Author: Kevin Miller at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 5:01 PM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
For the most part, I trade my own stocks. I believe that I should have the
same information at the same time as the Wall Street analysts. Many analysts
aren't very adept at analyzing the data, anyway.
Kevin Miller
Director of Engineering
CAIS Software Solutions
kevin@atcominfo.com
Author: "Carson Miller" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Equal access to financial information
------------------------------- Message Contents
Having read information regarding the proposed changes to rules related to
information disclosure by corporations I would like to voice my opinion to the
SEC.
It is long over due in the time of instant access to information in the world,
that the nefarious motives of the few Wall Street analysts be overruled, and
corporations be required to make financial information be made available to all
investors at the same time.
Why as a share holder in ABC, Inc. find out information regarding my investment
and therefore affecting my decision/planning process days or weeks after a
privileged few. What entitles them special royal status and privilege that
today's individual investor does not have access to?
The analysts are asking for in effect, an excise tariff on information. For
once information is no longer new, it's history in today's information age.
Get with it SEC and level the playing field now!
C. Jay Miller
Roswell, GA
Author: "Carrie Milne" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:28 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I have just read part of the text of the above-mentioned regulation at
http://www.fool.com/news/2000/foth000420.htm
If this is accurate, all I can say is that it is a pathetic attempt by the
SIA to guard their own interests, much like a dog will growl if another
attempts to take some of his food. I especially take umbrage with the idea
that I, as an individual investor, am not intelligent enough to analyze a
company's balance sheets and other information. Because I am also a
second-year medical student, I have extensive experience in analyzing all
sorts of bits and pieces of data that reflect the health of a human being,
and I can honestly say that analyzing company data to gauge a company's
health is not much different from what I do every day. Given that the basic
analytical skills are something that I have already acquired and am in the
process of honing as I progress through school, I fail to see how these
"professional analysts" are magically superior to me in either intelligence
or any other aspect of life, albeit they more than likely have a
better-looking bank account from their many years of fooling others into
paying them high salaries and fat bonuses. In fact, I would challenge these
analysts to use their skills in analyzing a human being's health, something
infinitely more complex than a few numbers on a balance sheet, and then
perhaps reconsider their position that individual investors are not
intelligent enough to analyze companies.
I urge you to not only disregard this SIA filing as a blatant attempt to
preserve the handsome way of life of a group of relatively unskilled
individuals but to also ensure that individual investors have the same
access to information as these louts enjoy.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carolina D. Milne, MSII
SUNY Upstate Medical University
Syracuse, NY
Author: Ajit Moonach at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 5:25 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think individual investors should get the information at the same time
the analysts get. Thanks.
Ajitpal S. Moonach
Author: "Bob" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "PROPOSED REGULATION FD: FILE NO. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have the right to make an intellegent decesion regarding market pricing of
stocks especially if it is my money to WIN or to LOSE. I need the SAME
information the so called analysts have available and at the same time from
reporting companys.
The alternative model of millions of individual investors pouring over
prospectuses and periodic reports is not highly theoretical and out of sync
with real world; just the opposite. We well may be more intelligent, more
educated, and certainly not as biased as the so called market analysts; AND
it certainly is NOT true that the analysts make the markets less volatile!
And I cetainly don't believe analysts spend much of their time ferreting out
negative informatrion about companies. They have companys to protect for
various reasons: they initiated the IPO: they have extensive stock holdings;
These analysts WORK for a living from their company, and will represent
their companys interests or be fired. I know this so why have this cover or
spin about this great service they provide?
Maintaining the current system is in the INTERESTS of Wall Street only,
certainly not mine. I sincerely hope the SEC will listen to we, the
investing people, putting our money to work in the GREATEST country on
earth.
Sincerely,
Dr. Robert A. Moorehead.
ramoore1@gte.net
Author: "Ron" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
I for one, would appreciate timely and accurate information from publicly
held companies. I do not generally give professional analysts much
credibility, as I fear they are controlled by the economics of special
interests.
