Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: davide at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:36 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: file # s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I trade online and would really like to see the playing field leveled.
Individual investors now have the ability to trade after hours, a big
step
in the right direction. There are times, when the ability to act on
information released after the markets have closed is important. Fair
disclosure of information is even more important. The current system
amounts to little more than legalized insider trading and it is about
time
that something is done about it.
Davide Ansuini
1533 w hollywood ave
Chicago IL 60660
emida@earthlink.net
Author: "Ruth Baird" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:36 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is my opinion the new regulation should be approved. For certain
individuals or corporations to have information not available to the public
is obviously a financial benefit to them and should be discontinued.
Bruce Baird
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:34 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support this regulation. Rejection of this proposed regulation is
an affront to freedom. I don't need fat cat analysts and the elite media
sifting through this information for me. It reminds me of TAS, the official
news agency of the former USSR.
Author: Craig Beyers at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:31 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
TO: tmfmax@aol.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Individual investors should have access to the same information as Wall
Street analysts and don't need to be "protected" by analysts withholding
information about companies. I'm concerned that analysts increase the
volatility of the markets--in positive and negative directions--by their
personal biases unrelated to the underlying financial measures of a
company. Besides, as an individual stockholder in numerous companies, I
AM the market place, directly through stock purchases and as an employee
and indirectly through mutual fund purchases.
When analysts construe the "tone of voice" or "changes in words" as
meaningful indicators of financial performance, they're implying magical
powers to their abilities to define, predict, forecast, or otherwise
guess at the future financial performance of a company. Further, I'd
suggest that the attitude expressed in the public comments of the Ad Hoc
Working Group on Proposed Regulation FD and the Legal and Compliance
Division of the Securities Industry Association ("SIA") represent the
intent to ensure that market analysts can manipulate company ratings and
recommendations for their own use. This is little different than illegal
insider trading by manipulations of the stock price through analysts own
recommendations.
Craig Beyers
Author: "Barbara Borck" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:19 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation fd: file no. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is critically important that the general public receives access to the
same data from the same sources at the same time as the analysts.
Respectfully,
Thomas L.Borck
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:48 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: file #s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am highly insulted concerning this ruling. I am a educated women who has
learned the ropes of investor trading and the stock market. I enjoy doing
research and I have been quite successful. I am an individual investor that
has done well.
At no time do I want to contact a broker.
the best person to handle my money is me
I know what to buy, what to pay and what i need for my own good.
sincerly, nancy bowen
Author: "Mark Bower" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Comments regarding proposed regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern,
I am new to investing (less than one year), having just started my retirement
fund with a small portfolio of stocks purchased after doing my own research
into the companies. At first, I went to a full-service broker who offered
several
alternative choices to mine. I invested my money in my original choices, but
considered my broker's suggestions over the next few months. Though my
experience is quite limited, it is not clear to me at all that my broker (a
large,
Wall St. firm) offered any substantial insight that would significantly alter
how
and where I invested my money. In fact, I would say that the broker advice
I received constituted far more "hearsay" than the more fundamental viewpoint
of underlying financial strength I have been able to construct myself.
I would strongly support any regulation aimed at improving communication of
relevant financial data in a timely fashion to individual investors, hopefully
to
the equivalent degree as investment firms. This seems to me to be one of the
basic roles of a government as regulator; to make the availability of
information
equal to all.
Thank you for your consideration of my views,
Mark Bower
Author: "Tolan Brown" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It makes no sense for analysts to get special, privileged information on public
companies. The argument of the analysts seems to be that individual investors
are to stupid to handle the truth. It's really an absurd argument. I'm in
favor of the proposal and actually surprised it isn't already a rule. Investors
with little confidence in their own abilities will still use analysts but don't
force those of us that don't need them to use them because of a fear that they
might have heard something we haven't.
Tolan Brown
Author: "Darcy Burner" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:43 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam:
I feel very strongly that individual investors should have access to the same
information that professional analysts do. I do not feel that analysts having
access to information denied to the general public in any way increases the
efficiency of the markets or serves any justifiable function. I and most of the
other individual investors I know do in fact pour over stock prospectuses and
periodic reports and research thoroughly the stocks we are buying based on all
of the information available to us. To deny to us access to important
information about the stocks we are buying, while giving a select few access to
that information, can only serve to make the market less efficient while lining
the pockets of the analysts who have the information. It is only fair,
reasonable, and sensible that important disclosures about publically traded
companies should be public information.
Thank you,
Darcy Gibbons Burner
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:50 AM
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? The corp. analysts seem more
interested in churning investor accounts than reporting useful information.
As a private investor doing much better without analysts biased opinions,
release the information to the rest of us.
