Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: "Vinod Akunuri" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:59 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I truly support for fair and equal disclosure of all information of publicly
traded companies to the public(both institutions and
individuals alike).
--
Vinod A.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:42 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Susan Bacig, Mpls. MN
there should be fair and equal disclosure of information to all participants
in the stock market.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:24 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: file No S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am dismayed and disturbed by the SIA's (Securities Industry Association's)
assertions that:
1. "it hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary and valuable
function in the U.S. capital markets"
2. "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. analysts make the markets less volatile
4. analysts spend much of their time ferreting out negative information about
companies.
I personally believe there is little truth to the above statements. Ratings
of the companies by the analysts is a joke. What is the percentage of sell
ratings on companies by the investment firms/analysts? - almost nonexistent.
How the public should view wildly high price projections for some companies
by the analysts? - Qualcomm and Rambus come to mind. If you leave the day
traders, the most volatile trading patterns seem to come from the
institutions. Fortunately, the vast majority of the investing public is long
term investors who if I might add bailed out the markets on many a downturn!
Company performance information and financial reports should be available to
each and every investor and no one should be privy to this information in
advance of others.
I sincerely hope and pray the SEC would bring about this very democratic
change as soon as possible.
Thank you for your championing efforts that benefit the average investor.
Sincerely,
Murthy Badiga
1503 S. Oklahoma avenue
Weslaco, Texas 78596
Tel. (956)969-0359
Author: "Fred Baldwin" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 6:03 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
If a company has information that is important to an investor, then it should be
in the public domain A.S.A.P.
To put this kind of information in the hands of only a select few analysts is to
create another group of insiders.
As to analysts dampening volatility, it is more likely that they increase it.
Evidence? Watch the financial news.
As for putting a "spin" on the information, the companies that publish the info.
surely do and everyone understands that. The analysts create "spin" too.
First, the financial institutions they work for do a lot of profitable business
with the comanies that are being analysed. Secondly, the financial institutions
hope to generate business (buys and sells) based on their analysis. This latter
is a second reason to think that volatility might actually be reduced by
requiring that corporate information be publically available A.S.A.P.
Fred Baldwin
Private investor
Author: "Norman D. Barker" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:44 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support equal access to ALL information , at the same time.
Signed
Norman D. Barker
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:01 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like for the SEC to realize that I support the proposed regulation to
allow public access to information on publicly traded companies. It will be
a travesty of fairness if this regulation is not passed.
Sincerely,
Dr. Stephen W. Becker
Author: "Greg Berry" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:06 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madame,
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 is a pretty commonsense rule.
It should be made law with all due haste. You cannot protect the investing
public by hiding information they need to make up their own minds about from
them by allowing select "analysts" to interpret that information with their
own spin.
Sincerely,
Greg Berry
Author: Mukund Bhakta at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:32 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think it is absurd that anyone could think that individual investors need to
be 'protected' by having publicly traded companies' provide information to
analysts in close door sessions while disallowing that same information to be
available to the actual investors in the publicly traded company. My rights, I
believe, are being violated in situations such as these; they are not being
protected. This must be stopped immediately! Like any group of citizens, some
individual investors are not very knowledgable and sometimes lack common sense
and the same can be said of stock analysts. Since there is no real criteria for
someone obtaining the title of 'stock analyst', I find it very disturbing that
being designated as such entitles one to priviledges which part-owners (i.e.
shareholders) are excluded from. In fact this whole concept of excluding
shareholders from information provided to 'stock analysts' in simply outrageous
and immoral to boot. Please help stop this practice. Signed Mukund Bhakta -
Individual Investor.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am a new investor in my estimation. I began investing in the 80's in a
401K then rolled it into mutual funds in 1990 and again in 1993. But I must
say that what I did was blindly trust someone else with my money. In late
1997 I made my first individual stock purchase and began to entertain the
idea that I should really understand what it is that I am doing with my
money. Thanks to educational tools like NAIC and the Motley Fool and
numerous other web sites I realized that this wasn't a precise and magical
science only to be mastered by highly educated economists but that I Jane Q.
