Author: "Mike Freeman" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:36 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing in favor of the proposed regulation. As an individual investor who
is responsible for the fiscal welfare of my family, I am strongly in favor of
wide distribution of information about the companies in which I own positions as
well as those I am researching. Given access to the facts, I am willing to take
the responsibility for my own decisions. No one, certainly not an analyst whose
incentives are to increase trade volume for his or her brokerage, knows my goals
and situation better than I.
Michael L Freeman
161 Old Harrodsburg Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Author: "Dave" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Security analyst have no right to privileged information ahead of the
public. My feeling is that they use the information to front run the public
in trading for their own accounts. The market sell offs are not started or
caused by the public. It is the professional and institutional traders that
start the market drops. They are the main cause of volatility.
I have been investing on my own since 1986. I have never used a broker for
investment advice because I don't trust them. Despite their arguments I do
not see that they provide any useful function for the investing public. News
that causes a particular stock to collapse usually takes them by surprise
also. I read the prospectuses of funds and annual reports of companies I
invest in.
David Fuehring
Author: "Rob Furlow" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 4:37 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
This is total BULLSHIT. I have every right to know what's going on with the
companies that I may or may not involve my hard earned dollars in. Let's
level the playing field a little here and see how dumb the public really
is...you can always change it back, right??? You secretive shits. There
should be a law against withholding information like this, it clearly gives
an unfair advantage.
Rob
Author: chris gallegos at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 5:28 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: level the playing field
------------------------------- Message Contents
level the playing field with the disclosures and IPO's. Why shouild a
special group get important information before other investors do!!!!!!
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:35 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation FD:File no. S 7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I do not understand the industries contention that allowing analysts to have
information before the investors is beneficial to the investor. Maybe it is
beneficial to their clients who can invest based on information not generally
available to the public. You must do whatever you can to level the playing
field. Any information they get from companies that isn't generally available
to the public should be considered "inside information" subject to penalties.
Edward Garland 407-324-8888-
Author: robert gibson at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:48 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an investor and part owner in a number of American corporations,
I feel it is my moral and legal right to have equal access under the law
to all information relevant to my investment in these companies.
Currently there exists selective and preferential disclosure of
corporate information that bears directly on the valuation of
corporations in the public markets.
It is clear that the fair and honorable thing to do is to correct
this problem by providing for full simultaneous public disclosure of
corporate information so that no investors are placed at an inherent
disadvantage.
I urge you to pass regulation FD, and I speak strongly in favor of
this proposed regulation.
Thank you,
Robert M. Gibson
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
We need and support a level playing field. We are capable of determining our
own information. Robert T. Graf
Author: "Grawrock; David" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 4:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear FCC
I have read the industry comments on the new rule and see why the market is
volatile. The analysts want to hoard information and use it for their own
gain. Nothing in the rule says that they can not ask questions it just says
that more people will be able to ask them. They are complaining that they
may actually have to do some work and do real investigations to prove their
worth, I say make them do the work. If it turns out that the public can
produce the same results without the analysts then we are better off without
them.
The purpose of a free society is to have fair and open access to
information. It is incredible that a select few have prior access to
information that they then get to interpret and pass judgment on.
David Grawrock
Author: Gary Gregory at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:19 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam,
Companies should 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. I am in favor of "Proposed Regulation
FD: File No. S7-31-99".
Gary Gregory
Office: 949 930 6324
Mobile: 310 403 5533
Fax: 561 264 6472
Home: 310 546 3134
Emergency: 911
16811 Hale Avenue - Suite A
Irvine CA 92606-5020
ggregory@seagullsw.com
www.seagullsw.com
Author: "Glenn Guilford" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:24 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: at Internet
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom it May Concern,
The Analysts 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".
Nothing could be farther from the truth ! Even people who use traditional
brokerages and listen to the dribble of these same analysts are only trying
their best to express their (individual) investment opinions. If they had the
same information as the analysts, they might not value their "expert opinions"
nearly as much as they do now !