Robert Chene
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:32 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: adtrotta@email.msn.com at Internet
CC: altrn@email.msn.com at Internet
CC: ALTBSN@aol.com at Internet
CC: jerome.trotta@ssa.gov at Internet
CC: CRChiodi@aol.com at Internet
CC: AMChiodi@aol.com at Internet
CC: Spznout@aol.com at Internet
CC: mlt@frontiernet.net at Internet
CC: cgray3@rochester.rr.com at Internet
CC: MaggieGunz@juno.com at Internet
Subject: Regarding: Proposed SEC Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
As for the The Ad Hoc Working Group on Proposed Regulation FD and the Legal
and Compliance Division of the Securities Industry Association ("SIA")
comments to the SEC:
1) Is it true that "it hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary
and valuable function in the U.S. capital markets"? Is it true that to
perform that necessary and valuable function they need better information
than the participants in the market?
As a retiree and an independent investor, I rely upon timely and accurate
information about the stocks, bonds and funds in which I invest. I am
particularly mindful of the overnight plunge during after hours selling of
Xerox stock which devalued over half of my stock holdings. Had I been
privileged to the same information as the brokers, when the information was
given to them, I would have had the same opportunity to preserve my assets as
they did.
Information from CEO's, CFO's and the like filtered through Stock Brokers is
not my idea of timely accurate information. Because it is my money that they
take when they sell on bad news of which I have not heard until the brown
stuff hits the fan.
2) Is it true that, the "alternative model of millions of individual
investors and potential investors poring over prospectuses and periodic
reports is highly theoretical and out of sync with the real world"?
I have a prospectus for every stock, bond, and fund in which I have invested
and I have read each and every one of them "before" I invested. The SIA
lobby's assertions in this regard to the SEC is pure self-serving tripe. I
personally know of many private investors who operate exactly as I do.
3) Is it true that analysts make the markets less volatile?
I do not have the ability to affect the market individually. However,
analysts who are widely read and followed by the media and who, when
interviewed, have loose lips connected to a dimly lit lightbulb in their
brains, can and have caused institutional panic selling as well as individual
panic selling. A recent example is the comment made by an analyst regarding
valuation in the NASDAQ, and made a suggestion to increase the margin of
safety in cash reserves. This comment became a self fulfilling prophesy which
lead to a 2000 point drop of the NASDAQ in less than a month.
Who makes the market more volatile, me with my comments on the local stock
bulletin board, or the analyst who is picked up by the media? The individual
investor has always been canon fodder for a timely comment by an analyst in
the finance media spotlight.
4) Is it true that analysts spend much of their time ferreting out negative
information about companies?
Analysts do ferret out information, both positive and negative, about
corporations in which their institutions wish to invest, or in which they
have vested interests. However, they do not do this for companies in which
they have no interest. I rely upon organizations like S&P, Morning Star, and
The Motley Fool's organization for reasonably accurate, timely, and unbiased
information. I would greatly appreciate having access to information about a
company from the horse's mouth before I place my assets on the line, so that
I can draw my own conclusions without a broker/analysts opinion getting in
the way or filtering of my own highly perceptive scanners.
Thank you in advance for your consideration to these issues. I appreciate
your willingness to allow us small potatoes to comment.
RJChiodi
Author: Kristine Cross at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:33 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 support this proposed rule regarding fair
disclosure of information.
Kristine A. Cross
1908 Blossom Lane
Maitland, FL 32751
(407) 831-5809
kcross@mateerharbert.com
Author: "James C. Dobbs" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:33 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Disclosure Rule
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
I feel very strongly that all investors should be entitled to any
information that is released by a publically traded company. To allow some
information to be released to a select number of "analysts" is the epitomy
of arrogance. I make my own investment decisions and pay a very small
online fee for my trades. I'm entitled to any information that the
full-service brokers get.
Sincerely,
James C. Dobbs
7331 Rockridge Road
Baltimore MD 21207
Author: "The Doyles" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:33 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation fd--file # s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs: I cannot imagine how any thought enhanced person can believe that there is
a benefit to the general public by showing information favoritism to any select
group in any endeavor. It is hard to get a hog to slaughter itself and in this
vein that group of individuals within this segment of the financial world who
have been favored over others is not going to give up that advantage easily.
They argue that private investors are not smart enough to survive without their
spin on things. I submit that under full disclosure they are not ask to leave
and those individual investors who have difficulty navigating on their own will
still use them. There are many individual investors who know they need good
council and are willing to pay for it. There are many who do not want to spend
the time it takes to do the research necessary to make informed decisions and
want to hire good council. It would be interesting to see how many of these
advisors survive when their customers have the opportunity to check the facts
behind some of their claims. It will make the whole industry stronger when the
rules are changed so that everyone has access to all of the same information at
the same time. If some Corp fail to advise the public of pertinent information
in a timely matter then that is another issue an there are provisions for the
enforcers to deal with that in an appropriate manner, and if there are not
proper rules in place then they need to be put in place. View this as continuous
improvement as opposed to the final fix. I am confident that in the interest of
fairness and making our business ethics appropriate when everything is
considered, including the small investor you will see the wisdom of making the
rules the same for everybody, and give information to everybody at the same time
in the same format the law of the land.
