Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation Fd file S7 31 99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Investors need to know the information. WE are smart enough and do not need
analysts to interpret the data.
Please change the rules.
Thank you,
M Casas
Author: "Chris; Carey and Caleb Crabbs" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Yes, this should be public information. Sec make the market a level playing
field.
Chris, Carey & Caleb Crabbs
CCrabbs@Interserv.COM
AOL instant Messenger: SeaCrabbs
http://ccrabbs.home.interserv.com/
Dance as if no one were watching,
Sing as if no one were listening
And live every day as if it were your last.
Old Irish Saying
Author: "Sue Claxton" 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
Sirs:
Along with many millions of other American investors who are not part of the
stock market scene, I am intelligent enough to make my own decisions. I know
what I like and don't like, how to research, how to appropriately spend and
invest my money. Please allow me to make my choices by myself, consulting with
so-called 'authorities' when I chose, not because they are the only way. I am
able to determine what is negative information and what has negative effects on
me, my children and my world. I can determine what are my needs better than any
one else.
Allow me the opportunity to make mistakes. My portfolio track record certainly
hasn't experienced the WILD ride of the recent market, because I made solid,
competent, well-researched decisions before I spend my hard earned money. My
broker feels quite a bit more free to risk my money than I do!!!
Sincerely,
Sue Claxton
Author: "Jim & Dorthey Collard" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:09 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 have read that the SIC commented that "analysts perform a necessary and
valuable
function in the U.S. capital markets." The SIC implies...no, it states,
that in order to
perform this function they need better information than the participants in
the market.
This position is the height of arrogance and assumes that only these
"analysts" are
qualified to evaluate the performance of publicly traded companies. The
thousands
of successful individual investors and serious members of the National
Association of
Investors Corp. in this country would differ with this characterization.
The SIC also suggests that the idea 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." The members of the SIC have been, in my
opinion, out
of sync with the real world for the past 10 years (at least) if they cannot
fathom
individual investors having the intelligence or the ambition to study
company results
on their own to reach investment decisions. Surely they haven't missed the
explosive
growth of on-line investing--individual investors making their own
decisions--going
on right under their noses?
Clearly, the proposed Regulation FD that would, among other things,
discontinue the
practice of companies discreetly disclosing important information to Wall
Street
analysts without also making that information available to the public. This
is a good
rule and I encourage the SEC to adopt it.
Best Regards,
James Collard
9370 Northland Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
collards@ptialaska.net
Author: "Kevin Collins" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please give the small individual investor more credit for brains than the
Securities Industry Association apparently wants to.
Thank you.
Kevin Collins
Small Individual Investor
Rough and Ready, CA
Author: "Robert J. Van Compernolle" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Companies giving information to analysts before making same public is a
violation of the ideas of "insider trading" and "Full Disclosure."
Now and Forever,
Bob
Author: "Bill Cormier" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:15 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
This rule SHOULD be the law of the land. If the company is public then
require that they make info known to all interested parties at the same
time.
William G. Cormier
individual investor
Author: "chuck" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:15 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe in the free flow of information. I'm fully capable of make my own
decisions. I can read and think rationally. This is a no brainer, people! I
urge you to adopt Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
Thank you,
Charles P. Courtier
Author: "Cris Cusack" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
I believe that the information that is currently going only to the select few
self-styled Oracles of Wall Street MUST be made public.
Yes, the analysts in question do a good job of interpreting the information. But
let me try my hand at it. It's my right, as it's my money. Analysts can also be
very biased, because let's face it. They work for brokerages and brokerages very
much need to stay "on the fence." Since I personally hold out no hope of doing a
stock underwriting, I have no qualms about making decisions against investing in
a company when I see information that leads me to this judgement. The same
cannot be said for analysts working for brokerages.
Thank you,
--Cris Cusack
Private Citizen and small-time investor
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an investor, I feel it is my right, not a privelege of the few, to have
fair disclosure of company information.
Denise D'Addario
Harrisburg, PA
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The proposed regulation is a very good idea. More information to the public
can do nothing but good. Hoarding information on Wall Street is a quest for
inefficient job security for analysts.