This country is a Democracy where freedom is a cherished right of all the
people. Only by allowing the freedom of individual choice in investing will the
true valuation of companies be determined by those who actually own them. I
believe that the public dissemination of this information will in fact result in
a stabilization of the current market swings which we see all too often. Swings
based on these same "analysts expectations", I might add.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
Regards,
Glenn B. Guilford
Dynatex International East www.dynatex.com
Glenn B. Guilford - Field Service Engineer
Phone: 570-510-1849 Fax: 570-587-0935
gguilford@worldnet.att.net
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am a strong proponent of the above proposal. The public who actively and
individually or collectively trade in common stocks have a right to know the
same amount of information as any analyst or SEC member. After all, it is
the public who invest the most money in the stock market. Therefore, they
have a right to know; their money is at risk.
Stuart Hagan
individual investor
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File# S7-7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The public has a right to have all the information available on publicly held
companies.
Analysts, by definition, should be the dispassionate evaluators of
information and that information MUST be accessible to all of us. Especially
us real, live, individual stockholders in these companies.
The deck has clearly been stacked against us in favor of "Big Business" -
particularly the Brokerage firms.
Some of them border on criminal the way they try to scare us into using their
services - FOR A FEE, of course.
Let them make money the old fashioned way and stop giving them all the breaks
via the regulatory situation as it stands.
It's just plain not fair.
Thank you if you listened. Joan Hall (Mrs. James C.)
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 4:10 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject:
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please support Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
Jack Handley, Corte Madera, CA jhand@jps.net
Author: "The Haney's" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I feel the individual investor deserves the same access as any analyst. The
stock broker is a dying beast with the explosion of the internet and the
information that can be gleaned in short order through its use. Also, investors
are become more educated everyday and the need for interpretation of a companies
news or a CEO's comments is no longer necessary.
Although its likely that many investors do not proceed with the due diligence
that should be done when investing I would venture to say that most do.
Especially those of us that who are not day traders but are looking for good
companies that are undervalued.
Thank you for your time.
Daniel R. Haney
A concerned Motley Fool
Author: "grey hawk" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a self investing individual for the past 5 years I would gladly welcome
any additional information I could receive and would most definitely pore
over prospectuses and periodic reports. Living and working successfully in
this highly technical world requires this continuous absorption of data.
To limit this information to a select few would not be in the true spirit of
a democratic and capitalist nation. I once was a victim of ignorance of the
market. I depended solely on my full service brokerage analysts and paid the
price for their mediocrity in unrealized and lost wealth. Now I am
responsible for my own future and believe I have a right to all and any
information regarding my money. The past weeks volatility in the market
makes me question if analysts opinions don't create greater volatility
especially if an uneducated investor is relying solely on their commentary
and operating in fear.
We could apply this same approach to the voting process. We could determine
the average voter can't possibly understand or be able to pore over all the
data about each candidate. The in-depth information should not be made
available to all voters only political analysts to interpret it for them.
Freedom of information is the only way to a more educated population and one
not fear driven.
Thank you for your time.
Author: "gooseegg" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:36 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File NO. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I feel the public should be privy to the same information which analysts receive
from companies and should receive that information AT THE SAME TIME the analysts
receive it. In my opinion, the only necessary and valuable function analysts
perform is to "line their own pockets" by using information not available to the
public, prior to the disimination of that information to the public. If
anything, analysts seem to make markets more volatile. One week a stock will be
rated a "strong buy". Two weeks later, the stock will be downgraded. Now, I
might be considered small peanuts, as an investor, to these people, but
something doesn't seem quite right with that scenario. Maybe I would have more
"peanuts" if you leveled the playing field. Quit giving "big money" an unfair
advantage. Thank you. Sincerely. B Hiett
Author: Tom Hill at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 5:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Giving special treatment to analysts is little more than legal insider
training. Don't treat those of us who invest without advice from some
"expert" as wayward children who need to be protected from themselves.