Aden J. Doyle
admar@voyager.net
Author: "jamie dugan" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:30 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am writing in response to the recent Securities Industry Association's public
comments on the SEC's Proposed Regulation FD. This regulation, as you know,
would require, among other things, that companies no longer engage in the
practice of discreetly disclosing important information to Wall Street analysts
without also giving that information to the public at large.
The SIA basically argues in its comments of April 6 that individual investors
are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions about the value of
securities and need Wall Street's analysts to hear and interpret important
information first. Through that method, the SIA argues, individual investors are
protected from their own ignorance and emotion.
Several questions come to my mind after having read their remarks:
1) Is it true that "it hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary and
valuable function in the U.S. capital markets"? Is it true that to perform that
necessary and valuable function they need better information than the
participants in the market?
2) Is it true that, the "alternative model of millions of individual investors
and potential investors poring over prospectuses and periodic reports is highly
theoretical and out of sync with the real world"?
3) Is it true that analysts make the markets less volatile?
4) Is it true that analysts spend much of their time ferreting out negative
information about companies?
I understand that the SIA has an interest in advocating for its members.
However, I believe their advocate's position in this instance is harmful to the
interest of the public-at-large. The greater good is more important than the
SIA's membership's interests because the proposed ruling will provide the public
more information (read power) regarding their investment decisions. This, in
turn, may create more competition for professional "analysts," but competition
is always good for a free-market society such as ours.
I hope that you will take these issues into consideration when making your
decision regarding the proposed regulation FD.
Thank you.
sincerely,
Margaret League Dugan
Author: "Richard T. Durnan" <2ndresource@theriver.com> at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:26 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support this proposed regulation. I have been investing for 30 years
and have done well when I did my own research and made my own decisions.
Thank you,
Richard T. Durnan
OVCC Estates
435 W. Orango Pl.
Tucson, AZ 85737
Author: Chris Friesen at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:22 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Members of the SEC,
I wish to add my voice to others in favor of FD.
I understand the interest of analysts in having access to information not
shared with the public at large but I am certain that the value of a good
analyst is not due to his/her access to non-public information but rather
in the ability to analyze (that is, to organize) many pieces of information.
The potential for abuse that arises from any kind of selective disclosure
seems to greatly outweigh the possible harm that may result from making all
company pronouncements and analyst conferences public information.
All investors should benefit from the proposed legislation.
Chris Friesen
100 N Main St
Mt Gilead, OH 43338
Author: Bruce Gladstone at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:35 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am quite certain that direct access by all investors to
company briefings will be of significant benefit. I find
the argument that "investors aren't smart enough or are
too emotional" to be ludicrous. It's clearly a self-serving
argument meant to try to protect a privileged position. If
it's clear that analysts' opinions have value then those
opinions will continue to have value.
Based on the bloodletting two weeks ago, it's very clear
to me that analysts as a group are no better than the
rest of us. Where was the consensus from analysts that
the NASDAQ was overvalued and heading for a fall. I'm
sure if you review history you will find that the
overwhelming majority of analysts were rating Cisco,
Sun Microsystems, Intel, etc. as Buys or Strong Buys.
So much for their smarts and steely eyed lack of emotion.
- Bruce
==================================================
Bruce Gladstone Tel: (818) 986-9250
2KSounds Fax: (818) 981-5922 21700
Oxnard St. #3010
Woodland Hills, CA 91367 EMail: bruce@2ksounds.com
Author: "Clare Godholm" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:54 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 Clare Godholm 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.
Author: "Haesslein; Hanns C MD" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:25 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to add my voice to those of the general public that desire
corporate information to be divulged to analysts and investor simultaneously.
As a private non-professional investor with over 25 years experience, it is
difficult to remember when "analysts" have given me information that has been
1. otherwise unfathomable, 2. useful in decision making, 3. kept me out of
buying high and selling low.
In the age of the internet , SEC should give individual investors the ability to
get information at the same time and with the same truthfulness as an "analyst".
Spend time on enforcing accurate corporate reporting- then let us decide.
Assume the common man has common sense- it is ( his) money after all....
From the desk of:
Hanns C. Haesslein
P.O. Box 34008
Seattle WA. 98124-1008
Tel: (206) 568 7014
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:49 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The idea that individual investors cannot digest information about equities,
without first being interpreted through an analyst, is totally ludicrous.
Most people are willing to admit their inadequacies about investing large
sums of their hard earned money, and will turn to an analyst, if needed;
however, there are MANY others who are entirely capable, and wish to be able
use the information, distributed to analysts before becoming public
knowledge. There is no reason to withhold this data, except to give a
"timing" advantage to the professionals. Therefore, if that is the reason,
why not say so? I resent propaganda put forth, that it is for my protection.