Jeffrey H. Davis
Albuquerque, NM
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:25 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs/Madaam:
How long can we continue to let these large financial services firms operate
with unfair business advantages over the individual investor. Isn't it enough
that these companies have the capital and supposed expertise to ferret out
pertinent information from that which is already available in the marketplace.
I happen to believe that in a free market competition only allows those firms
to survive that add true value and by which necessitate their very existence.
Getting privilege information before the marketplace or having an early look
doesn't insure against volatility in the marketplace rather it insures profits
for those fortunate to be in the loop. I will be extremely disappointed if
the deep pockets of the "Wall Street Fat Cats" slant your judgment and
persuade you from doing what is right not only for the individual investor but
also for protecting United States greatest intangible asset, the American
Way."
Sincerely,
Stephen Denaro
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File Nr s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
My assessment as an individual investor questions how a fair system can allow
special information to be provided to selected analysts and think it is good
for the system. It is not unlike insider trading.
Ken Digre
Author: Andy Dorsey at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:03 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99" i
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
I support your efforts to improve the flow of information to investors
by forcing companies to broadly disclose information they give to
analysts. Preferential sharing of information with analysts is not much
different than insider trading -- it gives leverage and money making
opportunities to a few large brokerage firms. That is especially
troublesome since those same firms rarely are likely to be objective
since they depend on companies they "analyze" for their underwriting and
trading business.
Creating more broad distribution of information would allow more truly
objective analyses of individual company performance to come forward and
would likely improve the market by decreasing volatility, if only
slightly. Right now, the comments of a few highly placed analysts
intermittently cause runs to or from certain stocks.
Thank you.
Andrew R. Dorsey
Author: "Don Downing" 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
Don Downing
don-downing@telcomplus.net
Naturally Wall Street would oppose a level playing field. I however feel
they are looking out for their own interest in that oppposition. While I
may not have the information in my head, I know where to get it. The
publicly traded compnies should be able to give me the information at the
same time Wall Street gets it.
Thank you
Author: mark drumm at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Level the playing field, all investors must have equal access to data
Mark Drumm
Individual investor
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:25 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Poposed Regulation FD: File #S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sir,
Full disclosure to all parties, including individual investors, of pertinent
information would reflect the principles of our current society of individual
responsibility. Analysts have not been a stabilizing influence in the recent
market volatility. They routinely follow a pack mentality and, in the period
from last November, have routinely raised 'target prices' to levels that defy
'old economy' rationality. They helped 'goose' the market to an
unsustainable level.
To say these individuals, and the companies they represent, are more
intelligent or cause less volatility in the marketplace flies in the face of
reason and fact.
Mike Eagan
Author: "Bill Easton" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:06 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 rule to allow equal access to company
information for all investors.
The Securities Industries Association's claim that only they as "professionals"
are able to interpret financial information for the rest of us is the height of
arrogance.
Our free market in securities, and investors' trust in it, are founded on equal
information. Allowing the privileged few to have first access to information,
for their own profit or that of select customers, undermines that market freedom
and that trust.
Please adopt the proposed rule.
Yours very truly,
William B. Easton
Author: Randy Ellingson at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:31 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Madam or Sir-
Regarding the rule proposed by the SEC, called "Proposed Regulation FD":
"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. It's a pretty commonsense rule in my opinion, one that many
investors might logically assume must already be the law of the land, but
unfortunately isn't."
I agree with the above quotation, that this *should* be the law when it comes to
dissemination of any and all material information which may be useful to
investors in evaluation of the possible purchase and/or sale of an equity. I
fully expect that as a part owner of any company in which I own shares of common
stock, I ought to be as informed as any analyst or institutional investor
regarding the release of news and information. Fortunately, the Internet
provides a rather accessible vehicle with which to make available material
information.
For analsyst to argue that they should interpret and assess the information
prior to its release to the general public is presumptuous that, for example, I
cannot properly understand the material. In fact, the truth is that the
individual investor can best decide whether or not to pay attention to newly
released information, and should be free to determine its significance for
his/herself. The services provided by analysts, who argue in favor of what is
essentially exclusive access to ceryain information, could still be properly
provided while also disseminating the information to the general public.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Randy Ellingson
individual investor
Author: "dke" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:35 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing your agency and asking for the complete full disclosure of
financial informations to the "working class" investors, and not just to Wall
Street type analysts. Thank you, Derroll Ellis, a small individual investor.
