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: sitz at 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current system is outdated and unfair.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 SLATKIN at 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: rstone at 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 Stone at 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 THOMAS at 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 Thompson 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
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 Varallo at 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 Warthen at 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 westra at 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 Borleau at 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 Dellaventura at 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 Fein at 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 Goldman at 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 Jones at 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: alphaville at 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 Neff at 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 Pluckhahn at 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 Redman at 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 Richardson at 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 Smith at 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