Sincerely,
Helen M.
Hammond
Author: "Harvey; Greg" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:40 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
This proposed rule clearly makes sense and is in line with the direction of
the markets in the 90's and beyond. As the number of individual investors
who manage their own accounts and transact their own trades increases, the
old systems and methods must be questioned. In an environment where analysts
have special access to corporate officers and information the playing field
is unfair. The current situation sets up one group (analysts) as market
insiders while the individual investor is set at a disadvantage. Furthermore
this special information is used by the brokerages and analysts to generate
income. This represents collusion between the corporations and
brokers/analysts and can have a detrimental affect on the open markets. I
have reviewed the Securities Industry Association response date April 6th and
disagree on many points. The basis of their argument seems to be that the
people they represent are somehow entitled to more or better information than
an individual investor and that this somehow benefits the market. I believe
it is important to note that the proposed rule does not hinder the
professional analyst from doing their research, making estimates and
communicating this information with their clients. Disclosure of material
information to everyone simultaneously, is the only way that the markets can
equally and appropriately react to changes in a particular business.
Clearly the time have come to resolve this problem and I urge the passage of
the proposed rules.
Greg Harvey
Author: Arlene Hawkins at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:29 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Full disclosure at the same time for everyone
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam,
Proposed Regulation FD which requires full disclosure for everyone at the
SAME TIME
should be passed.
1. Analysts contribute to the volatility in the market -- April 14, 2000
market drops
illustrates their high level of wisdom and knowledge-HA! if they know
anything the
individual investor still does not know. Institutions were selling stock
based on their
analyst's advice. Individual investors were on the sidelines looking at the
carnage and being
dragged down. What did the institutions know that I did not know??
2. Individual investors are capable of analyzing the information -- after
all who is clicking
on Yahoo/finance, CNN, NBC, Edgar and reading all the news on the stocks
they own --
individual investors.
3. Analysts are always quick to recommend buy and never say sell. When an
analyst
states that their position in particular stock as been reduced, the
individual investor should
take that as a buy signal.
4. The internet has started to level the playing field and technology will
eliminate the need
for so many analysts.
The only problem the individual investor has with analysts is knowing when
he needs to
sell. Everyone has emergencies that arise that creates the demand for
cash. The
individual investor just gets stuck holding the stock for a longer period
and coming up with
needed cash through other sources.
Arlene Hawkins
ahawkins@univ-wea.com
Individual Investor
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:35 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
This issue is quite simple. The individual investor should have all of
the information available to the select group of wall street advisors. We do
not need protection from ourselves.
Thank you,
Bill Hiner
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:33 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is my opinion that this rule The rule (Proposed Regulation FD) would
require, among other things, that companies no longer engage in the practice
of discreetly disclosing important information to Wall Street analysts
without also giving that information to the public at large. It's a pretty
commonsense rule in my opinion, one that many investors might logically
assume must already be the law of the land, but unfortunately isn't. I think
it should be law.
David Jordan investor
Author: Chris Kallaher at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:30 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
TO: tmfmax@aol.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
I am writing in strong support of the proposed rule that would allow the
investment community at large to have access to the same
company-specific information that now can be reserved only for a handful
of analysts at traditional brokerage firms. As one of the hundreds of
thousands, perhaps millions, of investors who have taken control of
their own finances, I can say that the old view of the world as one in
which a small number of brokerage firms and their analysts act as the
filter for information that can reach the general marketplace simply can
no longer be supported. None of the arguments made on behalf of the
status quo stands up under scrutiny. For example, analysts do not
protect the market from volatility. Quite to the contrary, because
analysts are presumed to have information that is not available to the
individual investor, their pronouncements on the worth of a particular
stock or sector of stocks is given undue weight by investors who then
run a stock or sector's value up or down with no independent knowledge
of whether or not the analyst's view is fair. If information were made
available to all investors at roughly the same time (isn't that one of
the elements of an efficient market?) then the sum total of the
competing and conflicting views of the meaning of any particular bit of
information would likely prevent volatility that comes from treating a
handful of analysts as oracles.
Second, the idea that companies will be less responsive if they have to
release information to the public at large is purely speculative.
Individual investors today are increasingly demanding in their quest for
information. Companies that cannot or will not answer the justifiable
inquiries of the public at large will quickly become known as companies
that cannot be trusted with your money. Besides, the relationship
between analysts and the companies they follow has always seemed to me a
bit too cozy. It is certainly one that cannot be policed in any
effective fashion, and there is no reason to believe that individual
analysts who, judging by the comments filed in this proceeding, already
see themselves as the chosen ones, cannot be just as easily manipulated
by individuals within a company as would be a community of millions of
investors, none of whom depend on that company for their livelihoods.