Public could make sense of what my risk tolerance was, learn some basics of
researching a company, network and collaborate and make sound, intelligent
investment decisions that would let me sleep at night and build for the
future.
In reading Bill Barkers article regarding the fair disclosure of information
by publicly traded companies to the public, I was incensed and angered at my
naivety. The fact that the discreet disclosure of important information is
revealed to Wall Street analysts without revealing the information to the
public at large is equivalent to insider trading in my estimation, white
washed to look like something acceptable to "protect" the naive investor.
Insider information isn't necessary to protect John or Jane Q. Public. We
have the right to decide if we wish to become educated individual investors
or trust a broker to do so for us.
This should indeed be a level playing field. It's time to burst the Wall
Street bubble just as the demagoguery in the medical field was challenged
over the last few decades. Choice information released to a "powerful few"
is certainly more damaging to the public and the economy as a whole, creating
an entire psychological wave of emotion to which a market will and does
react, leaving a trail of unnecessary wreckage in it's path.
I strongly believe that this proposed regulation should be approved and
enforced. There will always be plenty of investors who choose to use the
guidance of a broker or analyst in making investment decisions. But that
advice should come from information that comes from a level playing field for
all researchers alike. Top dog Wall Street analysts or little 'ol Jane Q.
Public, me. We need to decide for ourselves how intelligent we are or aren't
and live with the consequences of our decisions, but that needs to take place
from the same pool of information.
This change needs to be made.
Sincerely,
Nancy E. Boros
Portland, Oregon
Author: Robert Bryan at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 6:08 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
If you don't "level the playing field" by regulation, we will do it
through the courts!
Rob Bryan
Individual investor
Author: "cain-g" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:42 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please do not be misled by the SIA arguments against public disclosure. I
personally am incensed at the SIA view that individual investors are not
intelligent enough to make decisions unless a small group of analysts first
"analyze" information then disseminate it after they have used it.
I note that in their argument the SIA says competition among analysts is the
result when they have relevant information before the public but in the next
paragraph they disparage public disclosure because it will create "fierce
competition among analysts resulting poorly informed investors.
It seems that the SIA is asking for SEC protection of the status quo. This
appears to create a small measure of competition but not too much because it
would be "bad for investors".
Actually the SIA opposes public disclosure because they know that their role as
analysts will no longer entitle them to privileged information. They realize
that the value they add to the securities industry will be reduced if everyone
has equal access to relevant information. They will have to compete with
individual investors as well as independent analysts. This is the real basis for
their opposition.
The professed concern of the SIA for individual investors is a smokescreen for
their true motives in opposing public disclosure. Their primary concern is their
own well-being and their presently privileged status in the investment world.
Please eliminate this secret, insider-trading-like practice in the U.S.
investment industry.
Thank You,
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Cain
Author: "Barry Cartwright" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:54 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a retail investor I wish to register my opinion on this matter.
1. The same information given by a public company to an analysts should be made
available to any and all public investors, at the same time analysts receive
that information.
2. Conference call participants should be qualified Analysists however listeners
should only need be market investors or members of the general public at large.
3. The date and time of planned analyst discussions with company management
should be published by the exchange on which the company is listed on their web
site. A toll free number should be available to all investors in which they will
be able to listen to but not participate in the discussion. Many companies
already offer this service.
Anything less than the above is giving analysts "insider information" which is
not proper, but commonplace.
Many analysists are incompetent and have "hidden agenda's". Informed investors
realize this, are offended by it and wish to perform their own evaluation of
management's statements.
Making such information readily and reasonably available to all investors should
give the stock market more credibility than at present. Without doing much
research beyond reading internet bulletin boards one easily can become aware of
how little respect informed investors have for the present process.
It is understandable that analysists and brokerages will object to changes which
will allow retail investors to have ready access to transparency in the
analytical process but not a fair nor valid reason to prevent such changes from
being made.
Failure to open up this process will simply reinforce present beliefs held by
myself and so many others that the present procedures/rules are inefficient,
unfair and benefit some persons/investors/brokerages improperly.