Ron Morell
Author: "Ronald Morris" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:54 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe information should be available to the general investing public.
Ron Morris, Greenwood, IN
Author: "Robert Mosher" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:03 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to offer the following comments about the proposed regulation as an
individual investor who has come to a painful discovery that listening to
analyst tell me what needs to be done with my investing is the last thing I need
to be doing. Since shutting out all analyst information and doing my own
research, I have tripled my returns for the past two years.
My take of analyst that I see spurting their guff on TV is I wouldn't hire one
of these guys to run a snowball stand for me. It seems if these guys are right
1 out of a 100 times, they want you to forget about the 99 they are wrong. It
is likewise hard for the investor to forget about the 99 wrongs though because
those have hit their pocketbooks.
DO I think every individual deserves to hear the information first hand. If the
constitution is still working, then the answer certainly should be everyone is
entitled to equal treatment. In fact, I beleive the concept as currently in
practice of allowing analyst to hear information first hand definately allows
for the little man to be stomped in the market. That he is not, and he can
still outperform the analyst should be ample proof that the very existance of
analyst is a questionable need in todays world.
Analyst serve to lessen violtility. Where in the world could that come from
except the proctectional instincts of an analyst. Blackout the analyst and 80%
of the market violitility would disappear. Take the numbskulls who set $1000
price targets and glut over the first days of self fullfilling run up in the
stock. Or the well known ones who throw out lucky guesses and then are seen as
guru's because after a few lucky guesses they too live on self fullfilling
predicitions.
If analyst can do such a wonderful job as they have proposed, then we should do
away with the SEC and Q and K filings and replace it with specific filings with
analyst. No need to create all this unneccessary paperwork when it is not read
or used by the individual investor.
Please don't trample any longer the rights of the individual investor in the
name of an industry that ranks just below the garbage gathers. If one is a true
analyst, take the raw data, extract meaningful information/direction from it and
present not just your conclusions but back them up with substantial facts from
the data. If one desires to be a top notch analyst then do it and be first and
be right. Don't expect to be able to drive a modified and faster car with a one
lap head start to protect your incompentancy.
EQUAL AND FAIR ACCESS. HOW UNIQUELY AMERICAN!
Robert F. Mosher CPA
7124 Honeysuckle Drive
Biloxi, Ms 39532
Author: "Brian Movalli" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor, I am sending this email to show my support for the
Proposed Regulation FD rule. I believe that for the market to perform at its
best, all things related should be done in a fair and indiscriminate manner. I
absolutely disagree with those on Wall Street who feel that they must be privy
to important financial information before the masses. I find their reasoning
that the market would suffer if they did not first review and filter this
information to be disingenuous. It seems more likely that they are only trying
to maintain their current advantageous position.
The rule appears designed to provide everyone with the same information at the
same time. I cannot see any rational reason as to why this would be a problem.
The analysts will still be able to do all the analyzing they want after the
information is released. The only thing they will lose is early access to
information which is something no one deserves to have. This special access can
lead to corruption of the system which breeds skepticism in the public. I
believe many in the public are already concerned about the role of analysts in
the market and what their interests are. Passing this rule will curb some of the
public's fears and better serve the market as a whole.
Brian Movalli
Software Engineer
Orion Systems
Author: Jim Nellis at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:29 PM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
I absolutely favor this rule as an individual investor.
Jim Nellis
OEM Presales Engineer
Direct: 425-936-9397
Fax: 425-936-7329
Author: "Kyle O'Connor" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 5:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is unclear to me that enacting the captioned regulation will have a
negative effect upon the industry and upon my performance as an individual
investor. As I reflect upon the investment activities that I have
undertaken, for my own account, in the past few years I must say that the
performance of my independently selected investments appears to have been
better than those that my broker has advocated. In fact, I firmly believe
that my broker's sole purpose for calling me is to spout the advice of a
trusted analyst in hopes that I will deem that advice worthy of placing an
order through him (essentially a fee in exchange for the information).