Finally, the arguments against this regulation appear to be underpinned
by the notion that analysts are just plain better at guiding the market
than individual investors would be. This is just plain hogwash. As an
exloding number of resources (such as the Motley Fool, which must take
much responsibility for the increasingly subversive mood among the
public at large) has become available to individual investors, we have
realized that investing doesn't require brilliance so much as paying
attention to certain basics, setting realistic goals and, more than
anything, staying disciplined when those around you are freaking out. I
don't believe it was people like me who read the Motley Fool posts every
day who caused the craziness in the market in the last couple of weeks.
(In fact, the total number of trades I have made in the last month is
exactly zero, and I now look like a genius for not buying QQQs when the
NASDAQ was at 5,000.) But all of those fund managers who listen to the
oracular analysts will go willingly over the cliff at the mere whiff of
bad news. There's your volatility in the market.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this important topic. I
encourage you to adopt this regulation and thereby take a large step in
the direction of a more efficient market.
Yours truly,
Chris Kallaher
114 The Fenway #9
Boston, Massachusetts 02115
Author: "Kruse; Brian D" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:36 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Wall street does not provide a valuable service.
The proposed comments from the SIA assume that the individual investor is
incompetent. In the spirit of the 1st ammendment, I don't want a filter
"Wall Street" receiving information and putting regurgitating it to the
investing
public. I have a Masters in Business and can read a financial statement
and understand the impact of news and events on a companies financial position
without the need for another party to get involved.
On a final note, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to send e-mail to
communicate my concerns.
Thank you.
Author: "Matthews; Paul" 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
Dear Sirs,
As an individual investor I maintain that the practice of privately
disclosing company information to selected "analysts" is a corrupt and
pernitious practice. It is a form of insider trading. This practice also
distorts the Market. For a truly free market depends on accurate disclosure
to all investors. I strongly support rule FD.
Regards, Paul J. Matthews
Individual Investor
Author: "McArthur; Don; Herndon" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:24 AM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to see the information made available to the general public and
individual investors.
Donald Mc
Arthur
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:39 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The proposition that analysts should have an opportunity to collect inside
information from corporate clients under the guise of protecting individual
investors from protentially misleading information is ridiculous on its face.
Since many of the analysts work for investment banks whose interest is in
selling the stock to investors or in underwriting new offerings by the
company, the concept of the analyst as a ferrett of inaccurate information
flies in the face of the basis of his compensation. Creating a hierarchy of
information access is clearly anamolous to the concept of a "publically
traded" stock. If one class of investors has been provided with key financial
news before the rest of the market id apprised of it. The institutional
investors already wield immence influence on market prices through the sheer
volume and velocity of their trading. If they are given an informational
advantage as well, then the small, individual investor is inevitable the
victim as a result of stale information.
John F. McJennett, III
Treasurer
IGWE Trust, LLC
Member NAIC
Author: "Othmar J. Meier" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:36 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
I support regulation that would level the playing field of individual investors
and the
"slightly more informed insider club".
O. J.Meier
Author: "Jon Molnar" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:59 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD, File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir;
My name is Jon Molnar and I am a private investor. I highly recommend
that the proposed regulation for fair disclosure be passed as a requirement
for all companies which would provide equal disclosure to the public investor.
I have reviewed the comments submitted by the National Investor Relations
Institute (NIRI) and, as with all proposed regulations, my endorsement is based
on the concept of the proposal and not the full wording. I feel that you should
consider the modifications proposed by the NIRI prior to approving this
regulation.
The U.S. stock market one of our country's greatest assets and provides one
of the best examples of free enterprise. Approving this regulation will enhance
this example. Without it the market remains in a very unequitable condition
where favor is given to institutional and broker operations.
In the last 5 years all aspects of business and government have had to re-think
their operating models to factor in the impact of the internet, which represents
timely distribution of information. The internet is overwhelmingly successful
due
to the public's hunger for timely information. This regulation, if passed,
would
show the SEC's support of meeting the public's demand for information.
Regards,
Jon C. Molnar
Author: TJMOJR@webtv.net (TOM MORRIS) at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:36 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation FD File number S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please help make the playing level for the private investor that chooses
not to use a "full service broker". Many of us have chosen vocations
that did not put us on Wall Street but that does not mean that
information from publicly traded companies should be kept cloistered.
Thank you for your consideration.
Tom Morris
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:24 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: (no subject)
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
Market analysts are not the only intelligent being's on the planet. Who
appointed them to this godlike stature? We as investor's in this economy are
also intelligent enough to interpret the so called 'Insider Information' and
should have the same access to this information.
Please pass this on as my opinion to this matter.
An individual investor,
Thank you,
Jerry Petti
IBM
St. Louis, Mo.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:32 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC
I support the regulation requiring full disclosure of all information to
the general public concurrent with supplying information to investment
analyts. I am retired, having spent 35+ years in the financial services
industry I feel comfortable reviewing company information. It is not
necessary and puts individual investors at a severe disadvantage to have
information go to analyts prior to providing it to the general public.Thank
you for your consideration.
