Author:at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 2:35 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Please give us little guys a chance. E Sergent Aiea Hi
Author: sitzat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 12:40 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents To Whom It May Concern, We are not in favor of analysts continuing to filter the news about companies. We want to make our own financial decisions, and feel the current system is outdated and unfair. Please support proposed rule FD. Sincerely, Gloria and Steve Sitzman
Author: MARVIN SLATKINat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 1:33 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents The SEC has my vote for revising the disclosure of information by publicly traded companies to assure that more level playing field, especially for the individual investor. While I understand that, like my doctor, my brokerage firm has my best interests at heart, and would put my account needs before their own, I strongly support the proposed regulation. Marvin Slatkin
Author:at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 2:12 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Put me down as very strongly in favor of full disclosure. Martin Smith 3215 Herschel St. Jacksonville, FL 32205
Author: "Jack Sontrop"at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 10:07 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I agree that companies should 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.
Author: "Richard Stitner"at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 2:15 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Fair disclosure rule ------------------------------- Message Contents I am very much in favor of individual investors having access to the same information that companies give to analysts at the same time analysts get this information. This after all is only fair. Individual investors should have the same opportunity to analyze investment information as everyone else on Wall Street and at the same time. This would help us as individual investors to make more timely decisions on our investment opportunities and should preclude shutting out individual investors to information on changes within companies. I hope you will make and enforce rules that require companies to make information immediately available to the general public that is given to investment analysts. Richard Stiltner 10338 Bluebonnet Blvd Baton Rouge, LA 70810
Author: rstoneat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 9:00 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents The old guard must release it's unfair advantage. The wall must come down! No one should have an unfair advantage, isn't that what the SEC is suppose to be about? Get 100% FREE Internet Access from Freei.Net. 100% FREE, 100% Anonymous, 100% Jam Packed with features. Check us out at http://www.freei.net.
Author: Art Stoneat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 6:57 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I am an individual investor in favor of proposed regulation FD. The stock market has undergone revolutionary changes with the inception of the internet that go a long way towards putting the individual investor on an even playing field with the Wall Street (WS) analyst. Individual investors now have access to the same information and the trading floor that the WS analyst has always had. One remaining inequity is the special access WS analysts have to publicly traded companies. WS analysts use priviledged information to their advantage, which is often to the disadvantage of the individual investor. This is an unfair vestige of the pre-internet WS that needs to be removed. Thanks, Art Stone
Author: "Scott Stoops"at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 12:26 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents To whom it may concern: As an individual investor, I strongly support the above regulation. In the past I have used a full-service broker for investment advice but since my account was a small one, I received rather poor service and questionable advice. I have done just as well investing on my own via a discount broker and making use of all the investment information available via TV, print media, and the internet. By limiting important information to only Wall Street analysts, small investors like myself are left out. We deserve the same access to this information. Scott Stoops
Author: "Thayer; David"at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 12:39 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Sir or Madam, As you know -- and as I can attest, as a student of economics at the Wharton School, the London School of Economics, and the University of Chicago -- greater information flows enhance market efficiency. Period. I have read the comments of the SIA and have found them to be specious and clearly driven by (natural) instincts of self-preservation. Please respect the rights, and intelligence, of individual investors by requiring full disclosure of important corporate information. Many assume (as did I) that this is already the law ... as well it should be. With many thanks for your continued efforts, David Thayer, Consultant The Corporate Executive Board ______________________ David B. Thayer Syndicated Consultant Corporate Leadership Council ThayerD@executiveboard.com 202.777.5253
Author: JOHN THOMASat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 2:41 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Propsed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents To whom it may concern: The company information released in advance to analysts should be made available to the public at the same time! John Thomas
