks have been reported to be to a large extent the result of institutional investment activity. The trading volume seems to support this theory. I hope this agency will strive to do what is best for all, and not be bound to 'old economy' thinking in an era where the individual investor is rapidly becoming an important player in the marketplace. Thank you for your interest in this matter. Kevin Boyer P.O. Box 246685 Sacramento, CA 95824
Author: "Randolph Buhlman"
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 11:02 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Dear Sirs: Selective disclosure is wrong and certainly a disservice to the investor. How can one sincerely argue otherwise? Releasing public information to the public simultaneously with analysts is the proposed model and should be implemented. Yours truly, Randolph Buhlman
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 9:27 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, John C. Burke Day Trader Bull Moose Market Marauder
Author: "Shawn & Jennifer Clark"
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 11:56 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I would like to contribute my comments on proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 I am strongly in favor of the proposal to prevent discreet disclosure by company officers to analysts. There are several important principles here. The first is that such disclosure appears be inside information. In fact, were it provided to me personally and I traded or recommended trades based on it, then I believe it would be classified as inside information in violation of the law. If the market as a whole is not privy to this information, then it is granting an unfair advantage to the recipient analyst and his/her employer and investors. Secondly, the recent/rapid expansion and improvements in communication technology make it practical for companies to release this information to the general public. This can be done without preventing analysts from performing their duties. Transcripts, summaries, or other such information could easily be made available through electronic means. Initially, during early implementation, the rule may indeed limit some disclosure by corporate officers as they sort out how to conduct business in compliance with the rule. History teaches us that, eventually, the market will adapt and we will all wonder why discreet disclosure was ever permitted in the first place. Finally, I reject the Securities Industry Association (SIA) assertions that this will substantially inhibit them from performing a useful public (and private) service. I can find no reason that the information provided to analysts could not also be revealed to the general public. Smart corporate officers reveal information as needed now to prevent market shock. Should the rules change, they will find new ways to accomplish the same thing, but the size of the audience will change. Analysts will still retain tremendous advantages over the individual investor: sophisticated market models, reams of financial data, experience, training, and direct contact with corporate officers (allowing them to ask their own questions, see more and thereby glean a fuller picture than available through printed word or video footage). What they will lose is unfair access to relevant corporate information that should either be made public or not disclosed at all. Also, contrary to what the SIA has stated, some individual investors (such as myself) do read the company prospectus, research the company in print and on the web, evaluate the market sector and the company's competitors. We would benefit from having information revealed in a more timely and public manner. In summary, the strength of our nation and its markets is partly due to the hunger for and access to information that we have as a society. This, combined with a sense of fair play and free market capitalism makes our economy the most powerful and advanced in the world. Implement the proposed rule and help level the playing field for all investors. Shawn Clark Eastman Chemical Company Longview, Texas e-mail: email@example.com
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 10:08 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. 57-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Gentlemen, I am sending this e-mail to voice my opinion that all the information about public companies should be shared with all of us at the same time rather than protecting the large brokerage houses. I think that it is insulting for them to argue that "they are doing this in our best interests". I think that analysts for the most part, are biased, working for their own best interests and have little concern for the rest of us. I strongly oppose their position on this proposed regulation. Sincerely, Earl R. Coombs
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 10:13 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: file No. s7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents As an individual investor, I feel the more information I can be given, the better investment choices I can make. While it is true that analysts as well as investment and brokerage firms provide important services for investors, it is in my best interest to be as fully informed as possible. As many analysts and firms work on commissions, it is their best interest to control the information flow. This is in direct opposition to my needs as an informed investor. The internet has brought about a new world, and the rules are changing. It is time the SEC acknowledged this by opening up information to everyone. I am much more aware of my investments now that I take a more active role in them. Knowledge is power. Empower people. Give them access to information as soon as it becomes available. Trust that they will ask questions (to the analysts and brokers!) if they don't understand something. Thank you, Victoria M. Depaoli
Author: Phil Doherty
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 11:47 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File # S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents After applying several layers of bull hooey filters and utilizing my "Captain Whizbang" secret decoder ring I have condensed the verbiage to: (my apologizes to George Orwell) "Isn't it true that we are all created equal"?, yes, "but some of us are more equal than others". I, for one, am tired of the drivel that constantly flows from the mouths of individuals who claim to know what is best for the "common man". I am sure that Abby Cohen, Mark Mobius and their ilk must be very satisfied with your frothing. I am reminded of an old country expression that more than applies, Don't be "whizzing" down my back and then telling me it is a warm spring rain...... Enough of the "Newspeak" bulletins from the Ministry of Truth. Phil Doherty firstname.lastname@example.org Valdez, Alaska.