Sincerely
Robert F. Quasius
W2835 Oakridge Drive
Appleton, WI 54915
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:34 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Support of FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
The idea that analysts need private access to "relentlessly pursue"
information from companies is absurd. Really, the effect of having the
analyst privy to this info is that I will now be concerned that I maybe need
to read these analyst reports because they have the "inside scoop." And
this "inside scoop" is such a murky thing. I don't picture too many vigorous
cross examinations of CEOs by analysts. What I do picture is a situation
where management will meet with analysts only to the point where it benefits
the company. The analysts will be cordial AND helpful in order to get the
continued flow of "information." Any damaging admissions will be "off the
record"and compromised spins will be hammered out between management and
analyst. These spins will be related into the analyst report which I may now
chose to pay for. Again, if I choose to read the report, it will be largely
in order to find these hidden tips. I urge the SEC to make these analysts
earn their money by coming up with verifiable, insightful thorough reports
that do not rely on info which I have no access to and info which is of
questionable value anyway.
Sincerely, Andrew Queler
Author: Jim Speiran at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:18 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File #S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
I am greatly concerned when a body of "experts", who have a vested
interest in keeping information exclusively to themselves ( information
is power) are lobbying to prevent the free and open flow of information.
Their arguments are hollow and self serving. The facts are there are
just as many intelligent individuals outside the industry as inside. Of
the individual investors only a small number will want to do their own
investigation, thus leaving the industry to provide them with the
analysis. The Companies will cooperate with the industry as the industry
will still have the clot of dollars and influence. Exclusive clubs breed
deceit even when there is theoretically multilple exclusive clubs which
might result in competition. The bottom line is that free information
flow is the fairest way to prevent vested interest from existing.
Regards,
Jim Speiran
163 North Bay Drive
Bullard, TX. 75757
903-825-6313
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:43 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
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 postiion, 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 politica
l intervention to insure fair and equal treatment for all investors.
Sincerely,
Rick Starr
Author: Sundy at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:34 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs,
After reading the SIA's filing obviously a "good ole' boy" network is
absolutely necessary to my financial well being. I need to pay someone to
tell me what to think. To continue with the SIA's analogy I need Dan Rather
to come on after the President to tell me what I just heard.
I hope you realize the sarcasm above was not aimed at you but at a group
that wants to limit information given to the public to further their goals
of making as much money as possible through special connections while
denying said information to the people out making widgets that make
companies profitable.
As far as volatility is concerned the recent correction in the markets
indicate that individual investors stayed the course, it was the insiders
that churned the waters.
Please give us a chance to make our own informed decisions. There will
be plenty of people that choose not to do the research themselves so that
Wall Street brokers will be able to survive.
Sincerely,
Dennis Sundermeyer
3821 Bell St #1
Kansas City, Mo. 64111
Author: "Richard K. (Rick) Sykes" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:38 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear People,
I am an individual investor. I make my own decisions, without the
help of analysts. I'd like to have access to the same information as
others competing in the market. It doesn't seem like that much to
ask.
--
Rick Sykes Senior Engineer, SysAdmin LinCom Corporation
rsykes@lincom-asg.com
Author: thomas webster at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:41 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
This regulation will benefit the individual investor. The comments
from the brokerage companies make it clear that analysts want
to keep things like they now are. Individuals are very capable and
not as foolish as the brokerage companies would have you believe.
Thomas Webster
Individual Investor
Author: "james wells" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:50 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation File No S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs and Mesdames,
I write to offer comments as a private investor of some substance, on
the above captioned Proposed Regulation (File # S7-31-99), which as I
understand the SEC's position, would prohibit publicly held companies from
continuing the practice of disclosing its financial information and data to
Wall Street (and other) analysts, without simultaneously providing the same
information to the public at large; i.e. "full disclosure".
Contrary to the position of the S.I.A., I believe that Wall Street
analysts and the media are the root cause of much of the volatility in the
market, resulting in considerable churning by brokers and loss of profits by
individual investors. Analysts when fed information by a corporate
information office often publish a conclusion concerning the stock which is
frequently inimicable to the long term prospects for the company or a
particular industry. The brokerage industry of course has a short term
horizon, and is paid to see that portfolios are churned. It has a vested
interest in volatility.
My personal belief arising out of over fifty years of investing is that
the most successful investment strategy remains buying quality securites and
holding them for the long term. Consequently, I have successfully used
Dividend Reinvestment Plans for years, ignoring the sound and fury of the
Wall Street analysts.
Failure of the S.E.C to enforce full disclosure of corporate information
flies in the face of this proven investment strategy, and simply plays into
the hands of the brokerage industry and their paid flacks, the analysts. I
urge a regulation requiring "full disclosure".