Barry Cartwright
Author: "Greg Berry" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:06 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madame,
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 is a pretty commonsense rule.
It should be made law with all due haste. You cannot protect the investing
public by hiding information they need to make up their own minds about from
them by allowing select "analysts" to interpret that information with their
own spin.
Sincerely,
Greg Berry
Author: "Jeff Costello" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 4:12 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs,
I am appalled at the arrogance demonstrated by NYSE and wall street in
general.
I make my own decisions and I pay my commissions and deserve the SAME
information as the Market makers get.
The field needs to be leveled and the biggest problems are with margin calls
,not filings.
Time to come in to the new century and get with it. It will happen sooner or
later.
People are getting very tired of the system and it should be changed.
IT'S OUR MONEY. WE PAY OUR TAXES AND WE NEED BETTER ,TIMELY INFO.
Thank you.
Jeff Costello
Author: Thomas Cowger at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 5:57 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs;
I am writing in support of the rule requiring fair and equal disclosure of
corporate information to the general public.
I do not believe that withholding or delaying information from the general
public to the benefit of large investment firms is in keeping with a fair
and open market. Further, many of the arguments in favor of analyst access
only are tantamount to calling the citizens of this country incompetent,
uneducated, highly emotional fools who cannot be expected to make competent
decisions without the big houses. I, for one, am highly insulted by such
attitudes. My goals are long term capital improvement. I intend to retire
based on money derived from the market. I do not make money simpy by
processing a trade. I do not make money by being forced to purchase
analyst comments from large investment firms.
If anything, unfair distribution of corporate information removes potential
investment capital from the market as it is necessarily diverted to pay for
large investment houses, their analysts, and products.
I am in favor of the fair and equal release of information to the general
public.
Thomas J. Cowger
3694 Masthead Trail
Triangle, VA 22172
Author: "Samuel Crager" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:03 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe that open and equal access to information from companies for all
investors best insures market efficiency and fairness. Intermediaries
(analysts) have no more insight into the operations of a particular company or
industry than does the community of end-users (individual investors).
Naturally, not all individuals will, or can, take advantage of immediate access
to information provided by companies. The market will efficiently quickly
provide means, through publications of various kinds, by which all individuals
can access such information in a form which best suits them.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Samuel Crager, SamuelCrager@email.msn.com
Author: David Creamer & Janet Zimmerman at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
I am in favor of Proposed Regualtion FD: File No. S7-31-99.
I am an individual investor with control of my family's finanaces and
although I may be responsible for less than $40,000 currently, these
funds are very important to our retirement and to my daughter's
education.
My ability to analyze the financial information of public companies in a
prompt manner using complete information is very important to the three
members of my family. Our futures depend on it.
This is why I believe disclosure should be required to be public
information.
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
David Creamer
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:30 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please level the playing field!
The SIA money spewing Industry interest would have you believe I am not smart
enough to read annual reports and decipher information. I strongly disagree.
I DO look at quarterly and annual reports. I look to see if companies are
finaning their operations, earning money, growing their business or managing
their business well.
Allowing brokerages and analysts first crack at the data allow them to profit
from the information. That is the goal of every investor. My belief is that
ALL investors have equal access to the information and therefore equal access
to protect or profit for themselves. Brokerages and Analysts are already
known to sell the information. They have a vested interest in controlling
all information as they profit from selling it. (Fox guarding the hen
house???)
Analysts and Brokerages sell information to large clients who can then profit
from smaller investors. Not much of a free and efficient market. Analysts
and Brokers have no vested interest in ferreting out the truth. In fact,
they would like more volatility as it generates more trades and therefore
more money for them.
As an individual investor, I promise not to engage in speculative investing
or daytrading. I do promise to do research, think thru my decisions, ride
the highs and lows to be a long term investor. And to fight to equal the
playing field!
Brian T. Dallmann
small individual investor
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:51 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 read the SIA's response to this proposal, and I must say
I find it outrageous.
I could do pages and paragraphs on the reasons why, but to say that
certain analysts should have access to negative information prior to other
shareholders (like me) is to create the same kind of unlevel playing field
which has destroyed investor confidence in foreign markets such as
Japan and elsewhere.