That tirade aside, I believe that the current practice allows an analyst to
play a role which does more to install market volatility than stability. It
is presumed that the analyst's due diligence and fact gathering is done in
an unbiased and fair manner - allowing all salient facts to be disclosed to
the public in a succinct and understandable format within the context of the
industry which the company competes. However, what prevents that analyst,
or his/her company, from disclosing that information to significant clients
prior to the public at large (thereby justifying the value of a fee paid to
a particular trading house)? It seems to me nothing. Further, in this day
and age where the individual investor values the advice of a broker less and
less ( due to the power of information gathering that the internet has
bestowed), we must ask the question if the industry's opposition to this
proposed rule is based upon their conviction that its bad for investors or
bad for their future?
As a potential solution, why not require that if an analyst would like to
meet with a corporation and conduct and in-depth interview a transcription
of that interview, together with any informational materials handed out
during the same, must be transmitted to the SEC and posted for review to the
public on the internet by the company granting the interview.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Kyle O'Connor
1222 Taylor Avenue North
Seattle, WA. 98109
Author: Jeff Olfert at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 5:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-9
Since information and timing are key to making good investments, I believe
that all investors should receive equal information at the same time. Do
not give investment information to a select group. Give it to all at the
same time!
Jeff Olfert
Software Engineer
Author: "Abdulla" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I favor an open, fair distribution of marketing information. Sooner the better.
Errol Olson
Box 1764
Round Rock, TX 78681
e-Mail: ErrolTy@Yahoo.Com
Author: "O'MALLEY/ROTH" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to take this opportunity to express my endorsement of the adoption
of the above proposal. The securities industry would have us believe that their
analysts alone are able to research and interpret information regarding a
companies past and future performance. I would suggest otherwise: as noted in a
recent article in the Wall Street Journal 4/14/00 which dealt with Conseco and
one analyst who dared question the companies prospects. His treatment by the
management of Conseco was hostile and his employer, a brokerage company, was
pressured to reign him in. Brokerage houses by their very nature have a massive
potential for conflict of interest. On one hand they report and interpret a
companies prospects while on the other hand they court that same company for
business.
Witness the amount of sell recommendations as opposed to buy recommendations by
brokerage houses. Are there really that many great public companies available
to invest in. I don't think so. Again as noted in the Wall Street Journal
article, many analysts choose not to issue a sell recommendation but to down
grade a stock to a mere hold. If they can't say what they mean in these
circumstances, why should we, the investing public, believe that they can be
honest and fair when they interpret events and prospects in our publicly traded
companies?
Very truly yours
Alan O'Malley
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
If you are the guardians of the public interest then you will pass this rule!
I can assure you that there are plenty of "experts" willing to interpret the
comments/statements made by American Corporations and these experts
dont need "private" information!
Regards,
Pete Orzech
porzech@mac.com
Author: Otis at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I belive that all information should be shared with the public as well
the analyst. We are entering a new era in which the general public is
more informed about financial matters. I for anything that improves
the level of information and communication that reaches the general
public. In addition, I think it is time we break down the barriers that
allow Wall Street insiders to have an inside edge over the common
investor. Thanks
Author: William Overholt at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC,
I support rule "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99". As an
individual investor, I don't see any reason why Wall Street analysts should
be treated any differently than me when it comes to dissemination of
corporate information.
Thank you,
William L. Overholt
California
Author: FRED PARK at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:31 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "proposed regulation fd: file no. s7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear policy makers,
clearly any restriction on the flow of information to the public is
regressive in spirit and sad in action. In the case of the new investor class it
will not work anyway. In terms of publically owned companies the idea is by
definition wrong. At any rate its too late. Try cleaning up old regs not
creating new ones.
Author: Milt Parker at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: FILE No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
Milton L. Parker
Author: "Rudy Patton" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
If we are to make informed decisions, we need as much information as
possible. We should have the information that they are giving to a select
group that benefits by keeping us ignorant. Why should the SEC approve a
rule that is not in the interest of the average investor?