Tom Hill
Author: "Rich Holowka" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: The Ad Hoc Working Group on Proposed Regulation FD and the L
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please put an end to privileged information. The public comments of April 6,
2000, by The Ad Hoc Working Group on Proposed Regulation FD and the Legal and
Compliance Division of the Securities Industry Association perpetuates a
mystique about "service" rendered to investors (and the market in general) by
brokers with access to information denied investors at large.
A recent Motley Fool column asks 4 salient questions about the SIA ruling. . .
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?
I submit that in each case the answer is NO.
Limiting access to information in effect represents a de jure act of
discrimination, placing the welfare of one small group over the interests of the
majority.
History is in part a record of liberty and the spread of freedom that results
from access to resources. Information is a precious resource.
By refusing to acknowledge the democratization of information and knowledge, the
SEC simply persists in supporting one clearly defined interest group at the
expense of the general public.
Respectfully,
Richard Holowka
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing to voice my opinion in favor of the rule on subject line above
proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding fair disclosure
of information by publicly traded companies to the public. I believe the
proposed rule would provide valuable information for individual investors.
Everyone should have access to this information, not just Wall Street market
analysts.
I urge you to support this proposed rule and see that it is put into effect.
Sincerely,
Dana J. Horton
Author: jag at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 1:54 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Your comments on this issue ( protecting us Fools ) are
as self serving to the "boys" as your commissioners
comments about IPOs were last month. Somehow it
reminds me of the gaming commissions at casinos.
Author: "Douglas Jessup" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:34 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject:
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I am writing regarding regarding the fair disclosure of information by
publicly traded companies to the public. I find it difficult to believe that
rules regarding this very issue aren't already in force. The public is
entitled to information as soon as a public company releases it. There can
be absolutely no justification to delay release until market analysts have
reviewed it and adjusted their portfolios accordingly.
I urge you to promptly correct this situation.
Douglas Jessup
Author: "neil johnsen" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:10 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?
I believe the answer to all four of these questions is no !!!!
The playing field needs to be leveled .
It is grossly in favor of the large brookerage houses whose analist will say
what they are payed to say!
Author: "B.Johnson" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:34 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to comment on the above. As an individual investor who wishes to
utilize the most current and affordable investing research methods via the
Internet at the times most convenient to my schedule, I would like to voice my
support for "Proposed Regulation FD". Investors should be given the same
information that has been selectively distributed to stock analysts. On-line
Brokerage Firms have given individual investors an opportunity to invest more
efficiently and pay less in commissions, purchase stocks in smaller lots, and
bring in additional capital to the markets. The proposed regulation would be an
excellent addition to the advances recently made by individuals towards leveling
the playing field. No wonder the analysts and large firms oppose the
proposal............
B. Johnson
Author: "Craig Johnson" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen:
After experiencing the expertise of stock analysts for 20 years, I feel the
market cannot possible be made more volatile by full disclosure of all
corporate information to the individual investors. Please pass the
aforementioned regulation.
Respectfully
Craig Johnson
New Orleans, LA.
Author: "Robert McKay Jones" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:37 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please don't let Wall Street cover our eyes.
The proposed regulation is the fair disclosure of information by publicly
traded companies to the public. I am the public. I desire that the
information be made available to me and anyone else - not just a special
few. This is America.
'nough said.
Robert McKay Jones
President
Transportation Resources, Inc.
800-414-3515
www.trif.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg FD : File No. 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I feel the individual investor should receive same info and at same time as
analysts.
Royce Jones
Author: JULITA HIDALGO KALSBEEK at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe in FAIR DISCLOSURE of information by publicly traded companies
to ALL - at the same time would be a help and fairer to small investors
like myself. THANK YOU for your time......i am.....
pkalsbeek@yahoo.com
Author: Glenn at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 4:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern,
I have just taken a brief look at the comments Mr.Spencer and Mr.
Schieren have submitted on behalf of The Ad Hoc Working Group on
Proposed Regulation FD and the SIA dated April 6, 2000. Mr.