My money is the same as anybody else's money. In a democratic
country, with supposed equality of postion, investment and otherwise,
to release relevant investing information to the privileged few is absolutely
unacceptable. The idea that only an analyst asking questions in private can
ferret out information from corporate executives *who are, by definition,
required to serve the public investor while pursuing their private corporate
agenda* is, on its face, absurd.
I am forwarding a copy of this message to my Congressman as well as
to you. I would hope that common sense on your part would preclude the
need for political intervention to insure fair and equal treatment for all investors.
Sincerely,
Danny
Author: james do at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:49 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor, I support wholeheartedly
this proposed rule by the SEC. The argument by the
SIA is BULL.
James N. Do
8871 Dorsett Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Author: Computer Club at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:47 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD:File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
This is important to all individual investors. Jean C. Dolat (email-
jcdolat@hargray.com)
Author: Brian Dusseault at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:17 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the new rule proposed by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) regarding the fair disclosure of information by
publicly traded companies to the public. This rule as I understand it
will 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. I can see no valid reason for this
information to be kept from the public other than job security for a
small number of analysts who rarely if ever have the interests of the
people (read "voting tax payers") as a priority.
Make it so.
Brian Dusseault
Author: "David Farning" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:26 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I firmly believe that the is no reason that investment firms
should have information prior to the 'masses' receiving that information. I
have been an individual investor for six years and as such have beaten the
'experts' five out of six years with my limited knowledge.
David Farning
Author: Aaron A Fidler at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:04 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to express my support for the proposed regulation. I feel it
would bring equality to field on which individual investors and
institutions/analysts compete. Hopefully, it would allow motivated
individual investors to gain the same access to corporate information as
analysts currently have. This would be an invaluable step towards creating
a perfectly efficient market (if one can ever even exist).
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Aaron Fidler
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:18 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: re: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
With a level playing field, analysts are going to have to earn their keep
instead of benefiting by being first to hear what's going on with companies.
The ability of companies to disclose material information to selective
sources is a financial scandal.
I'm in favour!
Laura Garcia
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:55 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern
I am writing in support of the above proposal. I hope that the SEC will
do the right thing and enact this regulation. It is supremely arrogant for
brokerages and their paid lobbyists, the SIA, to assert essentially that
individual investors are not smart enough to digest various pieces of
information and assimilate them into a plan of action. I thank them for their
deep concern for my mental and financial well being, but I think I can take
care of myself.
I grow suspicious when several hundred individuals think something ought
to be done, and are opposed only by those that stand to benefit from keeping
those individuals in the dark, namely the brokerage houses, and the SIA, who
are of course paid by the brokerages to say the things they do. Surely with
all their resources, they are intelligent enough to be able to formulate
opinions on companies without a head start on everyone, aren't they?
Please do the right thing and enact this proposal. Don't let individuals
suffer at the expense of a privileged few. Let information be dispensed
freely and equally for all.
Sincerely,
Roland Garza
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:16 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I feel strongly that the public (ie. private investor) needs equal access to
information about publicly traded companies. I strongly disagree with the comments of
the SIA that it is in the private investors' best interest that this information be
made available preferentially to security analysts.
John O. Goodin, M.D.
4/20/00
Author: "Nicholas Green" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom it May Concern:
The individual investor has been mislead by analysts so many times that it makes
me nauseated to think about it. Analysts and Intsitutions are wrong plenty and
sometimes they, too, misintpret information in regards to pertinet information
more often than not: Analysts are not immune to human error contrary to the
SIA's opinion. No one is infallible and information should not be controlled by
an elite group that can tint it however they'd like to for their own prosperity.
Why should analysts get a chance to decide what is best for their money before
I do as an individual investor in the same companies? Or yet worse, analysts can
even mismanage the information for biased reasons before the real information
finally gets to us, the masses? This kind of information exhange is not
rationale nor does it put the people the United States of America on a level
playing field. Select disclosure is simply absurd.