Sincerely,
Rudy Patton
in Pacific Grove, CA
Thursday, April 20, 2000 5:58 PM
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation fd:file no. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am currently an individual investor and I wholeheartedly support this
change. I don't need Wall St. analyst working as a go between for me and
potential companies to invest in. Don't continue to allow analyst to control
what goes on in the market place by providing them with preferential
treatment over individual investors. Thanks.
Keith Peel Keithpeel@aol.com
Author: "J. Christopher Perdue" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
This proposed rule (Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99) is an outstanding
one for individual investors.
I have taken the time to read the 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 ("SIA"). In reading this document it becomes
obvious why the SIA is the principal lobbying outfit for the full-service
brokerages.
A number of thoughts came to my mind as I read the documents:
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 think not. I urge you to do the right thing, and approve this rule so that the
public can make more informed decisions with their finances.
Sincerely,
Christopher Perdue
1509 Carmel Road
Charlotte, NC 28226
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I firmly believe that to keep the markets honest all information should be
disseminated at the same time to the public. Analysts should not have access
to confidential information before the public gets access. The U.S.
government has always based its principle on fair and open access to the
public, and that means all the public, not just a chosen few.
Keep the markets open and honest.
William E. Perry
Attorney
Washington, D.C.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Mr. Levitt,
The SIA in trying to justify it's position against proposed Regulation FD
clearly insults the intelligence of every individual investor in the nation.
This is really a cut and dry issue. How much more difficult can the concept of
fairness be? There is no legitimate reason that institutional analysts should
have access to ANY material data from a company in advance of it's general
release to the public. It is laughable that they claim they are attempting to
protect individual investors against themselves. C'mon guys, do the right thing.
It just isn't fair to let these guys continue to have advance info on companies.
There is absolutely no reason why these people should continue to be able to
sell or buy stocks in advance of general news releases simply because they think
they have the right to come first. Pass Regulation FD and restore some faith in
common sense.
Robet Pistey M.D.
Author: Jake Poinier at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 5:24 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam:
As an individual investor, I applaud the proposed requirement of Fair
Disclosure of material corporate information.
Similarly, I must state my objection to the SIA public statement against it,
and the reasoning that analysts somehow create market stability. I think
recent market gyrations suggest strongly otherwise.
Please do the right thing and give more information, to more people, more
often.
Thank you,
Jake Poinier
Phoenix AZ
Author: "Price; Mark J." at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:25 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The proposed rule is an outstanding one for individual investors and I fully
support it.
Mark James Price MCSD MCT
Desktop Applications Developer
Pillsbury Madison & Sutro LLP
(415) 983-6428
===============================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: E-mail may contain confidential information that is
legally privileged. Do not read this e-mail if you are not the intended
recipient.
This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages
attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it
to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this
transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in
error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to
postmaster@pillsburylaw.com or by telephone at (800) 477-0770, extension 4860
and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or
saving in any manner. Thank you.
For more information about Pillsbury Madison & Sutro LLP, please visit our
website at http://www.pillsburylaw.com
===============================================================================
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 5:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
Please do not be fooled by the SIA and deny passing the proposed regulation
FD No. S7-31-99. For the broker/analyst industry to take the stance that
they are protecting the public from ourselves is utterly ridiculous. They
are only trying to hold onto to their "monopoly" of information and then
charge the said public for that "public" information. If a company is
"public", then make it just that and require companies, among other things,
to not be selective in who sees their "public" information.
One more note, the SIA would have you believe that analysts keep the market
less volatile. Well first of all, by the analysts hoarding the
information, the markets are most likely MORE volatile due to the unknown.
Secondly, to state that the public can not handle certain information is
also a misnomer. By making sure the public gets accurate information
(negative or otherwise) will only make companies and their employees more
accountable. Gee, what a concept!
Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue.
Will Rehbaum
Financial Analyst
Canon Computer Systems, Inc.
