Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:19 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Ms/Sir,
Please consider the individual investor when voting on this proposed
regulation change. Respectfully,
Douglas McNamara
Author: Wayne Messer at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
In regards to your decision on full discloser for the general public. I'd
like to add my two cents. Since the (SIA) seems to think they know what's
best for me. Although, I'm sure it has nothing to do with them getting paid
by analyst and brokers. If I were a broker or analyst. I'd be a tad
concerned with a lobbies t whom uses the term " the firstest, with the
mostest". I'm appalled at their arrogant s. I research and study and ana
lies a company before making a decision. I do in-depth research following the
news and the trends of the economy and I wouldn't profess to claim I know what
the masses are doing. The simple fact that it is "Our money" makes the
arugement moot. I have a right to hear full discloser of any relevance to
which could and does affect my investments. The brokers needn't worry about
losing their precious commissions and bonuses. Thus their blatant disregard
for the best interest of the customer but, their own greed. There will be
plenty of consumers that will still use their expertise as it were. I don't
because they're limited in the amount of stocks they can purchase of a
particular company hence, capping the growth of the percentages we could
harvest from a company if we weren't limited. All I'm saying is let me get
the information I require and deserve cause it's my money not theirs. If I
don't do as well it's not their responsibility but, if I were under their
tutelage them who's' responsible then.
V/R
Ellis D. Messer
Wayne Ellis Inc.
e-mail address: WMesser58@netscape.net
Author: "Meyer; Mike" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:44 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please make it illegal for publicly traded companies to disclose information
to analysts and stock brokerage firms without also requiring that the same
information be disclosed to other shareholders and the public. There is a
fiduciary and fundamental code of ethics the SEC has to the public for
publicly traded companies. That fiduciary and ethical responsibility
includes open information to the public.
I would argue that many individual investors are more than capable of
understanding in great detail a small number of industries that they trade
and work in. Given access to the same information I feel certain that my
decisions to invest or divest in certain companies would be more
"factually-based" than the current rules allow.
Wall Street's argument reminds me of the clergy's resistance to allowing the
"people" to have Bible's in the pre-Gutenberg era. The Internet may be
similarly revolutionize society by making information widely available that
was previously protected. You are either part of the solution or part of the
problem.
Mike Meyer
Author: Gail Furman Moore at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 6:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Propsed Regulation FD: File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am an individual investor. Not a day trader and I am not of low
intelligence, nor am I a day trader. Have traded actively for many
years.
Would like a fair shake and receive information the same time that
analysts do. Gail F. Moore
Author: "Madeline Murphy" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen: I just read the text of the statements issued by Wall Street about
the function and
necessity of analysts providing a filter of sorts to "protect" the average
American investor from
forming any foolish, emotional decisions based upon their own reading of company
released materials.
I strongly disagree with that position, and feel that anyone wanting to gather
information in order to
make the best financial decisions with their own, hard-earned money should be
given open access to
all true and factual information that can be made public. Thank you,
Madeline M. Murphy teacher Houston TX
Author: David Nedved 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
Dear Sirs:
I am strongly in favor of rule FD for open communication between
companies and individual investors. I understand that the SIA feels
differently, and are trying desperately to create a need for their
analysts by witholding information from individual investors as they
have for years, and I find this abhorent.
Analysts may or may not perform an important function in the
marketplace of the future, but please don't force them upon us, the
individual stockholders who own pieces of these companies. If they do
indeed perform an important function, they shouldn't have to depend on
information hoarding to stay in busines.
Sincerely,
David Nedved
Stockholder
=====
david_nedved@yahoo.com
Author: Dat Ngo at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:42 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
I believe you should pass this rule.
Why should only a select few be priveledged to information? In reading the
response from the insiders in the capital markets, it seems that they
believe they know what's best for me. If that were the case, every mutual
fund out there would be beating the S&P500. Somehow, it just never seems to
work that way. That's the reality of the capital markets.
Merrill Lynch has cost me a lot of money because they didn't know what they
were doing. If they had all this information, why couldn't they make a
dollar for me? Just because you work on Wall Street doesn't mean you're
smart.
Analysts are there to make money for *their* firms. If the individual
investor happens to make some too, then all the better. They make money
whether or not I do.