Author: Pat Flood
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 11:49 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Dear Sir or Madam: Regarding Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99, I strongly support this important and overdue rule. Patrick M. Flood email@example.com 4019 Tazlina Ave. Anchorage, AK 99517 --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
Author: Keith Garner
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 11:24 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I urge you to pass the regulation. Selective disclosure to "friendly" anaylsts may well enrich the Wall Street firms, and even potentially some of their favored clients, but it comes at the cost to the general investing public. I see no justification for giving potentially significant information selectively to Wall St. insiders so they can move before the general public is informed. While I am not surprised that the Securities Industry is opposed to the rule, I disagree with their transparently self serving anaylsis of the situation implying the general investing public is unable to figure out the information, or read an annual report. Again, I urge you to pass the rule as proposed. Sincerely, Keith Garner an individual investor
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 10:57 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 writing in support of the FD regulation. As a private investor, I have personal experience with the pitfalls of relying on financial professionals. I once had a full-service brokerage account and read several financial publications; I now have a discount broker and do my own research online -- and I have gone from dismally losing money to outperforming the markets for the past three years. I would far rather trust my own analysis than that of professionals, no matter how learned, who may have conflicts of which I know nothing. Any regulation that increases public access to market information is of benefit to me and to the many small investors like myself. Concerning the filing by the Securities Industry Association: their comment that "it hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary and very valuable function in the U.S. capital market....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" seems dubious. The first sentence does not strike me as obvious; the second is offensive, and on reflection alarming, too, as it suggests that the authors inhabit a different "real world" than the one in which I and many other individual investors do exactly those things, and quite well, thank you. The SIA's solicitude is appreciated, but I don't need protection. Very truly yours, Susan Hagadorn, Ph.D.
Author: "Greg & Nancy Hutchings"
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 8:56 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents How do these "experts" know that I'm not intelligent enough to make my own informed decisions? From my perspective, my ability to make an informed decision is hampered by the fact that I don't have access to the same information at the same time. Surely millions of investors are already making decisions without the aid of these "experts", yet still doing so with valuable, publicly-available information. If making this information available sooner is so dangerous, maybe you should create regulations to force everyone to invest through a professional analyst for their own protection. There is no reason we shouldn't have access to potentially influential information before making important decisions. How can you think for a minute that Wall Street analysts aren't fighting for their own interests above all others? Count me in favor of the proposed regulation. Greg Hutchings
Author: Kamran Jazayeri
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 11:28 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I, as an individual investor, fully support the elimination of the selective disclosure rule. Equal access to information for all market participants, large or small, is a fundamental requirement for healthy markets. Sincerely, Kamran Jazayeri.