Very truly yours,
James R. Wells
Private Investor
Author: Glenn & Mary Wilson at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:42 AM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC Administration:
In the interest of full and fair disclosure for all U.S. citizens, please
support this regulation and level the playing field for all investors. Life is
not fair and we all have to take risks, but it is contrary to the models of
democracy to intentionally create U.S. regulations that support and perpetuate
a system that provides privileged access to few, while the majority of U.S.
citizens are left in the dark.
Privileged access to information allows the opportunity for the few to take full
advantage of this privileged information and act in a manner that benefits
their own agenda first. Unfortunately, the majority of the U.S. citizens will
only receive access to this data after it has been filtered and acted upon by
those who have had prior access. This is hardly the basis for a fair and level
playing field. We, the individual investors, are entitled to have the same
access as the privileged few, but more importantly, it is the only way to create
a system that truly represents an open market in a capitalist society.
In recent weeks, the U.S. market has gone through a period of intense
volatility. There is no doubt that speculation by institutional and individual
investors created a tremendous bubble in the Nasdaq market, specifically for
technical stocks. This bubble is no different than many others that have
existed throughout the history of the U.S. stock market and some will win and
some will lose. That is an inherent risk in choosing to invest in the stock
market.
Traditionally, the world of investing is and has been dominated by the large
institutions. These institutions operate for profit by any means available and
I have no doubt that they do not have my best interest in mind. Risk is a
natural part of life and a basic ingredient of investing. However, just because
risk is an ingredient of investing doesn't mean that individual investors should
be forced to take considerably greater risk than the large financial
institutions. Information is gold in a capitalist society and a system that
gives privileged access to information to the few is not operating in the best
interest of the overall society or it's individual citizens.
The most recent tech bubble burst over the last few weeks, but it began shortly
after Abby Joseph Cohen, Chief Investment Strategist, from Goldman Sach's
reduced her position in equities. I believe it is fair to assume that before
she made her public announcement that caused a ripple in the U.S. markets, that
she and other Goldman Sach analysts, were very successful in reducing their
exposure to tech stocks for themselves and their clients.
Two days after Abby Joseph Cotten's announcement, another Goldman Sach analyst
(Ajay Diwan) provided a downgrade on Cabletron Systems and the stock plummeted
from $48 on 3/29 to open at $31 on 3/30 because of the downgrade and commentary
by this analyst from Goldman Sach. We could debate whether the content of the
downgrade was warranted or not, but that is not the point. It is my contention
and strong suspicion that the analyst from Goldman Sach successfully maneuvered
his customers out of this particular tech stock over the prior few days which
enabled him to make his commentary without risk to his clients. The entire
situation related to the collapse of Cabletron Systems (CS) stock over the last
3 weeks would probably serve as a classic example of manipulation by the
analysts and power brokers on Wall Street with the clear intention of driving
out the individual investor. Ironically, I would not be surprised to discover
that Goldman Sach's has been purchasing stock since the collapse of Cabletron's
stock and once they have purchased what is necessary at a cheap price they will
make another public announcement to upgrade Cabletron Systems. No one knows for
sure, but there is definitely a growing distrust of the large financial
institutions and their ability to act in a fair and ethical manner.
Recently, 3Com (COMS) had an initial public offering for their Palm Pilot
subsidiary (PALM), in which, the stock opened for trading at the ridiculous
price of $140. It hit an intra-day high of $165 and began to collapse over the
past thirty days to below $30 per share. This represents one of the worst
examples of institutional hype in the market. Both individual and some
institutional investors were blinded by all of the media hype and frenzy
associated with this stock. Ironically, the lead underwriter who helped create
this frenzy was Goldman Sach's. It is my opinion that Goldman Sach's should
have made public comments to slow down the frenzy associated with this IPO when
it was clear that it was being hyped beyond reason. Unfortunately, this
financial institution whom we are supposed to trust to act in a fair and ethical
manner contributed to the frenzy, and at the very least, failed to bring down
the level of enthusiasm to a more realistic level. Buyers should always beware,
but when a leading financial institution has access to privileged information
then that institution has a duty, especially as lead underwriter, to calm the
frenzy and limit the speculation as opposed to quietly or actively encouraging
the hype. Financial institutions are great at making a profit for themselves,
but do they really act in the best interest of their clients and the average
individual investor .... I think not!
This past week, an article in the Financial Times notes that the Japanese
Government essentially slapped Goldman Sach's on the hand for failing to do the
proper amount of due diligence and effort required to represent the Japanese
government with regards to the privatization/sale of government operations.
Goldman Sach's has operated as a financial advisor to the Japanese government,
but they reportedly could be dropped according to the Financial Times. In that
article, the Japanese government was quoted as saying "the best that can be said
is that there was a lack of judgment involved" on the part of Goldman Sach's.