Dat Ngo
Author: "Jim O'Grady" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:02 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The SEC must go ahead with their passage of the full and fair disclosure
regulation that publically traded companies will no longer be allowed to
selectively disclose important information. Such proprietary exchanges
clearly benefit only the analyst community, and at the expense of the
larger investment community which is comprised of "small" investors like
myself. The analyst community claims that retention of selective
disclosure adds efficiency and removes uncertainty from the markets. For
them, perhaps; but such proprietary information, that analysts can then
act upon, creates a market inefficiency that these analysts take
advantage of ONLY at the expense of the small investor. A company leaks
selective information to a small number of analysts, who nonetheless
command relatively large blocks of stock. The analysts then buy and sell
these blocks of stock accordingly. To whom will these few analysts be
buying and selling stock? A greater proportional number of small
investors, each of whom individually command a far smaller block of
stock. In order to create the market, there will have to be far larger
numbers of individual investors who, because of the lack of disclosure,
will be operating at an artificial disadvantage to the analyst
community. Given that severe market moves in the past seem to have been
disproportionately caused by institutions, and disproportionately and
subsequently mitigated by the "small" individual investor, one must look
with great skepticism at the analysts' claim that full and fair
disclosure would enhance market uncertainty and, by implication,
volatility.
Thank you,
Jim O'Grady
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:29 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Since the analysts are affiliated with major brokerage firms (oftentimes whose
chief goal is to sell a specific stock), their motives in "making the market
less volatile" for us average investors, who are "not smart enough" do not
seem to be in our best interest. Any time a select "elite" group is singled
out with faster or more information, that elite group may use that information
to its own advantage, to the detriment of the masses. One may have argued in
the past that analysts could help the average investor to make wiser
decisions. However, in this rapid information age, giving analysts "heads up"
information is tantamount to controlling the prices of the stocks, rather than
allowing the market to seek its own level.
Sincerely,
Sabina Peppin
Author: habitats at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:55 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Level Playing Field
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern.
Increasingly, the public sector is investing its own monies in
securities. The market place of the exchange is changing rapidly and
immediate access to critical information is of paramount importance to
the investor. Any and all information given to analysts should be given
simultaneously to the public. Not to do is an antiquated practises of
last century that must be eliminated soon to accommadate the new and
largest segment of the market -- the retail investor. Institutional
investors already have a huge advantage over the retail market. From
my, the retail investor's perspective, the arguments of the
institutional analyst and their representatives have no bearing
whatsoever on my critical need for the most timely information. My
relationship with my investments is between me and the companies I own.
And it is a principal of shareholder rights that all shareholder be
treated equally. As an owner of these companies I would move to
prohibit that any other shareholder or shareholders representative have
access to information before myself. If the SEC does not step in to
mandate this basic shareholder right that is implicit in stock ownership
then rest assured that this issue of shareholder rights will be brought
before the courts. I am more than confident that the courts will
support the principal that one group of shareholders may not be allowed
inside information in advance of another group.
The retail investor will not quietly accept an unfair, indeed, a
manipulated playing field.
Dr. Donald Perry
Author: "Steve Pistolakis" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:52 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: regulation S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99. Please put proposed regulation
on the books to help the small investor get more informed access to Wall
Street investment information.
Thank you.
Steve Pistolakis
311 Shawnee Dr
Brick, NJ 08724
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:30 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposal Regulation F.D. File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of subject regulation.
George Porter
Author: Post Doug at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:51 AM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor I think this rulle needs to be approved in order
to level the playing field in the equity markets.
Doug Post
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:44 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please give individual investors the transparency we deserve. We do not need
"filtered guidance" from the so called experts. Give me the freedom to
choose and make my own mistakes.
Francisco Rabell-Briones
Author: "Bernice Ramsbottom" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:01 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD(File No. S7-31-99)
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor and a member of NAIC, AAII, and subscriber to Motley
Fool info, I strongly support
the proposed new rules to combat selective disclosure of information by public
companies. I agree that
public information should be filed with the SEC, that it should be done through
press releases, and that there
should be public access to that information through conference calls or
meetings.
Bernice Ramsbottom
ramsby@onramp.net
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:55 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Let the public know what's going on with companies. I'm a schoolteacher and
am my own financial investor. I need access to all the information I can get
to make good decisions with my meager salary.