Millions of individuals getting disseminated information is greatly more
effective than "selective disclosure," I argue. That the SIA argues the
individual lacks knowledge is insanity. That kind of foul wisdom is Bunk and it
missed the first words of the Declaration of Independence: "We the People...".
Americans are always better off and stronger when we work together. Selective
disclosure simply undermines Faith in Americans and in the technology
revolution that can place valuable information at the fingertips of some of the
most informed and unbiased people in the world. Millions of minds working
together is better than a select few and makes for a much stonger country.
Finally, with on-line financial communities like The Motley Fool, information is
intrepreted more honest and more accurately than if the information is
maintained under the belts of the elite and so-called wise. What better way
could there be to get a more un-biased opinion of the matters at hand then
gettting it from a divisified and well informed Pubic with differing agendas,
talents, and backgrounds.
Making information available immediately to anyone who seeks it in regards to
Publicly traded companies is the only right choice to make here.
Nicholas
Author: James Grimm at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:36 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hello,
I believe that this regulation (Proposed Regulation FD: File No.
S7-31-99)
should be adopted. The current system obviously gives an unfair advantage
to those firms whose analysts are privvy to discussions with company
management. Assuming that the analysts divulge all that they learn, their
firms will still have several hours to several days advantage over the
general public. This situation is akin to a small group of people legally
being given inside information by the top management of the company.
Please adopt this resolution to remove these imbalances.
Sincerely,
James Grimm
Author: "stephan hammelberg" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:04 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD : File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear sir,
the foreign participants in the American Capital System
that provide more than 40 % to its needed capital
REALLY deserve an OPEN INFORMATION POLITIC
as otherwise once upon a time they would refuse
to provide more capital to your markets...hence
causing an eaven wider financing -gap!
Sincerely
Stephan C.Hammelberg
Alicante/Spain
Author: Jeff Hancock at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:31 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am strongly in support of this regulation.
Jeff Hancock
Doctoral Candidate
Dalhousie University
Dept. of Psychology
Halifax NS
B3H 4J1
Canada
jhancock@is2.dal.ca
Author: Dan Healy at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:44 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the SEC's objective of eliminating selective disclosure. Selective
disclosure, providing an advantage to certain analysts and investors, erodes
credibility in the market place.
Dan Healy
Systems Engineer
Sunelco - A division of Kyocera Solar, Inc.
100 Skeels Street
Hamilton, MT 59840
1-800-338-6844
Fax (406) 363-6046
Visit us online at www.sunelco.com
Author: John Hellmann at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:39 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: "Gorton; Slade" at Internet
CC: "Metcalf; Jack" at Internet
CC: "Murray; Patty" at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
I have just read the SIA's response to this proposal, and I find
it outrageous.
I could do pages and paragraphs on the reasons why, but to say
that certain analysts should have access to negative (or positive!)
information prior to other shareholders (like me) is to create the same
kind of unlevel playing field which has destroyed investor confidence
in foreign markets such as Japan and elsewhere.
My money is the same as anybody else's money. In a democratic
country, with supposed equality of position, investment and otherwise,
to release relevant investing information to the privileged few is
absolutely unacceptable. The idea that only an analyst asking questions
in private can ferret out information from corporate executives *who
are, by definition, required to serve the public investor while pursuing
their private corporate agenda* is, on its face, absurd.
I am forwarding a copy of this message to my Congressman and
Senators as well as to you. I would hope that common sense on your part
would preclude the need for political intervention to insure fair and
equal treatment for all investors.
Sincerely,
John Hellmann, Jr.
1124 SW Leschi Drive
Oak Harbor, WA 98277
johnh@galaxynet.com
Author: Dave Hendrickson at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 4:25 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I feel very strongly that this proposed regulation is necessary to
eliminate an unfair competitive advantage given to analysts by the
current method of "preferential disclosure".
David A. Hendrickson
President
Hendrickson & Associates, LLC.
Author: Keith Hoffman at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC-
I am writing to express my strong support as an individual investor for
Proposed Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure). Kudos for taking the first
steps towards dismantling the antiquated and unethical advantage
currently head by analysts.