Author: "Harald Reksten" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe in fair and full disclosure of company information to all investors.
For too long the "so called" analysts have had access to information that the
individual investor does not have access. I certainly do not want company
information filtered through "analysts". Please accept the new regulations.
Thank you.
Harald Reksten
35 Winding Hill Drive
Hockessin, DE 19707
"A concerned small investor"
Author: Theresa Riccardo at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the passing of this regulation.
Theresa Riccardo
Author: "Norm Rittenhouse" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:04 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am IN FAVOR of all investors having access to the same information as the
analysts.
Better informed investors make for more stable, healthier, markets.
The recent market crash is amble evidence of uninformed, follow the analysts
trading.
To suppose that we need those self serving analysts censoring our news is
ludicrous.
Norman Rittenhouse
Fairbury, IL 61739
Author: "Mike Robey" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It Should Concern:
First let me say that I support individual investors being provided with all
information released by a company. It is profits and unfair opportunity the SIA
supports rather than any other statement that they make. If, as an individual
investor, I need an analyst opinion I will seek it. If not--contrary to their
implied statements--I will make my own decisions, thank you. I feel that not
disclosing information to the pubic because of an implied ignorance of the
public is arrogant and condescending. I also thought that there were insider
trading rules that the SEC is supposed to enforce. Is not limiting information
to the so called elite not insider trading? To you the SEC I say to check these
analysts historical accuracy. I believe that disclosing information to all, at
the same time, would not make a more volatile market but, a more stable one. We
would not have to react to their so called "expert opinions". We could
interpret the information, or learn how to. Please let them (SIA) know that the
"times are a changin". Their protected world is being invaded by a smarter and
better informed public, and this is good.
Sincerely,
Mike Robey
Author: "Teri Rogers" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: citizen testimony
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am an investor. Have been for some time. Finding information about
investments is a task I enjoy. Good information is hard to get, and I have to
work hard digesting SEC filings, prospectuses, financial press, etc. Same as
everybody else, almost.
I have a full service broker that charges 40 times what I pay to an online
account for a trade. I use the full service guy on occasion, because he seems
to have 'information' that I am unable to get. He has analysts that work for
his firm that have the privilege of speaking directly to the management of many
firms. They do not pay for this 'first' information but they do charge for it.
I believe that the information can have the potential of being held, or
modified, depending on the nature of the stock holdings of the employer of the
analyst.
Level playing field? That is a joke. Stocks move five days prior to any 'after
the close' announcement. The people with access to information make money off
the people who don't. They buy the stock first (or sell it, or short it), then
inform the general public, or clients ( whom they charge). Giving equal access
to information is only fair. If equal access to information about public
companies is determined to not be in the publics best interest then you simply
perpetuate the 'who's your buddy' system we currently have. If it doesn't make
a difference to the markets, then let the analysts go in last. It shouldn't
make a difference. I think a lot of people are being taken advantage of in this
current system.
John Rogers
Author: David Rohde at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:56 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Full disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
For what it's worth I am adding my opinion to the mix. There
is no doubt that there are some investors who would
misinterpret the data given them and make mistakes with their
investments. There is also no doubt that some citizens
misinterpret the facts and make poor decisions on election
day. Neither of these however are reasons to withhold
information from citizens in a free society. Information is
power and any time that much power is concentrated a real
danger persists that some people will abuse that power. That
reason is the reason the First Ammendment exist that way they
could make sound decisions in their best interest based on
fact not the opinion of the the learned. The free enterprise
system is the root of true freedom in any society and that
freedom is threatened when a small group of people exercise
control over information used to make economic decisions. For
these reasons please rule in favor of full disclosure.
Thank You
David Rohde
Author: Eric Rohrbach at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: rohrbae@yahoo.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it concerns,
I believe that all fair disclosure of information by
publicly traded companies, Proposed Regulation FD:
File No. S7-31-99, should be disseminated to the
public at the same time it is to the "Wall Street
Analyst". Does the government represent groups or the
public? I believe the only interest that Wall Street
has by lobbying to keep this information to themselves
before it goes to the public is for there own
financial gains. Most individual investors understand
the market as well as these "Wall Street Analysts".