Cynthia Jameson Reese
Tatum Independent School District
Tatum, TX
Author: "ROBERT A. RICCO" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:16 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear sirs,
It has come to my attention that a peice of legislation, referenced
above, is before you. As an individual investor who views Wall Street
analysts with some measure of suspicion, I would like to see this
proposal passed.
Investors deserve the right to assess information in the same way that
full service analysts do. Maybe in another time and another place, full
service analysts required some advanced notice of company happenings
(doubtful though), but now in the era of the internet and on line
trading, many people are taking their futures in their own hands and
they deserve equal access to information - an investors most vital
resource.
I urge you to pass regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Signed, Robert A. Ricco
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:26 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No.s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please do require that disclosure of company information be made across the
board at the same time, rather than first to analysts, then to the stock
buying public...this is a new world, online and direct puchasing of stocks is
here to stay, and any other approach only begs the question. Michele Rogers,
online investor and cynical government employee
Author: Mark Rothstein at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: The SIA's stand on Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whomever it May Concern,
I am registering my strenuous objection to the stance taken by the
Securities Industry Association regarding Proposed Regulation FD.
Stated very bluntly, their arguments are specious and self-serving.
Continuing to allow them to receive information before the individual
investor does simply stacks the chips against the rest of us.
To state that individual investors will contribute to volatility is
absurd. The current "system" of disclosure to brokers and analysts does
nothing to decrease volatility, and it does nothing to assure the
"continuous disclosure and fewer surprises."
It is no secret to the individual investor that analysts have had an
unfair and, I believe, quasi-illegal advantage in the stock market. If
the SEC is to make investing in stocks more equitable, it needs to
assure us that the stock market analysts and brokers don't continue to
play with marked cards.
Mark A. Rothstein, MD
Author: "john-o" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:28 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: file no. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC, I wanted to write you a note stating that i was in favor of the proposed
regulation FD. To be honest, i thought i was getting all the same information
that wall street analysts` were getting while evaluating stocks. I had no idea
companies were allowed to hold back information from individuals, yet
"discreetly" release this same important information to analysts. I do my own
stock analysis and this practice puts me, and others like me in a distinct
disadvantage. The playing field needs to be level. It's the right thing to do,
you know its the rght thing to do, so please just do it. thank you, john
rowland
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:24 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation fd s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC:
As an individual investor I feel we need protection from the ANALYSTS and the
JOURNALISTS. When the market tech wreck happened in April 1999 it was the
analysts I presume with their own agendas being brought on CNBC to prop up the
markets by telling us that AOL and AMAZON price targets were now hundreds of
dollars. Now those same people AFTER the fact want to boast about how
overvalued things are and that we should be getting oyut of all this
speculative issues. Issues they pumped up! Please protect me from the
analysts by letting me make my own determinations.
gregory royal
Author: "Rock Ruddick" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 5:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
It is time to level the playing field!!!
Warmest Regards,
Rock Ruddick
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:04 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Just exactly WHO do you think you are? You are NOT authorized to make my
decisions for me. YOU are NOT an elected official. YOU DO NOT KNOW what
I am capable of determining from a prospectus. As an investor in the
stock market, with MY OWN money, I do not want some NITWIT deciding for
me. I fully expect ALL information to be given to me as is given to
those "crystal ball" viewing, IDIOTS on Wall Street.
Very obviously you have been hanging around William Jefferson Clinton
and his "spin" routine has rubbed off on you!!
You arrogant fools!
Mrs. Kathryn Salter
Author: Dave Schimsky at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:35 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have read (some of) the retort of the SIA to the subject proposal.
Certainly some things analysts do are worthwhile. It is not so clear
that the statements in the SIA retort, made as 'certainly this is true'
are supported by fact. For instance,
"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."
Is it? Nevertheless, I do NOT believe that the proposed regulation
would prevent the analysts from performing "a necessary and very
valuable function in the U.S. capital market." Leveling the playing
field does not require the other team to be thrown out of the game. The
SIA present their arguments as black or white, take one or the other. I
prefer to think of the proposal as simply adding some windows to a
now-closed system of information dissemination.
We will all rue the day when providing raw and uninterpreted facts to
citizens of this country is looked upon as a bad thing to do.
David Schimsky - Private Citizen and Individual Investor.