Spencer's and Mr. Schieren's comments are merely a well thought out
attempt to protect a tremendous advantage that generates millions (if
not billions) of dollars for their clients. An advantage not enjoyed
by your average private investor regardless of sophistication.
Proposed Regulation FD is a very common sense remedy for what is nothing
less than the distribution of insider information to a select few
individuals. It is axiomatic that the possession of accurate
information, not widely disseminated, places one at a tremendous
advantage in the financial markets. It would be the height of naivete
and stupidity to believe that the recipients of this information do not
exploit this exclusive advantage for their own gain (as well as the
investment houses they work for). Is it any wonder that the SIA
constituency would protest a regulation that would eliminate an industry
perk that gives them millions of dollars. Hardly.
I could sit here and offer point by point rebuttals to the comments made
by Mr. Spencer and Mr. Schieren, but that would reduce this discussion
to a lesson in semantics which is exactly what they want. They seek to
divert attention from the fact that selective disclosure is a form of
insider information that gives its recipients a financial advantage not
shared by other investors. As such it needs to be remedied and Proposed
Regulation FD does that.
A Concerned Private Investor
Glenn Karpf
ridergk@earthlink.net
Author: Steve Kerns at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 5:16 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 am in favor of the proposed regulation.
Steve Kerns.
(Opinions expressed are my own and not those of my employer)
--
..........................................................
| | | Steve Kerns
||| ||| | ECS UNIX System Admin
..:|||||||:..:|||||||:.. | email: skerns@cisco.com
C i s c o S y s t e m s | tel: (707) 793-1993
..........................................................
Author: "Bob Kiehnle" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 4:52 PM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File NO. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a former CFO of a public company I support these new rules on
dissemination of information on an equal basis. While some investors may
not appreciate or understand complex information coming from companies, many
others can understand and analyze such information. Besides, the analysts
often do not understand the information provided and may analyses are flawed
and misleading.
Bob Kiehnle
E-mail: bkiehnle@worldpointlogistics.com
Author: "David A. Kline" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
My comment: as an individual investor who has done remarkably well over the
past 10 years, I strongly urge you to make all information that is available
to so-called experts available to the investing public at large. Why limit
scrutiny of such information to a limited number of analysts when the
markets could benefit from the scrutiny of thousands of self-interested,
self-motivated individual investors? Analysts have connections to the
industries they report on, and thus have various levels of conflicts of
interest. Individual investors simply want to analyze companies to make the
best choices available for their own accounts. Thus, they are the
collective wisdom of the market.
We are in a new era of investing. We have millions of individual investors
who are well-educated and experienced. This is the best way to shine the
light of truth on the markets, and reduce the amount of "secret" and
"special" information.
David A. Kline
813 Tulip Street
Liverpool, NY 13088
315-457-1314
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support subject proposed regulation, and in fact was a bit taken aback to
find out that such was not already the case.
Harvey Knuth
Author: "Bernie Kubiak" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:37 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Let me register my agreement with proposed regulation FD. There is no reason to
maintain or sanction the selective disclosure of information. With the ability
to publicly trade securities should come the obligation to fairly disclose
information in as public a fashion as possible.
Bernard Kubiak
Author: "Jack Larsen" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I want my information unfiltered. I want it at the same time as everyone
else.
Thank you,
Jack Larsen
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:54 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hello,
I appreciate your openess to the opinions of the general public in regards to
this proposed regulation. It seems rather self serving and insults the
intelligence of individual investors for brokers to argue that only analysts
should be privy to certain company information. I hope that you will not
fall for this fallacious argument and support the rights of individuals to
invest on an even playing field with all parties. Thank you for your
attention to this email.
Scott Lassers
email lassey@aol.com
Author: Mark Lavine at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: TMFMax@fool.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
The shamelessness of the response of the grandly named "Ad Hoc Working
Group on Proposed Regulation FD and the Legal and Compliance Division of
the Securities Industry Association ("SIA") rises to new heights. How
dare they presume to be entitled to information in advance of other
investors? They don't speak for me and they certainly don't help me!