Author: Barry 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
Utter crap. Spoon-fed opinions from analysts are of little value if
there is no background upon which to compare them to.
"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"
Where is this coming from? Speculation? This regulation decides what's
best for us, the investors, from an analysts point of view, not from one
of what's best for the investor, the publicly traded companies, or even
the economy.
Barry Enderwick
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:10 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The restriction of information to a limited number of so called "analysts" is
provides them the opportunity to channel information to clients of their
company in advance of that same information becoming available to smaller
investors. This grossly unfair situation undoubtedly allows these selected
clients to get into our out of a stock ahead of those of us who are obliged
to await their release of this information to the remainder of the investor
population. Just another way to help the rich get richer at the expense of
the rest of us.
In addition, the position of assuming that those of us who make individual
investment decisions are too stupid to be allowed access to all relevant
information is insulting. Many of us have done quite well over the years in
spite of their "expert" opinions!!!
Eugene L. Engel
Author: "John Esemuede" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:26 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC:
I am in full support of the "Proposed Regulation FD: File No.S7-31-99"- The
rule (Proposed Regulation FD) requiring, among other things, that companies
no longer engage in the practice of discreetly disclosing important
information to Wall Street analysts without also giving that information to
the public at large. The Securities Industry Association ("SIA") opposition
to the rule is nothing short of the obvious. The SIA is seeking to protect
its self interests- never mind the public. I am of the opinion, that many
analysts (if not most) contribute to the huge volatility in the stock market.
It is not uncommon for analysts to keep silent about a company when they
"discover" great news/events. Often, the stock price will fall and the
unsuspecting retail investor sells out to preserve her capital/ minimize her
loss. All the while, the analysts and institutional investors are filling
their coffers. Suddenly, the stock makes a "spectacular come back" (the
cycle is often repeated 2 to 4 times). The analysts then emerge in their
"glory" and announce a strong buy recommendation to the rest of the world.
The reverse is also true when analysts "discover" negative information.
They (the analysts) would shamelessly maintain their strong buy
recommendations and then follow with a downgrade only after they have
unloaded their shares.
By requiring 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 will democratize the information
sharing process. The small investor will have an opportunity (if she
chooses) to act on the information presented. In fact, I think most retail
investors are baffled that this isn't already the law. Yes, there are some
who would want the analysts interpretation. Nonetheless, there are countless
others (small investors) who are capable and willing to interpret the
information for themselves. To suggest that all retail investors would be
helpless without the analysts is nothing short of arrogance and a sign of
desperation on the part of the SIA. The rule (Proposed Regulation FD)
requiring, 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 is
similar to the rules preventing trading on inside information, in my
opinion. If the rules preventing trading on inside information makes sense,
so does the "Proposed Regulation FD: File No.S7-31-99"
Sincerely,
John E.
Author: "Joyce Faulds" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Why shouldn't I be informed? I do research and at times make better decisions
that my broker. I should have all available information. This isn't 1940 this
is 2000. If all information were available then everyone could make informed
decisions and just maybe the markets wouldn't be as volatile. Selective
disclosure isn't a fair and level playing field.
J. Faulds
2507 Meridian Ave.
Cocoa, Fl 32922
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir/Madam: I strongly believe that all investors should have equal
access to information regarding companies. All Americans should have the
right to choose their investment based on a fair distribution of information.
Thank you, Larry Fennell
Author: "Jeffrey Fisher" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective disclosure does a great deal of harm to the unbiased dissemination
about relevant company information.
Analysts who participate in such releases are subject to a conflict of
interest in that companies might decline to disclose to certain analysts who
not favorably report on the company.
Requiring public disclosure not only protects the interests of shareholders
who choose not to follow analysts, it protects those who do by making thier
analysts more independent.
J. Fisher
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I want the same access to information as the big investors, Please!
Margaret Fisher
1311 Prince Edward Street
Fredericksburg, VA 22401
Author: Paul Franceus at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs-
As an individual investor, I think it's criminal that a small group of
analysts get privileged access to company information. As a shareholder in
several companies, I feel that I should have equal access to the same
information so that I can make my own interpretation of the information
without having it filtered through some analyst, who may have another agenda
besides fair and full disclosure.