Author: Bill Schweiker III at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 5:04 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe maintaining the current system is not in the
favor, nor to the benefit of, the
general public whom you serve.
Please consider leveling the playing field.
Bill Schweiker
(not affiliated with any market company or activity)
Tuckerton, New Jersey
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Personally I would rather do my own stock evaluation. Has no one noticed how
erratic the "annalists" have been behaving lately? I believe as an
individual investor that the brokerage firms should not have the ability to
buy or sell or determine a "VALUE" before any other investor.
Kary J. Scoggins
individual investor
Author: hanut singh at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:31 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: give out info to investors and analysts of stocks simultaneo
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe that companies should give information out simultaneously to
analysts and investors. If investors need guidance they will wait for
the analysts to respond before acting. If investors are comfortable
making their own decisions then I agree that a million opinions backed
by money is better than analysts putting a 'spin' on the companies
story.
Hanut Singh
Author: "Smith; Robert G." at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:56 AM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I strongly support this disclosure rule. As a financial analysts for the
government, it would mean the private entities I review are subject to less
manipulation and to allow the market to operate in the best possible
fashion, rather than allow a handful of analysts to shape the market.
Robert Smith
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:50 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support full transparency to the public, not just special interests.
Thank you,
David J. Sossamon
710 Montclair Drive
Johnson City, TN 37604-2423
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 6:31 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: PROPOSED REGULATION FD: FILE# S-7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I FEEL THAT MORE DISCLOSURE IS IMPORTANT. HOWEVER, THEIR MUST BE SOME CONTROL
SO THAT MEETINGS DONT BECOME A FREE FOR ALL. DIVERTED TO SOME INDIVIDUAL
COMPLAINT, OR CAUSE SO THAT THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE MEETING IS DIMINISHED.
NO MATTER HOW YOU RULE THERE SHOULD BE IN THERE ABOUT KEEPING THE LANGUAGE
SIMPLE. ALSO, NEWS THAT WOULD EFFECT STOCK PRICE SHOULD BE RELEASED TIMELY
AND IF IT IS WITHHELD SUBJECT TO HEAVY FINES.
TOM STAWECKI
BENECAP@AOL.COM
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:47 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: FIle number S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
PLEASE ALLOW INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS TO HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES AS SO
CALLED PROFESSIONALS. IT IS UNFAIR THAT SOME WHO ARE MORE THAN LIKELY
BETTER OFF THAN MYSELF GET AN EXTRA LEG UP IN THE MARKET WHILE I HAVE TO
FIGHT TO GET A "SCRAP" OF INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN DECEMINATED ONLY AFTER
THE CONSUMPTION BY THE SO CALLED WALL STREET ELITE.
APPARENTLY, THE ADHOC COMMITTEE LOOKS AT THE SMALL INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR
AS ONE WHO IS LESS THAN EQUAL. I RESENT THAT IMPLICATION AND HOPE YOU WILL
TOO.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
PATRICK SWEENEY
SWEENDOGG@AOL.COM
Author: Jim Townsend at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 5:20 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Individual investors need a level playing field to operate. Lacking
this confidence in the markets will erode.
James Townend
Author: "Trejo; Jose" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:20 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam:
I strongly support the put on effect of the proporsed regulation FD: File
No. S7-31-99. Information should be disclosed fairly in order for free
markets to work and eliminate distorsions. I disagree with SIA's arguments
that professional financial analysts are able to get more information from
companies through subtle means, such as "change of tone, gestures and
face-to-face contact". This is only evidence that we need better reporting
and more relevant information from companies, not selective disclosure. I am
also a strong supporter of this.
There is more at play than just being fair to individual investors.
Increased long-term economic efficiency is at play. This is an opportunity
for the securities market system to gather credibility and increase the
America's advantage as a financial center.
Regards,
José Trejo-Meza
Associate Systems Engineer - MarketPower
NewEnergyAssociates
770-779-2958
--- Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.
Please do not distribute or forward this message without the express written
consent of NewEnergy Associates, LLC or its agents. --
Author: "Steven Walker" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:55 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
My Response to the SEC on Proposed Regulation FD:
My name is Steven P. Walker and I am writing in support of the proposed
regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99. I believe that the current practice of
disseminating information to analysts, and other entities in market influencing
positions, before allowing the general public access to the same said
information borders on criminal.