Most of them simply help their own clients unload their stock on the
basis of information unavailable to me, and of course I and other
investors like me are the ones left holding the (empty) bag. The
Securities laws of the US were not designed to help only those with the
resources to have inside connections to securities analysts. They are
designed to protect all non-insiders! While the analysts may be used to
the current system, it is still clear that the current system is unfair,
immoral and probably illegal even under current law. They should not be
privileged ahead of others.
If they are worried that the overall quality of information will drop
(something I am not convinced of), then they should suggest a solution
to that problem which also resolves the current problem. It is no
enough to use a potential/imagined problem as a basis to maintain an
actual, realized problem.
The Response also states that:
Due to fierce competition among analysts to obtain the best
information, they will be reluctant to ask questions in an open session
that tip off their competitors as to the direction of their thinking or
information that they think would be meaningful. If the questions cannot
be asked in private, they may not be asked at all. Is that good for the
market?"
What a ridiculous conclusion! The Response also claims that these
very same analysts currently "relentlessly pursue an independent line of
inquiry and ferret out negative information." Yet, under the new rule,
they would suddenly refuse to ask a question because a competitor might
hear the answer? If that is their definition of relentless, then I
question whether they have any value at all.
Please reject the Reponse of the Ad Hoc Working Group!
Mark Lavine
Coral Gables, FL
Author: WILLIAM LEACH JR at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 5:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support this new rule. Others besides analysts
need access to this information as well as Wall
Street analysts. Let's be more open so we have
a level playing field.
William W. Leach, Jr.
660 Josina
Palo Alto, Ca. 94306
Author: Matthew Lehman at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:16 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think it is rather presumptuous for the SEC and the analyst community to
believe they are better positioned to receive relevant information about
companies that the public invests in. It's bad enough that a handful of
market makers and influential analysts can effectively set prices, but to
give this same group of people inside information days ahead of the rest of
the market is just irresponsible.
I only make long term investments as I believe this is sound fiscal
management. I know many of my friends and family that share this view. It
seems odd that a group of people [analysts] that regularly endorse
short-term investing (gambling is more accurate) should somehow be deemed as
better able to understand the concepts of solid company financials. Yet you
would have us believe that due to the dubious value that they add to the
disclosure of information in the marketplace, we the people are getting a
more stable marketplace to house our investments.
A similar argument was posed several years ago. It went something like
this. People couldn't possibly be allowed to trade stocks directly without
going through a broker on the Internet. How would they know what to invest
in? How would market stability be maintained if the millions of people were
making market decisions all by themselves? The American public will end up
squandering away all their hard-earned retirement dollars!
Strange that the only people saying these things were brokers with something
very real at stake; their commissions. Now we have analysts telling us
essentially the same thing and strangely enough, it's their high salaries at
stake.
I hope that you will seriously reconsider taking a step towards creating a
level playing field and not catering to the desires of a constituency of
financial analysts. Anything less would be irresponsible fiscal policy.
Sincerely,
D. Matthew Lehman
eMeritum Inc.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: News@fool.com at Internet
CC: DukeoW@aol.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I feel that as a long time investor I have a stake in getting UNFILTERED,
TIMELY, and ACCURATE information. Any thought of continuing the present
preferential pandering of information by the business/PR types to selected
brokerage houses is against my best interest. Since I am a buy and hold
stockholder, I have little contact with the broker types who are supposedly
"helping me" understand what is meant by the privileged communications.
Thanking you for your consideration.
James Little
305 Patton Pl.
Rockville, MD 20851
301 762 3215
PS When and where will there be any more hearings on this subject?
Author: "Stephen Lucas" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I feel that as an individual investor that information needed to make
informed investment decisions should be open to the public at large. Large
investment houses and so called analysists have a vested interest to
maintain an atmosphere of secrecy for vital public information. In
addition, they are in the business of "selling" not making their clients
money. Collecting comissions and making a market in a certain offering or
stock held by their brokerage is the name of the game.