I don't believe that this will cause market volatility. To the contrary. How
often does a stock move stongly right before some important piece of
information comes out. It's pretty obvious that someone besides the
individual investor has access to the information. This leads to speculation
and people trading stocks based on the stock's movement, with the assumption
of some big piece of news. Thus, investors trade on little or no information
or at best rumors. This cannot be healthy for the overall market.
I am also insulted that the Wall Street establishment does not believe that
I am qualified to analyze this information myself. I am a buy-and-hold
investor, and I have done quite well over these last few years by finding
good companies, often when the analysts are nearly unanimously against a
company, and holding on to them. I am not a day trader, but an investor who
has learned to read a balance sheet and understand something about business,
both by investing in several and frankly, working for one.
Given the nature of information distribution, it is now feasible for a
company to release information to analysts as well as the "average"
shareholder at the same time. Some of the companies I invest in, like
Checkfree corporation, open their conference calls live to all investors as
well as the analysts. I am proud that some companies are heading in the
right direction. Please encourage all of them to do the same.
Thank you,
Paul Franceus
Author: "Funasaki; Eric K" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 4:49 PM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I definitely support the subject proposed legislation.
Respectfully,
E. Funasaki, P.E.
Structural Engineer
Author: Daniel Gantenbein at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
There definitely is something I wish to be protected against: the self
serving pronouncements of analysts and the vested interests of the
financial service industry, particularly the full service brokerages. The
privilege of timely information and fact belongs to all participants in
the market.
Guidance? Significance? Let facts and information guide my judgment
and let me thereafter consider whether and/or who's interpretations I
value. Just as I will bear the consequences of my decision by myself.
"It hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary and very
valuable function in the U.S. capital market." Right, and it also hardly
needs to be pointed out that the temptation to profit or serve interests
other then the public at large diminishes greatly with just and equal
access to all pertinent information for all.
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 are insulting the informed thoughtful
retail investor.
Thank you, Daniel Gantenbein
218 Commissioners Pike
Woodstown, NJ 08098 USA
e-mail: dmg@delanet.com Tel/Fax: 1-856-769-4913
Author: Tom Gendrachi at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the regulation. I find the analysts' claim that they are
"protecting" the public is a ploy to protect their jobs. I feel I am entitled
to that information. I cannot understand why this regulation wasn't enacted a
long time ago. Please pass the regulation. Thank you.
Tom Gendrachi
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:36 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Equal Information to individual investors
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom it may concern:
i am a novice. I have never invested in stocks because I realize that I need
to understand compounding of interest, my level of risk tollerance, how to
read a prospectus, etc. I am currently learning these things and feel
confident in the near future i will be able to do my own investing. I see
everything right about being given equal access to vital information.
Gloria
Author: "Your Name" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Analysts perform the same function as any other front and center entertainer.
There is no logical reason for them to be allowed better and earlier information
than those of us who actually own the companies in the form of stock.
There are now millions of individual investors researching the fundamental
character of businesses before we buy. The information available through
personal research is limited when those who are trying to protect turf for
profit are given the free hand to parcel out information only after they have
used it for gain.
Analysts and the media combine to create market volatility in order to further
their positions in the economy. They do not stabilize, they agitate. Without
their artificial volatility people could more easily learn that it is the basic
and fundamental character of each business that controls its future value.
Analysts only pander stories that enhance their future reputation and their
future ability to control information. They rarely "bite the hand that feeds
them" by sharing negative information.
Please, level the field.
Thomas R. Gold, PLS, MBA
919 East 32nd Street
Tacoma WA 98404-3213
253.383.2282
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen,
I am a 63 year old retiree who bought his first stock 45 years ago. I have
never worked in the securities industry.
I would like to say that I disagree fully with the position taken by the
Securities Industry Association. I would find it to be very fair if and when
company conferences with analyst occurred that a 1-800 number be given so
that stock holders and potential stock holders could listen. It is
rediculous to lock out stock holders from their own company meetings.
I have had the opportunity to listen to some of these "after the fact"
conference calls and the information you get is astounding. You learn where
the weak spots are and what management really thinks.