Further, I would like to say in regards to the arguments posed by the
Securities Industry Association that their arguments are self-serving
and insulting to the individual investor. Could not the same arguments
be made by journalists in regards to access to politicians? Analysts
are feeling threatened that their cush and unethical arrangements with
corporations may end. Go SEC!
A suggestion: consider requiring public disclosure to including posting
on the company's internet site if they maintain one (exempt from the
requirement if they don't). The internet is the great change in the
distribution of information to individual investors. It also provides a
level playing field (press releases are available via the web at the
same time for everyone).
Thank you for the progress you are making providing ethical corporate
disclosure of earnings and other financial information.
Keith Hoffman
khoffman@alumni.rice.edu
Author: "Richard Holtz" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:07 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Good Morning --
I am writing in support of proposed regulation FD. I believe it is very much
in the best interest of the country and of individual investors.
I would rather have my information direct from the sources, not filtered
through the mindsets and prejudices of a few, especially when I have no
control over who those few might be. The current system effectively places
those few as the representatives of investors, yet we do not elect them, nor
are they appointed by anyone we elect.
Please allow us a level field and let us to make what we will of unvarnished
information.
Richard Holtz
Lighthouse Point, FL
rholtz@mediaone.net
Author: "hmshutton" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:41 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
In support of the rule. In this cyber-era it absurd, especially given their
track records, of sharing information with analysts whilst withholding it from
the general public. I expect this rule goes back to the days of Joe Kennedy.
Scott Hutton
Hartsdale, NY
Author: Peter Irvine at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:42 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Selective Disclosure and Fair Trading Proposal
------------------------------- Message Contents
I find the "industry" views on the SEC's proposals so self-serving as to
hardly need rebuttal.
Surely your proposals will not prevent industry analysts from acting as
devil's advocates in questioning companies.
What I want to see is equal access to INFORMATION. Modern communications
methods such as the Internet make this EASY these days.
I agree that industry analysts are generally able to interpret financial
and other corporate information much more easily than the "individual
investor". But the individual is becoming much more knowledgeable and
sophisticated these days. Let the individual decide if he or she wants
to wait for the "word from on high" before making investment decisions.
Peter B. Irvine
Montreal
(514) 932-8658
pakka@microtec.net
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading Rule Proposals
------------------------------- Message Contents
Are you guys kidding or are in the pay of those toads on "The Street". If
insider information is good for them then I expect that there will be no more
prosecutions for other insider trade. You jerks are hypocrites, unless you
outlaw this nonesense!
Joseph D. Jannuzzi, MD
Author: David at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
RE: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
I recently read the comments by a SIA spokesperson Re: Proposed Regulation FD:
File No. S7-31-99.
( http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s73199/spencer1.htm )
The word disingenuous comes to mind. (So does the phrase 'self serving' but I
always love using the word disingenuous. ) I am frankly appalled that insider
trading is tolerated as long as the insider is an 'analyst'. Shame on the SEC
for permitting this for so long.
Sincerely,
David K. Johnson
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:07 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am a small investor and I invest without the utilization of broker's
opinions or the input of other stock market "professionals." Many of these
professionals do not possess any skills or abilities that exceed mine save
one.........inside information from companies that restrict access to
conference calls and the like. I tend to look unfavorably on companies that
engage in such behavior and one of my holdings, IBP, recently engaged in such
behavior prompting me to reconsider my shareholder status with them. It seems
ironic to me that a public company in which I own a stake would CHOOSE to
exclude me from information while including analysts who may not own shares.
I certainly understand the rationale behind this and the immense benefits that
it bestows on brokerage houses and their analysts. And I assume that the
company stands to benefit from some favor from these analysts if they give
them first dibs on information.
Regardless, these practices create an uneven playing field on the investment
arena. I strongly support regulation eliminating such unfair practices.
Sincerely yours,
R. Neil Johnston, MD
485 Claire Drive
Atlanta, GA 30307
404-378-2191
Author: "Kay Carolyn" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 6:08 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of this regulation. I am an individual investor, and I think
it is outrageous that Wall Street analysts get information before I do.