Give us the freedom to make our own decisions.
Thank you
Stephn R. Lucas
Author: "Doris Maitland" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am strongly for this proposed regulation.
I have read parts of the SIA filing stating why they are against this
regulation. Following is one of my favorite parts.
"The marketplace itself provides incentives for such diligence, 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. 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. "
The Great Advantages of the Current System? -- none of which are shared with
the individual investor. I want to be able to access timely information
that hasn't been pre-digested for me by analysts.
Author: Vincenzo Mancini at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 5:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To my fellow Americans at the SEC:
I am gratified to see your agency examining the issue of timely public
disclosure of financial data. I have invested in my company's 401(k) plan for
several years, but only recently began investing my after-tax dollars in
individual stocks. Before the advent of online trading and stock research, the
markets were a black box to me. I thought that the only way that I could learn
about investing in the stock market was through a high-priced broker or by
reading books that were full of heiroglyphic-like jargon. I now know better.
I urge you to move forward with the proposed regulation. Although it may require
the securites brokerage industry to adapt further, the result will be a more
equitable distribution of information (the intellectual capital that drives
democracy). Although the securities analysts have many objections to this
regulation, the one that I find most galling is that it will increase volatility
in the markets. Securities analysts can no more predict the direction of the
markets or individual stocks than they can predict the weather. To say that
their proclamations of "buy", "hold", "accumulate", or "sell" do not influence
market volatility is just plain wrong. It is a simple case of thinly veiled
hyposcrisy used to protect their status quo: keep the individual investor in a
powerless position so that they must use full-service brokerages.
Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion as a fellow believer in the
positive power of capitalism.
Sincerely,
Vincenzo Mancini
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: sec ruling
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear sirs/madames:
I have just read the summary information regarding the
proposed rule changes as relates to selective disclosure of
compnay information to analysts vs. the general public. I
am a successful, long time investor (since 1972) and rely on
my own analysis when choosing companies in which to invest.
Public information is vital to this process and providing
that information pre-emptively to a select group of people
puts me or any other member of the investing public at a
distinct disadvantage. Please remember two things when
considering this ruling. First, knowledge is power and the
playing field needs to be level here; no one group should
have an advantage over another. This is especially
important now that a greater percentage of people are active
in the stock market. Second, and most important, analysts
are not investing their money, but the public's. As such
the general public has the right to know about company
information at the same time as any subset of the public.
Anything else is self serving and patently wrong. Thank you
for your time.
Author: "Tom Matthews" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor, I whole heartedly support this proposed Regulation!
Thank you,
Tom Matthews
2618 Spring Lane
Austin, TX 78703
Author: Tom Mayer at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 4:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
Just when the Internet is allowing people of reasonable intelligence to make
their own decisions about what stocks to buy or sell we get another group
trying to take this ability away from us. I have been investing for 15
years paying the exorbitant commissions for basically little or no advise
that is in my best interest. It's time that we stop this practice and allow
those that do not want or need help from brokers, who only want to churn
accounts to make a commission, to make their own decisions. Please do not
allow restriction to be placed on information. In fact information should
be made easier to get not harder. That's what the internet is all about.
Thanks very much for listening,
Thomas A. Mayer
_______________________________
Tom Mayer
Senior Consultant
11236 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130-2650
Voice: (619) 481-0081
Fax: (619) 481-7550
Web: www.rer.com
e-mail: tom@rer.com
Author: Evette Correa at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Ladies and Gentlemen
Public companies should give everyone the same information at the same
time. some will use information wisely, some will not. A free market
system should have equal access to infomation.
Jimmie McCullough
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed regulation FD: NO.S7-31-99"As
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a private investor , i am strongly in favor of leveling the playing field
by passing the subject regulation.