I would like to urge you to open it to all, it is the only fair way for the
individual investor.
John Goodyear
38 Jamestown Circle
Mcalester, Ok 74501
Author: Jean Griffin at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:36 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe that corporate financial information should be available to
the public at the same time that it is made available to financial
analysts. Individuals can choose whether or not to seek advice from a
financial advisor, and that protection is available to them. Individuals
have the right act on the most current information without consulting
(and paying) advisors.
Jean Griffin
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: SELECTIVE DISCLOSURE
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please stop selective disclosure!
I am a highly intelligent investor and it insults my intelligence some 24
year old analyst can know what is in my best interests and should receive
company new first
Make this illegal please
MCOM just allowed selective disclosure today and I lost 20% on my investment!
When is the SEC going to stand up for the individual investor?
-David Groner
Author: "Jim Hackney" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Give me a break. Wall Street and well-heeled investors already have an
advantage and will continue to enjoy an advantage no matter what the outcome
of your ruling. I would think, at the very least, you could give the
"little guy" the benefit of a doubt and provide equal access to information.
The wealth pyramid is already inversely proportionate to the population
pyramid, i.e., 10% of the population controls 90% of the wealth. Must they
have primary access to information as well? The US is more visibly becoming
an oligarchy than a democracy today than ever before and the government
needs to take action to quell this underlying belief, not buttress it.
Thank you,
Jim Hackney
Author: Chris Haner at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
My comment:
I believe it is in the BEST interest of the public 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!
Christine Haner
26B College Circle
Ithaca, NY 14850
Author: "Paul Hardy" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:56 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'd like to urge you DO NOT limit investment information only to Wall Street
analysts. Private investors could also benefit from information as our money is
worth as much as Wall Street's. While I'm sure analysts in many cases spend more
time ferreting out neg. information, it doesn't mean the private investor is
incapable of reviewing the same information. It would also level the playing
field when individuals are mislead by unscrupulous analysts. Frankly, when
common sense is applied to these questions, its insulting to private investors
that the SEC is even entertaining the possibility of preventing critical
information from reaching private investors. I hope you'll make a decision on
the side of fairness and take a step to level the playing field when it comes to
investment information.
Thank you.
Paul Hardy
Author: "Hesham Hassaballa; M.D." at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe this Regulation should materialize. It is
only fair and right to get access to important
information about the companies I invest my
hard-earned money in. I support the proposed
Regulation ALL THE WAY.
Hesham Hassaballa, M.D.
Author: "Daniel Hegglin" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I'm an individual investor and find it very important that I get the same
information at the same time as any analyst. I find it aburd that analysts
have access to more information that I do as I am the one that puts my hard
earned money to work in the stock market.
Sincerely,
Daniel Hegglin
Riverstone Networks
5200 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
(408) 878-6526 - work
(925) 736-4474 - home office
Author: Paul Heilman at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:37 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen,
As an individual investor I applaud your proposal to improve the quality
of information available about the companies I own. The internet has
significantly reduced the cost of spreading current information from
corporations.
Analysts and brokers in general should not have access to more current
information than the actual owners of the shares. Earlier information is
of tremendous value in this or any other market. The brokers certainly
should not have a mandated edge over the individual investor.
Best Regards,
Paul Heilman
Director, SmartTouch, Inc.
pheilman@smarttouch.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:25 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Individual investors
------------------------------- Message Contents
Lets be fair and allow all investors equal access to information from
companies and not just to professional analysts.
Author: "Roy Herman" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 3:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File No. S1-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
I wish to be the judge of the type and quality of information I receive. I do
not need or want a version watered down or potentially misinterpreted. Please
do not inser a "filter".
Regards,
Roy G. Herman
e-mail: roytrns@aol.com
Author: "Rich Herro" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am outraged that in today's Internet connected world, that the SIA would
argue that Wall Street Analysts are more entitled to information from Public
Comapanies than the millions of individual investors who invest their money
in the stock market. It just goes against everything that I have been
taught about equal access to public information. This should absolutely be
public information. All information should be available to everyone, not
just "Wall Street Insiders."