Carolyn Kay
Chicago
(312) 697-0887
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:45 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 support the adoption of the above proposed regulation because
as an investor and a taxpayer, I have earned the right to have
access to the same information at the same time as anyone else.
It is not fair, in fact it's downright un-American, that special groups
such as financial analysts and the media, can gain access to
what is virtually insider information to serve themselves and their
clients while individual investors and the general public are left in
the dark.
Let's get this enacted!
Thank you,
Kenneth .
Author: "Susan Koch" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:30 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To the SEC:
With fervor, I support and favor the proposed regulation FD: File No.
S7-31-99. The concerns voiced by the SIA are without question self serving
and insulting to those of us trying to acquire up to date, uncensored
information in order for us to make our own TIMELY investment decisions. It
does not take much checking to realize that by the time the rest of us
receive the information the market has already reacted to the information.
How do they get that information sooner than me????? One of the SEC's main
purposes is to create regulation to make PUBLICLY traded companies fairly
disclosed and fairly traded to the PUBLIC (us, the owners).
Please do the CORRECT thing, MAKE IT FAIR!!!
Thank you,
Greg Koch
479 North 300 East
Kaysville, UT 84037
Author: Brent Kyle at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:03 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Why should Wall Street analysts be privileged to information from
publicly traded companies before the rest of us individuals see it?
This is so unfair. I can't believe a rule like this could be
successfully passed. End this favoritism now.
-Brent.
Author: Brian Lund at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:53 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 read the SIA's response to this proposal, and I find it
outrageous.
I could do pages and paragraphs on the reasons why, but to say that certain
analysts should have access to negative (or positive!) information prior to
other shareholders (like me) is to create the same kind of unlevel playing
field which has destroyed investor confidence in foreign markets such as
Japan and elsewhere.
My money is the same as anybody else's money. In a democratic country, with
supposed equality of position, investment and otherwise, to release relevant
investing information to the privileged few is absolutely unacceptable. The
idea that only an analyst asking questions in private can ferret out
information from corporate executives *who are, by definition, required to
serve the public investor while pursuing their private corporate agenda* is,
on its face, absurd
Sincerely,
BrianZ Lund
Author: Steve L at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:06 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD - File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
Gentlemen: In support of SEC Proposed Regulation FD and in response to
comments made by Messrs. Lee B. Spencer and George A. Schieren of the
Securities Industry Association (SIA), I would respectfully offer the
following comments:
1. "We believe that communications between an issuer and individual
analysts contribute to ... greater accuracy ... and ... greater
efficiency."
An Augustinian Friar in 1517 endured much the same arguments with Pope
Leo X. You can study the debates in two pamphlets: An den christlichen
Adel deutchen Nation and Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen, both
published in 1520. In essence, Pope Leo's position was that information
passed through a third body was necessarily more accurate than that
delivered directly.
The Friar argued otherwise. That the two were discussing the
relationship of men with God in no way implies a similar relationship
between the SIA and the SEC. Nonetheless, history has taught us to
recognize the truths in Martin Luther's 95 theses. Leo X has been
relegated to the ash can of encyclopedias. So should be this argument by
the SIA.
2. "The alternative models of millions of individual investors pouring
over prospectuses and periodical reports is ... out of sync with the
real world"
Please, humor me. As an active investor for thirty years, I have
personally experienced the explosion of timely and accurate information
available to the individual investor. A check with the SEC's own
information technology staff who provide the online EDGAR database
(http://www.sec.gov/edgarhp.htm) should provide you with statistics
reflective of the "real world".
3. "But it is also the few analysts... that (sic) can relentlessly
pursue an independent line of inquiry and ferret out negative
information...".
At the risk of being dismissed as a matter of understatement, I would
suggest that most analysts would fail to ferret out a ferret in their
own trousers. Analysts continue to extol the virtues of given issuers,
even in the face of adverse public information. To do otherwise would
imperil their own well being, especially if his employer serves as a
market maker or underwriter of said issuer.
For example, First alliance (FACOQ), a lender specializing in sub prime
mortgages was still being listed as a "hold" on April 20, 2000 despite
the companies previous filing of a Form 8-K with the SEC and de-listing
by the NASDAQ. Who's kidding whom? Would the analyst consider a
"moderate sell"? Should we even mention Dr.Koop.com?