JOHN S. MC MAHON
Author: Steve Medland at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am once again insulted by my own government! Your
opinion that individual investors are not intelligent
enough to deal with the same information that analysts
are given is ridiculous. Once again as the capitalist
market of discount and online brokerages give us
access to investment opportunities that have helped
fuel one of the largest growth periods in history, our
government insults our intelligence with another slap
in the face.
If the public is too stupid to deal with this
information:
- what harm will it be for them to know it?
- how will they ever become less stupid without
access to it?
Stop being so arrogant.
Steve Medland
MBA Student
Madison, WI
Author: sean mehegan at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir,
I am an individual investor and journalist and would like to comment on
Proposed Regulation FD.
When it comes to financial information, as in any other element of
public life, more openness and disclosure are always good things. They
were good things in 1735 when John Peter Zenger was acquited on libel
charges after criticizing the governor of New York. They were good
things in 1927 when the Supreme Court struck down prior restraint of the
press. And they were good in 1970 when the Pentagon Papers were
published in the New York Times. More information leads to a better
informed public, which in turn strengthens our democracy and capital
markets.
Unfortunately, what we have now in the financial world is a privileged
elite that is not interested in more open dissemination of information.
Rather, it is interested in closing the doors, barricading the gates,
and posting sentries to make sure that its long-running monopoly on
information and power isn't threatened. This interest is antithetical to
that of the individual investor, and undermines your efforts to
democratize the public markets.
Individual investors now constitute a majority of those who trade
stocks, and as such they should be privy to the same information enjoyed
by the financial services industry.
This industry advances a number of arguments in order to maintain the
status quo. Ironically, one of its chief arguments pertains to the
public trust. Specifically, it says that only analysts, with their
advanced training, have the ability to hold companies accountable. That
is to say, only analysts possess the acute eye necessary to identify
financial skulduggery among publicly-traded companies. To that, I need
only utter two words: Boston Chicken. For years, financial analysts
hyped the fortunes of this doomed chain, telling investors to keep
pouring their money in. In fact, Boston Chicken's finances were suspect
very early on, and yet no analysts, save for one or two ostracized short
sellers, were able to figure this out. Boston Chicken eventually
declared bankruptcy.
Perhaps if the public had been offered the same information as these
supposedly gimlet-eyed analysts, numerous investors would have been
spared the misery of watching their holdings in Boston Chicken evaporate
almost overnight.
There are many, many other examples like this. It is fiendishly
dishonest for the financial services industry to hold itself up as some
sort of public watchdog, protecting the interests of small investors.
The opposite is actually true. Analysts represent firms that help
companies go public. They also receive lavish gifts from the companies
they cover. Ask any analyst who covers Starbucks whether they have
received free coffee, ice cream and other goodies from the Seattle
giant--with the gifts usually coming right around earnings time. And
that's just the tip of the iceberg. Some analysts also receive free
holidays in luxurious locales, with the companies they cover footing the
bill. As such, analysts have a built-in conflict of interest. That is
why you almost never see an analyst putting out a "sell" recommendation
on any firm, and certainly not for a company for which his or her
employer has done underwriting.
The industry says that if the public is allowed into company
presentations, executives will clam up, thwarting analysts' "dogged
pursuit of the facts." I have attended numerous analysts' conferences as
well as the so-called "break-out" sessions that follow. The "dogged
pursuit of the facts" is usually nothing more than a few pro forma
questions that anyone who had read the company's 10-K could pose.
The reality, of course, is that the financial services industry is
scared out of its wits. It has already seen brokerage fees wither as
more people gravitate to low-cost, online trading. It has seen people
abandon their high-fee mutual funds in favor of individual stock
picking. Now it faces the very real possibility that individual
investors will be privy to the same information as analysts. It sees the
end of the party coming. This is why it is taking the hard-line position
you now see.
Please do the right thing and let the sunshine in.
Sincerely,
Sean Mehegan
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:19 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please eliminate selective disclosure, as soon as possible. The
argument that ordinary investors cannot be trusted with upfront
information is repugnant.
Sincerely,
Christine Meredith
California
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0420b02w.htm