Author: Tracie Thompsonat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 10:35 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Greetings. I am writing in support of the proposed full disclosure rule. It would serve to make Wall Street analysts and brokerage firms more accountable to the individuals they serve, and companies more accountable to their shareholders. Despite arguments to the contrary, individual investors DO put in the time to gather, read, and decipher financial statements and prospectuses from the companies in which they invest, or might invest. It is not in the least theoretical; it is happening, and happening more all the time. Do analysts contribute to the stability of the market, really? How? Is their overall record of accuracy any better than that of well-informed individual investors? I believe it is not, and that their argument that I am not bright enough to interpret information for myself, is invalid. Please support full disclosure. Tracie Thompson, Tampa, FL
Author: "Bradley A. Town"at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 10:23 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Chairman Levitt: As an individual investor, I applaud the SEC for considering ending the unfair practice of selective information disclosure by public companies. Sincerely, Bradley A. Town Individual investor townba@pobox.com
Author: "Susan Ulrich"at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 1:01 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I've read some of the public comments made by The Ad Hoc Working Group on Proposed Regulation FD and the Legal and Compliance Division of the Securities Industry Association ("SIA"). And I strongly disagree with their position. First of all, it should be blatently obvious that they are trying to protect the outrageous salaries and commissions they receive from being a part of the 'good old boy' network. The SIA argues 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. As an invidual investor, I greatly resent that remark. I've seen their track record (as a group) and I've also seen the study where a monkey made better stock picks! So much for ignorance and emotion. A number of thoughts come to my mind as I read this: 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? I don't think so. 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 don't know that we individual investors number in the millions, (but then again, maybe we do), but I can tell you that many thousands of us already do this, and it would be only fair to have more timely information to work with. 3) Is it true that analysts make the markets less volatile? Need I mention the last few weeks of market activity? 4) Is it true that analysts spend much of their time ferreting out negative information about companies? If they do this, they won't be releasing it. The reason for this is that if they release negative information about a particular company, their source of information would very quickly dry up. So the very most the public gets from them is unenthusiastic praise. Thank you for reading this, Susan A. Ulrich
Author: Tom Varalloat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 11:00 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Hello, I am writing to express my support for Proposed Regulation FD. I feel it is only common sense that a publicly traded company be required to provide the same information to the entire investment world, including individual investors. There is no reason why a private corporation should be granted special access to information from a publicly traded company. This is simply counter to our culture and its values, and does a disservice to our markets. Thank you, Thomas A. Varallo Coronado, CA
Author: "Bob Warner"at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 10:43 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents To Whom it May Concern: I am an individual investor, and would like to weigh in on the proposed rule noted above. I would welcome a rule that had compelled companies sharing info with investors and analysts alike. I feel that too often, analysts have their own agenda, and serve to create market volatility with their "from on high" prognostications. I feel that analysts who receive info ahead of the individual investor, create a disadvantage for those like me, who choose to invest without the "advantage" of a full service broker. I suspect that the only ones who benefit from the current system are the large institutional customers, who are privy to the analysts' insight before the average investor. Such a system is not fair to the investing public as a whole. I urge you to adopt the proposed regulation, level the playing field for the individual investor, and open up the information tap for everyone. Sincerely, Bob Warner bobw235@mediaone.net
Author: John Warthenat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 11:50 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Sirs: I strongly feel the proposed SEC rule File No. S7-33-99 should go through in order to aid investors to evaluate companies in a timely and unbiased manner. John L. Warthen 306 Chalfonte Drive Baltimore, MD 21228
Author: J2W2@webtv.net (Julia Watson) at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 12:25 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99" ------------------------------- Message Contents It hardly needs saying; the "SIA" is for the middleman (the analysts). In the interest of lowering the cost of any commodity whether an idea, information, or manufactured goods; getting rid of the middleman is of prime importance. Most of us are not as dumb as some think we are and some of us really like to be able to do our own research. So, please by all means give us a chance to do so. Julia Watson
Author:at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 10:01 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No S7 31 99 ------------------------------- Message Contents As a small investor who pick his own stocks I find the current practice of selective disclosure, the conference calls for annalysts only abhorant. The individual investor should have the same access to information as the large brokerage houses. Sincerely Richard Watson 5231 Chevy Chase Pkwy Washington DC 20015