Rich Herro
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File #S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen:
I strongly urge you to reconsider your position. As an individual investor I
want, no, demand equal information with brokers. It is my money! I earned it
and I decide when and where to spend it. It would be helpful in making
intelligent decisions to have as much information as possible and keeping
"prime" information for only a small sector of the population is NOT
democratic!
With regards,
Patricia Ann Hirsch
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
HELLO,
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD MY VOICE TO THE ABOVE IDEAS. I BELIEVE I CAN EVALUATE
STOCKS AT MY LEVEL AND DON'T REQUIRE THE INFORMATION BE FILTERED THROUGH
ANALYSTS FIRST (WHO GIVE IT TO THE BIG PLAYERS FIRST). FINE, LET THEM
ANALYZE BUT WHY THE FEAR IN LETTING US ALSO DO OUR ANALYZING? MERRILL LYNCH
SAID SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR THAT THE "LITTLE INVESTOR" COULDN'T UNDERSTAND
WHAT HE WAS DOING. AS A RESULT THEY LOST MILLIONS BECAUSE THE "LITTLE
INVESTOR" WAS OFF AND RUNNING AND DOING WELL.
HEY, GIVE US A CHANCE! THE MOTLEY FOOL IS A WONDERFUL TEACHING AND
TRAINING PLACE ON THE NET. THEY TAKE THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES SERIOUSLY AND DO
TREMENDOUS GOOD IN EDUCATING. THEY REACH MANY PEOPLE AND I'M SURE THERE WILL
BE MORE LIKE PLACES POPPING UP ON THE NET AS THEY ARE EONS AHEAD OF MOST AND
WILL BE COPIED.
AFTER PARTICIPATING AT THE MOTLEY FOOL MOST ANALYSTS SEEMS FOR SUPERFICIAL.
THANK YOU.
EVALEEN HOELLER
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs,
I strongly believe that this rule is important to individual investors. I
urge it's adoption.
David G. Holmes
Bellevue Nebraska
Author: Paul Iadonisi at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No.
S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To the SEC:
In response to your Request for Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading, Release Nos. 33-7787,
34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99, I wish to inform you that
as an individual investor am emphatically for this new rule. The
response of the Securities Industry Association (SIA) is
demeaning and particularly insulting to the individual investor
who wishes to educate himself and research public companies in
which he may wish to invest *without* the assistance and
additional expense of a full service broker.
In particular:
1) It is NOT true that "it hardly needs saying that
analysts perform a necessary and valuable function
in the U.S. capital markets". And it is NOT true
that to perform that *presumably* necessary and valuable
function they need better information than the
participants in the market.
On the contrary: It is the PARTICIPANTS in the
market that need the best information possible and
NOT the middlemen such as full service brokers and
analysts.
2) It is NOT 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".
On the contrary: It is the denial of access to the
same information as these full service brokers and
analysts, (i.e.: a level playing field) that keeps
individual investors out of sync with this real
world. The 'real world' I refer to consist of
information currently accessible only to the
self-proclaimed elite of Wall Street -- full service
brokers and analysts.
3) It is NOT true that analysts make the markets less
volatile.
On the contrary: one only need to examine the
recent drop in both the NASDAQ composite index and
the Dow Jones Industrial Average for selling and
buying patterns. Despite the recent trend of
rising numbers of individual investors online and
'day trading', the institutional investors still
weild the most power to influence markets.
Institutional investors still have the largest
percentage of assets in the securities markets
and have proven themselves to knee jerk reactionaries.
4) And, it is NOT true that analysts are the only ones
that spend much of their time ferreting out negative
information about companies?
On the contrary: the individual investor has been
empowered by the wealth of information available on
the internet. And they are putting the empowerment
to use.
And creating a level playing field by eliminating the
privileged access to corporate information will not hinder the
analysts ability to analyze. The market reaction to such
information may be SLIGHTLY different (and more prompt). But
once again it is important to remember that it is the
institutions (that already have the unjust privileged access to
information before it is available to the individual investor),
that have the most influence on the markets.
--
-Paul Iadonisi / Individual Investor
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:31 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
For a few analysts to get a jump on everyone else is completely unacceptable.
It is a license to make a profit on insider information. Let's change the
rules!
Rich Janney
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0420b05w.htm