To equal the playing ground make this information
accessible to all at the same time.
Regards,
Eric Rohrbach
170 Bascom Rd.
Lebanon, CT 06249
Author: Lee Rombough at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 4:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have managed my own retirement funds for the past decade ana have done
quite well. The interesting point is that the shares that have performed
the best have been those that I have found and researched. The ones that
are doing poorly right now are those that my broker advised me to buy
based upon his company's research.
I am not a genius nro do I have the skills that some others do, but I
find out the downside points much bettrer than what I get from
professional investment counsulors.
I would appreciate being able to have the same information that is
available to the brokerage houses. I have yet to find anyone who takes
the same amount of interest in my success than I do.
I will appeciate your votes for this proposal.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: (no subject)
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the proposed rule.
Author: Richard Sayer 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
I have reviewed 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 ("SIA") and cannot believe the arrogance and
self interest presented there. The SIA argues that individual investors are
not intelligent enough to make their own decisions about the value of
securities and need Wall Street's analysts to hear and interpret important
information first. Through that method, the SIA argues, individual investors
are protected from their own ignorance and emotion.
I am an individual investor and make all my own investing decisions. I do
not look at Wall Street Analysts reports at all. In fact, I am very upset
to see analysts making earnings predictions, have it broadcast, seeing the
price of a stock run up and then later drop. In fact, I suspect the
information provided to the analysts allow them to profit at the expense of
the individual investor.
I encourage you to "level the playing field" and help eliminate the current
abuses and inequities in the system.
Thank you,
Richard L. Sayer
10935 Tulip Pl. NW
Silverdale, WA 98383
Email rlsayer@silverlink.net
Author: "Richard T. Schachner" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Fair Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the Fair and Full disclosure rule now under consideration.
Sincerely
Richard T Schachner
10929 Loudoun Lane
Charlotte, N.C. 28262
Rschachner@carolina.rr.com
Author: "wschafer" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:26 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: PROPOSED REG FD: FILE NO. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen:
I find it incredibly unjust that " analysts" are privy to public company
information before all stock holders and citizens have access to it. The
argument that we need their ability to analyze the information is facetious.
If one wishes they may use a brokers advice but if he prefers not to he
should not be at a disadvantage by receiving such information after others
who may use it to there gain.
Please see that this situation is corrected.
Sincerely yours,
Walter J. Schafer
6483 Eastpointe Pines Street
Palm beach Gardens, Fl. 33418
wschafer@adelphia.net
Author: Linda Schoenfeld at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No.
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please
Lets have fair disclosure for all parties, analysts and the INTERESTED
PUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anything less is criminal.
Thank you
L Schoenfeld
Nashville, Tn
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen,
It is time to level the playing field. Let's no longer punish or
disadvantage individual investors who do their own analysis. It is the
height of arrogance and condescension to hold that there should be a select
few to interpret financial news.
Sincerely,
Doug Schongalla
Author: "Schroeder; Ian E" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:04 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a small individual investor, I have only about $30,000 in individual stocks.
My retirement savings are in managed funds. I try to keep investment fees to a
minimum, which means that I use an on-line discount broker. I don't spend money
on the reports that analysts generate. I don't dispute the fact that investors
willing to spend the money should be able to purchase analysts' services.
However, these services should consist of organizing, interpreting, and
presenting data that is available to all investors. I shouldn't have to
purchase the raw information provided by a corporation to an analyst, however, I
am willing to pay the cost of publication. For example, even though the news is
free, I still have to pay for a newspaper. In the digital world, I may have to
pay a fee to be hooked up to the internet, or have a subscription to an on-line
newspaper, but I don't like having to pay $20 to purchase a report where an
analyst reveals information that is new to the publ!
