U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
SEC Seal
Home | Previous Page
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

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,
     
Josť 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


Modified:04/26/2000