It makes me wonder what is the worst that the Japanese government would say if
they truly wanted to voice a strong opinion!
My point is that the SEC seems to operate with the belief that the analysts who
work for the various financial institutions are operating in a fair manner and
in the best interest of the individual investors, as well as their own clients.
This couldn't be any further from the truth!
When Cabletron Systems stock collapsed I was told by Investor Relations at
Cabletron Systems that the CEO personally talked to all the analysts that cover
the stock to clarify the company's short-term and long-term strategy. Who knows
what other information has been passed on in this direct dialogue between the
CEO of Cabletron Systems and the analysts on Wall Street. All I know is that I
have yet to see any public commentary by the CEO of Cabletron Systems nor have I
seen any detailed opinions released from Wall Street as a result of this
dialogue. It is very possible that the financial institutions could allow the
stock to drift while they accumulate a relatively cheap CS stock as a direct
result of their dialogue with the CEO of Cabletron Systems, whereas the
individual investor is left to scrape for information and try to make decisions
without the same degree of information. When they have finalized their
positions, the financial institutions will issue their pronouncements of support
or lack of support when they are ready and only after they have put or removed
their clients from the appropriate position with regards to Cabletron Systems
(or any stock for that matter). By the time the information is filtered down to
the individual investor it is usually too late!
I am glad to hear that the CEO of Cabletron Systems is taking an active role in
trying to inform the analysts, but as an individual investor I am completely out
of the loop. Additionally, I have absolutely no faith that the analysts and
financial institutions will take this information that has been provided via
privileged access and act in an ethical/fair manner for all investors. It is
the plight of individual investors that the CEO of Cabletron System can give
direct advice to the major financial heavyweights, but he doesn't have to
personally called me, or E-mail me, or write me a letter, or even issue a public
commentary on the stocks fall from grace, yet he continues to talk directly with
the analysts who cover the stock. These are the same analysts who will only
pass on this information after they have utilized it for their own advantage or
the advantage of their clients. Hardly a fair system!
I have given you a few brief examples of the power of the analysts and I have
also raised doubts as to whether or not they act in a fair and ethical manner.
As you read this letter and the letter from other individual investors, please
take our comments seriously. As an individual investor, I think it is unethical
and borders on criminal behavior that a group of analysts covering a stock are
able to get privileged access to company information, while the rest of us
remain in the dark.
If the SEC truly wants to operate in a manner that is in the tradition of
democracy, fair play, and ethical behavior than I strongly urge you to support
and enact this regulation. The financial institutions have the power to lobby
and pressure the SEC into voting against this regulation so as to preserve a
system that works, but I say "NO" ... the system works for them .... "NOT ME".
Please take the time to consider all positions and not just the positions of the
financial institutions. I am an educated investor who doesn't mind taking the
appropriate degree of risk, but I would like to at least have a level playing
field so that I can compete fairly and openly in the U.S. markets.
At this time, most U.S. corporations, mid-size businesses, and small businesses
have their own web sites. News is readily available on hundreds of web sites.
In this age of technological freedom, there is no reason why publicly held
corporations must spoon feed the financial analysts ..... who may have another
agenda besides fair and full disclosure. Data can easily be posted on web sites
so that both the analysts and the individual investors can all have equal access
to data. Data is currently disseminated only through privileged access to
certain financial institutions, this hardly represents the U.S. ideals of fair
play and ethical behavior. Fortunately, the existence of the Internet provides
the tools for a new era of fair play if this regulation is approved.
I am certainly capable of interpreting company information without having it
filtered by the analysts who work for large financial institutions, who operate
according to their own agenda. Please take the necessary time to review and
approve this regulation so that all investors have equal access to information.
The U.S. stock market and economy has been built on individuals taking risks.
It has also been built by federal agencies enacting carefully constructed
regulations throughout our history that have been designed to restrict or
eliminate the abuses of power that have occurred throughout the history of our
country. We are at another watershed period where the Internet provides the
basis for equal access to data, but the current status quo still provides
privileged access to the few. If the U.S. economy and stock market is to
continue to operate in a healthy and ethical manner, then we ... the average
U.S. citizen / investor .... needs to have faith that the markets are operating
fairly for the potential benefit of all. Currently, I do not believe that is
the case and this is the time to enact this regulation to improve the flow of
information and level the playing field for all!
Sincerely,
Glenn Wilson
20 Elmwood Avenue
Dover NH 03820
gmwilson@mediaone.net
(603) 749-5901
Author: "Wright; Jeff" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:26 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
After reading the pros and cons of the proposed rule changes, my vote is for
full disclosure. The reality of the situation will probably dictate that the
analysts info will be backdoored to them by there cronies. In either case,
at least the average investor will be able to play on a level field
Regards,
Jeff Wright
JWRIGHT@FISERVHRIS.COM
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0421b03.htm