4. "This kind of work results in more continuous disclosure, fewer
surprises and less volatility. 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 ...awards."
I am sure that Messrs. Spencer and Schieren are accomplished in their
field, but their "reputational awards" would have been vastly enhanced
if they had managed to correctly quote Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest,
for it was Forrest who remarked that winning battles required getting
there "Fustest" - not Firstest. His expression remains a valid principle
for offensive action and preciseness.
With over 3,000 analysts working for more that 200 brokerage firms, one
would think that there would be very few surprises left. Yet Peter Lynch
in Beating the Street often noted the number of analysts who did not
even know the location of a company, much less ever consider a tour or
visit for informational purposes.
Recently, we have seen a growing tendency to focus on the "whisper
number" for a company's anticipated earnings. This "whisper number", the
highest estimate of profits tends to be 7 to 10 per cent higher than the
consensus estimate. As a result, the issuer can beat the consensus
estimate and still see its stock price whipsawed because of the failure
to reach the whisper number. "Less volatility"? I would submit that this
suggestion is, at best, disingenuous. Were I to speak with the bluntness
of General Forrest, I'd call the suggestion a lie.
Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations stated "It is not from the
benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our
dinner, but from their regard to their own interest". Smith understood
that concern for self was the basis of a free market economy. "He
intends only his own gain and he is in this led by an invisible hand to
promote an end which was no part of his intention"
I do not need an analyst to interpret data for me. I do not need an
analyst who is conflicted by the activities of his employer.
For a market to be free, information must be fairly disclosed and timely
in nature. It is only then that I can fully appreciate the benefits of
the guidance of Smith's Invisible Hand.
Respectfully,
Steven P. Luther
Pensacola, Fl.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:09 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I firmly reject the self-serving position of the Wall Street insiders, who as
often as not manipulate the public with their comments instead of informing
them. Level the playing field.
Eugene McCreary
Penngrove, CA
Author: "McMenemy; Seth" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sell side securities analysts typically add zero value to the distribution
and desemmination of company information. The rest of the market
participants interpret the company information distributed in their reports
and pay little heed to the analysts' interpretations. The market, for all
of its fools, discounts information much better than any one analyst or any
group of analysts. I suggest reading Michael Maubousin's articles found at
the following site:
http://www.capatcolumbia.com/Articles/FoFinance/frontier1.htm
The following article discusses this issue as does some of his other
articles. Oddly enough, I believe Mr. Mauboussin is a sell side analyst.
The Invisible Lead Steer: New Answers to Old Questions About the Stock
Market <../../Articles/FoFinance/Fof7.pdf> - December 11, 1998
If analysts are better at interpreting company information than the general
market participants, then the following questions should be answered:
1) Why do analysts typically recommend a stock after a substantial run-up?
Hasn't the market already priced in much of what the analyst releases in his
or her report?
2) Why don't I ever see sell recommendations from companies? Obviously,
some companies at some point should be sold, but I never here these analysts
telling me to do so.
The stock market is made up of many players, each programmed with a little
different set of buy/sell rules. Some people's rules may seem somewhat
idiotic and others seem sophisticated and knowledgeable. The Long Term
Capital debacle is evidence that the sophisticated and knowledgeable players
can sometimes bungle it worse than the ignorants.
Seth McMenemy
Sr. Financial Analyst
H&R Block, Financial Services Division
Author: jim at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:37 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
TO: jimkim@ameritech.net at Internet
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please level the playing field.
Please have companies disclose ALL information
to ALL participants in the market, not just the chosen few.
Do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Jim Mika
jimkim@ameritech.net
Author: "Moroney" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:34 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am an individual investor and I would like the opportunity to read all the
material that the "professional analysts" have access too. I am a member of
NAIC "National Association of Investors Corporation" and I do read material
put out by the companies. Please do not treat individual investors any
differently than "professional analysts".
Janet Moroney
59 Herrick Road
North Andover, Ma 01845
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0421b01s.htm