Author: len westraat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 2:17 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Dear People Who Work For Me & Have My Best Interests At Heart: I can only think of positive reasons why company information should be released to the general public instead of first to a select group of industry analysts whose interests may not be aligned with those of individual investors. I may listen to an analyst's opinion but would like to evaluate it knowing that we have access to the same information. In a democracy one group should not have priviledged information pertaining to the financial actions and interests of another. The potential for abuse of this priviledged information is too great. Sincerely, Len Westra lwestra@blazenetme.net
Author:at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 1:55 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents we need a level playing field in the market place i support Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 wall street annalists dont know their ass from a hole in the ground. we as free people should be able to make our own decisions based on fact. Trudy Wheeler
Author: "Ann Winder"at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 10:35 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Sirs: It seems to me that if you allow Wall Street Analysts to receive information that I, as an individual investor, cannot have access to, you are legalizing insider trading. Although the "insider" may not work directly for the corporation, he is indeed a salesman for that corporation in that he tries to claim from me a commission for giving me information. I would like to make clear that I DO spend time reading and studying perspectives of the companies I hold stock in, or am contemplating holding stock in. I spend time doing research to find leads to those stocks. I DO NOT pay someone else, especially someone who makes a living churning my portfolio, to do this for me. Please give me access to the same information as the other analysts... Thank you, Ann Winder 76 Apache Dr. #76 Kerrville, TX 78028
Author: Marty and Marti Borleauat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 11:03 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Honorable Committee Members of the SEC: I am a normally intelligent woman who is handling her own finances for both she and her husband. During this last radical downturn of all the markets, I'm still even with the S&P 500. That is, I would be if I had not solicited the services of a trained broker and invested in two mutual funds. Those mutual funds are off nearly 50% each! I'll repeat that because I'm so upset that I allowed someone else to "help" me get into the "market". In the only two mutual funds we own, we are off nearly 50% compared to the S&P 500. The rest of our portfolio holds better than the S&P 500, the investments we made without help from anyone. I'm the one most involved in my finances. My husband and I care more than anyone else on this planet about our own money. That's natural. It's also natural that we read the prospectus of every stock we invest in. Why does the SIA think we wouldn't? Why would reading the prospectus go against the grain of the normal? Why on earth does the SIA think that people interested in their own money are not intelligent enough to invest it for themselves? We rarely use a middle-man for any purchases, and we do not wish to receive less information merely we don't want to pay a middle-man to do our investing. We deserve the same information that Brokers and Financial Planners are receiving. We're the Investors. Even without the information that only members of the SIA get, we have done better than they have as a group. Ask them. Not for 1999, for first quarter 2000 - how are the mutual funds doing against the S&P 500? Brokers are wailing and saying don't buy anything. People who think for themselves are asking these Brokers, "Do you really believe there will be no Home Depot next year?" Good Grief! And yet, on all but two of the stocks we own, the analysts had "Do Not Initiate", "Caution", "Avoid" " and "Deteriorating". Well, yes, of course. That was on Friday, the 14th of April. If we chose to invest during that week, and we did, then believe me it was with much more common sense than those analysts were showing. I want the same information, at the same time, as the members of the SIA. I deserve no less. We deserve more than we're getting. We deserve equal access to all of the information available on all of the investment possibilities. There are ways the members of the SIA can join with, instead of fight against, we who choose to invest for ourselves. They can offer three tiers of service - as does T.D. Waterhouse, Schwab and several others. It's the way, the honorable way, to become part of helping new investors instead of shackling them. It's time for equality. Thank you. Marti Borleau
Author: "Denise D. Brooks"at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 10:25 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed rule on selective disclosure ------------------------------- Message Contents What is insider trading to me? People using secret material information to their profit. Do I know or care whether an analyst is in the employ of a selective-disclosure company or whether she is enmeshed in a quid pro quo with the company? No. Either way, non-public information is used in the market to her advantage and individual investor disadvantage. Clark Brooks, Hillsboro, Oregon dbrooks@teleport.com Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 972-2800