Author: "Steve Kang"
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 11:36 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Dear Sirs, I feel that the Ad Hoc Working Group on Proposed Regulation FD and the Legal and Compliance Division of the Securities Industry Association is way out of line in its filing dated April 6th of this year. The whole thing smells of analysts fearful of losing their "old boy" network. It makes some rather insulting assumptions, including the following. First the statement, "the ... model of ... investors poring over prospectuses and periodic reports is highly theoretical and out of sync with the real world" is quite disparaging. Who has more concern about whether my money is invested in a good company, the analyst or me? The assumption that no one other than analysts reads prospectuses is laughable. Second, the filing claims that analysts' findings results in less volatility. To this, let me give you an example. On March 30, Merrill Lynch lowered its long-term rating on Amgen from "Buy" to "Accumulate." Why? because Amgen is being sued by Transkaryotic Therapies, and Merrill says that the trial, the outcome of which they are not willing to predict, is likely to cause extreme volatility "over the next few months until Judge Young hands down his final ruling." Hello? This is not creating extra volatility? How do "next few months" and "long-term" relate to each other? About as much as "analyst" and "less volatile" do. Finally I question the claim that "it hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary and valuable function in the U.S. capital markets." I think that if it is true, it certainly does need some saying, because you'll be hard pressed to convince me otherwise. What exactly do they do that is so beneficial? I hope that you take these into consideration, and I urge you to pass the proposed regulation. Sincerely, Steve Kang 19080 Hayes Castro Valley, CA
Author: "Rick & Teri Kessler"
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 10:11 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File no. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Ladies and Gentlemen: Regarding the above referenced Proposed Reg. FD. It is my opinion that to allow publicly traded companies to continue disseminating any information regarding their companies to a select "privileged" few (who may or may not be stockholders) does a disservice to all stockholders in all publicly traded companies. In the SIA's filing on April 6, 2000 in Section II C. ' Analysts' Perspective ', the comment is made-"Leveling the playing field for analysts, as among themselves and vis-a-vis the general public, will undermine the great advantages of the current system." Two queries on this statement; 1) The SIA freely admits the "playing field" is NOT level, so therefore should not the SEC immediately institute Reg. FD so as to remove any unfair advantage to these analysts and their brokerage houses? 2) To whom is the "current system" a "great advantage"? Certainly not to "the general public." I commend the SEC for recognizing the inequities inherent in the status quo by proposing Regulation FD, and request its' passage and institution. Regards, John Richard Kessler individual investor (who doesn't need talking heads treating him like a lemming) Member of the General Public *************************************************** firstname.lastname@example.org
Author: "Larry Lim"
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 11:11 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99" ------------------------------- Message Contents I am writing to support the above stated regulation for the following reasons: a.. Firstly, analyst working for a particular investment house that underwrites a certain company may be more reluctant to downgrade that company. They may be in the position of conflict of interest. Information that may be damaging to the company's stock may be withheld or de-emphasized. b.. With the advent of internet, the advantage offered analysts has been diminishing. The above rule will remove the last barrier to a level playing field. This will enable well informed investors to better manage their own portfolio. Accurate information is essential for good decision making. I wonder SIA's opposition to this Regulation is based solely on fear that analysts role in the the market will be greatly diminished with the removal of their previously held unfair advantage. c.. Sites like individual investors, Motley Fool now serves to educate the public with their analysis without having any allegiance to a particular company. They have taken on the role of analysts and are more likely to provide unbiased opinion. The argument by SIA that analyst reduces volatility is obviously untrue. a.. Analyst often amplify market reaction to a particular news item by rushing on mass to upgrade/downgrade the company involved. This certainly does not reduce volatility. In fact analyst only encourage herd mentality as some uninformed investor would just do what the sages say. Accurate information would help alleviate this problem. b.. As can be witnessed by recent turbulence in the stock market, a few analysts commenting on their portfolio shifts irresponsibly triggered panic in the market. The same analyst then reversed his/her stance after her initial action affected the market thus giving him/her a chance to bargain hunt. This clearly illustrates that analyst do not reduce volatility in the market but sometimes causes them. One wonders if they have the individual investors' best interest in mind. c.. In another word, they have the power to influence the market in a self-serving manner. Larry Lim
Author: "victoria love"