!
ic. The analysts' skill in interpreting information provided by management is
theirs to sell. The information itself is public, and not for sale. All
statements made by a corporation's mangement,when made to a member of the
investment community, should be readily available to the investing public for a
fee no greater than the cost of disseminating those statements. I shouldn't
have to purchase the analysts' product to have access to "public" information.
Sincerely,
Ian Schroeder
jannee@drizzle.com
Author: Faith Sheridan at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File#57.31.99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am opposed to this regulation.
Faith Sheridan, FSID
Author: "Ric Shumway" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I feel very strongly that the following rule is the only fair way for company
information to be disseminated. Please make sure it passes.
"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 the
public at large."
Sincerely,
Ric Shumway
8757 Dove Tree Lane
Elk Grove, CA 95758-6791
916.313.3535
Author: "Michael D. Simmons" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:15 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
This regulation should pass!
Michael D. Simmons
Individual Investor
Author: "Bob Slater" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Folks,
I am a small, individual investor. I am STRONGLY IN SUPPORT of your proposed
ruling to "level the investing playing field."
Please follow through with all gusto. Your efforts to clearly put the ability
to assess public entities in the hands of those making the investments are sound
and reasonable. They appeal to all levels of logic.
Kudos, and good luck.
Bob Slater
Author: larry slobodzian 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
To whom it may concern:
I am an average, small time investor. I use investing to finance
my retirement, my children's education, and try to increase my net worth
as much as possible. I do not participate in mutual funds. I do not have
a personal broker. I do my own research, and use a deep discount broker
to make stock trades. I am a "Motley Fool". I do not trust industry
analysts or brokers to make my decisions or offer advice because they
are biased. They make their money on how many trades I make, not how
well I profit. Without any formal training or certification, I return
over 35% per year on my money.
The more accurate, unbiased information I have available to me,
the better financial decisions I can make. That is why I support the
proposed measure that will force public companies to reveal publicly
what they have been releasing privately to analysts. These analysts,
through the SIA, have said that if this occurs, the markets will be more
volatile. I say that if the measure is not approved, they will maintain
their power to influence market decisions by "translating" their inside
information to the rest of us.
Our country was founded on the belief that all people have the
ability to make their own decisions, and that the government should not
allow anything to stand in their way. This proposed regulation will make
that possible, by treating all investors the same, rather than giving
special treatment to the Analysts/Insiders.
The SIA's opposition to this regulation is based on the fact that
their jobs will be in jeopardy, because we will not need them as much if
we have the same access to information. Please make the decision on the
side of the people, not the Wall Street insiders. Pass Proposed
Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
Thank You,
Larry Slobodzian
Senior Network Operations Specialist
Sprint BTSD
913-534-7676
Author: John Lleweilun Smith at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir/Madam,
I just wish to say that I hope this goes through. Institutional investors
should not be privy to information that we small investors are not.
Lleweilun Smith
Rice University
Author: "Cheri Smith" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:15 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject:
------------------------------- Message Contents
TO BIG GOV/BIG BUSINESS
FD: File No. S7-31-99
I do not need you making my financial decisions for me, thank you!!! In fact I
would appreciate it if you would stay out of my business. I believe the Sec
ruling on needing analysts involved in the market, is for one interest and one
interest only, the best interest for the big guys! Anaylsts drive the market
to hugh swing and all of this is to set the stage for their pocket book. Do not
think for a minute that this game fools the public at large. We know very well
what is going on. WE DO NOT NEED THE ANALYSTS MAKING OUR CALLS FOR US. THANK
YOU
Cheri Smith
r-cs@juno.com
Author: "Jason Smith" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
First, let me tell you about myself. I am a computer programmer with a
background in electronic design. I use the internet heavily to gather
information on companies, information that was once very difficult to get
unless you were a broker. I invest by researching companies and then buying
and holding the best ones I can find. I do not "day trade". I do not own a
single high-flying internet bubble stock. I used to put everything I
invested in mutual funds, but since I started investing in individual
companies, I have outperformed my old investments by a large margin. I did
this without a broker and without the advice of the professional analysts.