Author: "billy burwick"at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 8:15 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 please pass this regulation I think that full disclosure is a necessary and good idea that should have already been in place. thank you Billy Burwick
Author: Anthony Dellaventuraat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 9:31 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: RE: Reg FD:File #S&-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Chairman Levitt: give the suckers a break pass Reg FD! Thank-you A.Dellaventura
Author: Jeremy Feinat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 10:09 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents April 22,2000 To whom it may concern: I support the proposed regulation referenced above. It can only enhance the working of the market to have information disseminated as widely as possible and as quickly as possible. Please enact this regulation as soon as possible. Sincerely, Antoinette E. Fein
Author: Stephanie & Ken Goldmanat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 10:05 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I am in full support of the SEC requiring FULL DISCLOSURE to all investors of publicly traded companies and stop the secrecy and favortism of news to wall street analysts etx. Sincerely, S. Goldman Facets of Nature
Author: Ken Jonesat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 11:05 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Being a second year MBA student (and prospective analyst) and a long time investor, I think that it is only logical that the general public get any material information about a company at the same time as "favored analysts" who then can talk up and down companies, make great profits for themselves and their companies, at the expense of the average investor. I think that the Internet has enabled individual investors to become much more informed, yet also allows the spreading of significant poor information. I think that companies should allow the individual investor to get the information at the same time as the "privileged elite" that get it now (the same ones that benefit from the IPO's, etc.). In any case, I support any law that helps push full disclosure! Ken Jones UCLA Anderson Business School Student 310-640-2263
Author: alphavilleat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 10:44 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Level the field! There is no equitable explanation of why 'big' investors, brokerage houses and the like should be provided in advance of new and significant information regarding a publicly traded company. This is simply another special interest group, and a powerful one at that, 'buying' a favorable law that benefits only themselves. What could possibly represent a rational argument for passing this blatantly one sided gift to the securities industry? This is the sort of trash that makes me ashamed to say I am a citizen of the government of the United States. If we are to be socialists, lets just declare it so and stop the disingenuous misnomer that this government is a democracy '...by, for, and of the people.' Michael Milton
Author: Carol Neffat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 11:01 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: proposed reg. FD #S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I support this proposed rule. Too often there is significant movement on a stock several days before the public learns why. Sincerely, Tom Neff, 671 Marylhurst Circle, West Linn, OR 97068
Author: Charles Pluckhahnat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 2:09 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents As a securities analyst who has practiced on both the buy-side and the sell-side of the institutional world, I oppose the proposed rule. I am already overburdened by regulation at a time when on-line investment chat rooms are, in the practical world, essentially unregulated. On those boards, there is frequent exchange of material, non-public information on companies, yet current regulations require me to steer clear of using such information in my work. As a result, the combination of such chat rooms and on-line trading has contributed to the growth of an unregulated sector that is rapidly gaining market share and influence. This is undermining the intent of the regulatory acts passed in the 1930s, and it is making the stock market subject to increasing manipulation. This is a much more potent danger, in my view, than the exchange of material information between companies and regulated analysts. The S.E.C. should, in my opinion, do much more than it has done to enforce the 1930s acts within chat rooms. As for the substance of the proposed regulation FD, I will begin by saying that I already try to steer clear of material issues when I talk with companies. The essence of the mosaic theory is that we gather non-material, non-public information from a variety of sources, and use this information to reach material conclusions. This is how I do my job. However, the proposed regulation employs a very expansive definition of what constitutes materiality: "a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important" in making an investment decision or it would have "significantly altered the 'total mix' of information made available" What is "important" frequently hinges on what other knowledge an investor has. For example, if I know that Company X wants to execute partnerships with companies in France, and I judge that a French partnership would improve earnings next year by 15%, the knowledge that the CEO has just taken off for a previously unscheduled one-day trip to Paris will be important to me. Under the proposed regulation FD, my knowledge of the flight could be "material" information. Similarly, if the CEO of Company Y knows that a particular engineering issue is very important to his next two quarters of earnings, but also thinks that analysts and investors