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 10:23 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File NO. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Gentlepeople: It alarms me that a debate exits over public dissemination of sophisticated financial information for traded companies. That the SEC would consider analysts more worthy by not requiring companies to fully disclosure financial information simultaneously to individual investors is an affront to one of the most highly educated, egalitarian and entrepreneurial populations in the world. The argument that the average individual is unable to interpret all the data is irrelevant since access, not capability, is the issue. The individual investor who is interested will, in fact, create a means to understand, interpret, and digest the material which is available. The truth in this statement is easily visible and so obvious as to stir sincere concern about the mental acuity and moral character of its proponents. The idea that analysts make the market less volatile reeks of stale cigar smoke. Any investor who has been left holding the proverbial bag after Wall Street's elephants have stampeded would be happy to light such nonsense on fire and leave it to be stomped out at the doorstep of such prideful profit-motivated good-ol-boys who omnisciently deem themselves to know what is in our best interest. (By the way, If the SEC and the analysts know so much better than we what is in our best interest, then obviously, they are working in the wrong area. These omniscient benefactors should be urged to step in where countless others have had little success. We could use substantive lectures on television violence, censorship, gun control, and sexual abstinence.) IF the SEC does not elect to have public companies disclose ALL information simultaneously, it is doing all individual investors a much more than a grave disservice. Victoria Love email@example.com
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 10:02 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I disagree with the SIA, and believe I am intelligent enough to make decisions about the value of securities. I do not believe I need analysts protecting me from my own ignorance. Tony Padua Revenue Agent IRS
Author: "John Phipps"
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 10:11 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Dear Sirs: Please consider a level playing field for analyst and indivdual investor, pass the proposed rule that will require equal disclosure for all involved. John Phipps
Author: Andrew Rice
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 9:58 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents 4-20-00 To whom it may concern: I am writing in support of the rule proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding the fair disclosure of information by publicly traded companies to the public. This 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 the public at large. The Ad Hoc Working Group on Proposed Regulation FD and the Legal and Compliance Division of the Securities Industry Association ("SIA") -- READ "principal lobbying organization for the full-service brokerages" -- insults the many individual investor that make our countries equity markets and free economy work. Among the fallacies that they reported during the public comments of April 6, 2000 concerning this rule: * "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 . . ." Does this make any sense? IN ESSENCE, "feed us special information at the expense of the investors actually choosing to buy stock in these companies." * "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." This is insulting. In an efficient market, the minimum standard should be equal access to information, with those that want to rely solely on analyst views being allowed to (sounds like a free market to me). Remember, the brokerages would like us to make multiple buys and sell blindly on their recommendation -- that's how they make money! * "The marketplace itself provides incentives for such diligence (READ -- without this porposed rule, SEC sanctioned "insider information"), for it is the analysts who get to the market "firstest" with the "mostest" that under the current system reap the reputational and financial rewards". In other words they expect you to protect their business model -- keeping the individual investor in the dark -- so they can make a profit. INSTEAD, their business model should be modeled on the brokerages ability to help the investor make better returns with their money. Believe me, if their analyst can provide value added services, then the investors will come to them, equal information or not! Let the investors decide! Please take the concerns of the individual investor seriously -- WE ARE THE MARKET! Andrew Rice firstname.lastname@example.org
Author: "Mark Russell"
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 11:03 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents After reviewing the filing by the Securities Industry Association regarding the above proposed regulation, I feel compelled to offer my comments on the matter. As a knowledgeable and prudent individual investor who takes the responsibility for researching my equity investments, I'm am insulted by the SIA filing. While I expected protests from the brokerage industry, their elitist attitude and condescending tone is somewhat of a surprise. The SIA filing, in my opinion, provides even more impetus for the Securities and Exchange Commission to pass the proposed regulations. This scandal of allowing a self-described "elite few" early access to key information so that they can use their "superior intellect" to maintain market balance is outlandish. Do the right thing and pass these regulations! R. Mark Russell, MD, MPH
Author: "John White"
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 10:08 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I deserve the same access to data as any "analyst" and am quite prepared to do my own due diligence. If an analyst can convince me by their superior performance that they know how to interpret the data more effectively than I, I would be prepared to pay for their opinion, up to the value that it added for me. If they have to hide behind closed doors to "prove" that they know better, it raises nothing but suspicion of their intentions, and prevents me from seeing how much "better" they are. I certainly don't want to be "nannied" by people who are afraid to let me have the same information advantage that they have. Level the playing field and lets see who does better! John White
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 11:07 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents It is outrageous to allow anyone, especially analysts - the self-proclaimed knowledge end-alls and manipulators of Wall Street - to have access to a better-quality strata of information than what is available to the general public. I would pose the true motivator at play is money..the selfish fear that with the public's ongoing trend of self sufficiency, analysts see their positions becoming extinct as time goes on. However, a less manipulated market, which does not swing violently upon the words of a few (Abby Cohen), regardless of how innocent the intention may be, should be a necessary goal for the SEC. <<...>> > ***************** > Gray Williams Gray Williams Rhythms Alternate Channels 703.624.0966
Author: "Steven and Jane"
at Internet Date: 04/20/2000 10:03 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I am absolutely for passage of the above regulation. Steven Wolfson