We currently have in place insider trading regulations which do not allow
employees of a company to trade their companies securities until a reasonable
time after earnings have been announced. This regulation was enacted, I believe,
to prevent sources close to knowledge from having an unfair advantage in the
market, yet the activities the Wall Street analysts participate in seem to
violate this same spirit by allowing wealthy clients of large brokerages to get
the jump on the Street and either make larger profits or avoid losses whichever
the case may be.
I believe that based upon the current investing statistics, you must realize
that a large portion of the voting public is invested in the market in one form
or another. I believe the general public deserves the right to make properly
informed decisions on where they place their hard-earned money without the
specter of unseen "Big Money" stacking the deck before the cards are dealt to
them.
I would like you to pass Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
Sincerely,
Steven P. Walker
Author: Ysidro at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 5:49 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam:
I've been following this proposed regulation for some time, however, I only
recently became aware of the response by the Securities Industry Association
("SIA").
This response, not only insults my intelligence, but also claims that
individuals are responsible for the voliatility of the market. What rubish is
this? Even if I wanted to sow discord among a particular stock or group of
stocks I do not have the far-reaching audience that members of the SIA do.
Let me state in clear terms, that I firmly support this proposed regulation. In
addition, I would be elated to see a market in which the number of "insiders"
is reduced by making the average watcher of CNBC, or any other media production
aware of the same information that these media productions do.
Sincerely,
R. Aaron Walton
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 6:40 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
?
I as an investor need the same information on a timely basis that apparently
provided to analyst I at the present time cannot even find out what the
analyst are privy to even months after the information has ROCKED THE VALUES
OF THE STOCK and this is wrong.
Wall Street is arguing that maintaining the current system is not just in
its own interests, but in mine as well. This is b.s. I believe that any
time that a company gives out information to people other than company
personnel or on a need to know business relationship that I as a stockholder
or potential stockholder should have the ability to be privy to this
information if I wish. I feel this issue is important to me as an individual
investor,
John Weaver
1561 Johnson ln.
Yulee fl. 32097
jonweaver2@aol.com
A retired hourly stockholder and investor in the stockmarket and
anheuser busch companies.
Author: Whit Webb at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:52 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
everyone should benefit from equal disclosure
W. H. Webb
Author: jerry weinstein at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:58 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am definitely a supporter of full disclosure of information. It is
incredibly arrogant to believe that the market functions better when only
a select group of individuals have full and prior knowledge of the facts.
I would remind anyone reading this note that the most fundamental
principles of economics dictates that a full and free flow of information
is one of the essential conditions of a truly competitive market
structure. For the government to endorse a "special class" of "smarter,"
"more knowledgeable" individuals (stock market analysts) is repugnant to
democracy itself.
Thank you,
Jerome W Weinstein
6964 Sunfleck Row
Columbia, MD 21045
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:51 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposes Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Date: 04/21/2000
Subject: In favor of Proposed Regulation FD
I would like to express my opinion as being in favor of the SEC's
proposed new rules under file number S7-31-99.
I strongly suport the idea of levelling the playing field for
individual investors by ensuring that material information is provided to all
investors at
the same time.
Furthermore, I find the objections of the SIA to be disingenous and
insulting. New rules are needed. This unfair situation has cheated the
public, and
enriched a very small number of beneficiaries too long.
Much appreciation for the efforts of the Securites and Exchange
Commission, and Chairman Arthur Levitt. I applaud the chairman's proposal to
open up
the dissemination of news from corporations. Selective disclosure of
material facts must be stopped. Selective disclosure has enabled
professional
institutions to profit at the expense of the investing public.
Please make investing fair for all. Demand full disclosure from
companies.
Enact Regulation FD.
Sincerely,
Lawrence R. Wierzbowski
817 Vauclain Road
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
Author: "wiig" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 6:55 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
The way things are currently needs to be changed by this proposed regulation
change.
Thank You, Andrew Wiig
1541 Clay ST
Ashland NE 68003
Author: "Susan A Wueller" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:14 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No.
------------------------------- Message Contents
My husband and I are both active and informed investors . We support open
dissemination of information to investors, not just the priviledged few who
proport to
be protecting our interests.
Henry & Susan Wueller
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0421b02.htm