probably don't know its importance, today the CEO can discuss those issues with an analyst as long as he's careful to stay away from the link to earnings. Under your rule, he probably cannot have the conversation. Because insiders have more knowledge of the linkages among facts currently judged to be "non-material," an expansion of the definition of materiality would surely inhibit a vastly wider array of discussions, and perhaps all discussions. In short, your rule will make it less likely that company managers and analysis can have meaningful discussions about business fundamentals. You will further constrict the information available to analysts, and render conversions even more sterile than they've already been rendered. You will accentuate the role of trade-show rumors and gossip; further hobble professional, rational securities analysis based on comprehensive gathering of information; and further tilt the balance of information to the unregulated chat room sector that the SEC has done little to police. In my opinion, professional, independent securities analysis in America is on the brink of crisis. The commission and fee structure of Wall Street has magnified the importance of public offerings and their promotion, and minimized the role of independent analysis nearly to the vanishing point. This regulation could kill what remains of genuine, independent business and securities analysis on Wall Street. This is a very negative long-term trend which has gone hand in hand with other signs of growing irrationality in pricing of securities, along with higher volatility, instability and, ultimately, the undermining of the basic role of financial markets in establishing rational valuation parameters to help investors allocate capital resources. You should never forget why the stock market exists. It exists to send price and value signals to primary investors. The rest is speculation. The SEC should be trying to strengthen the role of independent securities analysis that contributes to this pricing and valuation function. The consequences of the dilution that has already taken place have, in this analyst's opinion, been insidious and increasingly severe. Information is the oxygen of real analysis. Once you've sucked all the air out of the room and killed honest, independent analysis, you will have destroyed a crucial pillar of our capital markets. I urge you to not only reject Regulation FD, but to immediately search for ways to strengthen independent securities analysis in America. We are in danger of losing something this country's economy cannot afford to be without. I will add one point. If you are worried about differential disclosure, you could require the following: 1. All conference calls be opened to the public, in the form of recorded replays. 2. Every IPO roadshow presentation shall be taped once and made freely available on the Internet, along with the slide show. If the show changes materially, the new version shall be taped and made available. These changes would do nothing to undermine securities analysis, and would go quite far to level the playing field among all investors. Charles W. Pluckhahn, CFA Vice President, Telecommunications Analyst Stephens Inc. E-Mail: cpluckhahn@stephens.com Office: (617) 239-7514 Mobile: (617) 510-1659 Fax: (617) 239-7540
Author: RiChelle Redmanat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 8:11 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I am opposed to the passage of this regulation. Microsoft is in the process of being handed it's head on a platter for unfair trade practices. If having advance information on a company's outlook and future performance does not qualify as "unfair practice" or "insider trading" in the moral (if not necessarily legal sense) it should. Let us all have equal access to information and may the best researcher win!
Author: Jim Richardsonat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 7:42 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I would like to add my support to the fair disclosure of information by publicly traded companies to the public. Requiring that companies no longer engage in the practice of discreetly disclosing important information to Wall Street analysts without also giving that information to the public at large would remove a large share of corruption and insider trading within our markets. With full public discloure to the puiblic available on a real time basis through the internet, there is no reason to maintain this practice that has outlived its time. Jim Richardson 302 G Street, Suite 302 Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Author: "Charles Royer"at Internet Date: 04/22/2000 7:10 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC CC: at Internet Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Please be aware that I, as an individual investor and cittizen of the United States of Amerrica, strongly support any and all actions by my government to allow me full and complete access to the same information that is available to professionals in the financial industry. The mere thought that I am not able to interpret or understand any information written in the English language is ludicrous and deserves no further comment from me. I may be contacted at the address on this email for further clariffication of my possition. Respectfully, Charles R. Royer Individual Investor
Author: Willis Smithat Internet Date: 04/22/2000 10:18 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Give information to all at the same time ------------------------------- Message Contents Your reasons analysts control maker volitive has no basis. The market goes up and down because of greed and fear. I have checked what analysts say about companies, it is always neutral to positive. They never says anything bad as that would hurt the relationship they have with that company. Willis A Smith 202 First Crossing Tyler, Tx. 75703