My ability to invest successfully depends on my access to relevant, timely
information, and the absence of insider information.
This proposed regulation is ridiculous. INFORMATION IS POWER, and this is a
last ditch effort to take away some of my power to make my own decisions. I
don't want or need a paid analyst to read the news to me simply because I am
not in the "inner circle" of Wall Street. This proposed regulation is
inherently unfair to individual investors.
From the SIA filing: "It hardly needs saying that analysts perform a
necessary and very valuable function in the U.S. capital market."
So why do they need a competitive advantage, against me, mandated and
endorsed by the government? If they added so much value, I'd use them. I
don't use them because I do not believe they give me any advantage in my
investment decisions. They know I am out here, and they know there are
millions of other people like me, people who know that analysts don't really
know any more than we are capable of learning through due dilligence and
research.
Also: "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."
I work for a living. I pay taxes, I own my own home, and I have a Masters
Degree. I do all my own research. I have a cat and a lawn. I am in the
real world. I make decisions concerning my own money every day that have
nothing to do with the stock market. I can make decisions for myself as to
what companies to invest in.
Also, analysts use the same information I have. They use balance sheets and
cash-flow statements. They use the news they read. Many of them do not
understand the technologies they claim to analyze - they are business
majors. They never studied theoretical physics or electronics theory, and
many have little or no interest in science. What qualifies them to filter
information to me?
Also: "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."
This only undermines the current system of insider information. Leveling
the playing field is a good idea. Otherwise, insider information would be
illegal. Wait a minute ... it IS illegal!
Also: "But it is also the few analysts operating independently of, and in
competition with, each other that can relentlessly pursue an independent
line of inquiry and ferret out negative information that management would
rather not disclose or would prefer to disclose at a time of its choosing
and with its own spin. They can glean information from changes in the level
of confidence (sometimes evidenced in subtle ways such as changes in choice
of words or tone of voice) over a series of telephone conversations or
face-to-face meetings. They can test their hypotheses by comparing
information about different issuers in the same industry or sector."
That is a long one, but the guy who wrote this stuff was pretty wordy. This
is just like when I listen to a conference call over the internet and then
add my questions by e-mail or chat room. This is a very weak argument. It
is an argument to exclude the general public from information that should be
available to everyone on an equal basis.
If an analyst has negative information about a company, he can advise his
friends to quickly sell. They have an advantage over everyone else. The
analyst would not be legally obligated to give equal consideration to
everyone, and that is insider information.
"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?"
We have freedom of the press to take care of asking the hard questions in a
public forum.
That is not what this is all about. These guys want to be able to have
private meetings with company officials where they can learn non-public
information ... without tipping off the general populace. This would allow
them to act as "insiders," buying before the big announcement and selling
before the big disappointment.
This would encourage company officials to deliberately withhold information
from the public until "favored" analysts had a chance to be briefed.
It would also lead to a huge information gap in the market place. The
"haves" would be a step ahead of the market at every turn. The "have-nots"
would be forced to buy information from the "haves" or face the very real
possibility of losing everything on what might have otherwise been a sound
investment strategy.
This is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is NOT in my best interest to be
legally kept in the dark for my own good. I am an adult, and I can make my
own investment decisions. It is not good for the market to show favoritism
to a select few individuals. It would allow market manipulation similar in
scale to that which occurred in the late 1920's, in my opinion. More
subtle, yes, but it is still large scale market manipulation any way you
look at it.
"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...."
No. Let the news media handle the tough questions. Let the analysts read
the same news I read. Don't give the analysts the upper hand against
everyone else, because they WILL USE IT, and millions of men and women like
myself will suffer for it.
Thank you.
Jason Spencer Smith
Consultant
Creative Concepts Corporation
Voice: 303-448-0303 x237
Fax: 303-448-0205
Web: www.creativecorp.com
Email: jason@creativecorp.com
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0420b03w.htm
