Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: Robert Annis at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 8:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject:
------------------------------- Message Contents
I've been an investor in the U.S. securities markets for over 20 years. I feel
that for the investing public to feel that the securities markets are truly
free, securities analysts should not have access that the general public does
not. For the securities industry association to effectively claim that it is
unrealistic to expect the general public to be on a level playing field because
they can't properly analyze and sift through the info. is, quite simply,
insulting.
Thanks for your consideration,
Robert Annis Ph: 818.222.5595
Author: Dale Belliveau at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 7:26 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File NO. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I'm a Individual investor and I want to be able to get
the disclosed information not just selective people,
Do the right thing!!! Let's all play the market on the
same level okay!!
Thank you!
Dale Belliveau
Author: "Paul Bohn" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Regarding the rule:
As an individual investor, I am in support of rules that assist me in having
information available to me at the same time and in the same format as the
securities dealers and analysts.
The SIA's filing has some assumptions in it that are erroneous.
First:
Filtering management "Spin" is not a talent provided only to those who work for
brokerage houses, nor have those people demonstrated their prowess in this area.
We have seen many cases where analysts' ratings, supposedly based on extensive
analysis of a company's fundamental condition and outlook, changes drastically
after a few days - or even hours - of a down market. The SIA has no credible
data to back their assumption of superiority.
Second:
Denying concurrent access by assuming lack of competence of investors sets a
dangerous precedent for excluding the public from other information and creating
a multitiered system of right to access of public information in securities
markets. Such a system undermines the integrity of the markets.
Third:
Independent "knee-jerk reactions" have been far less influential than the panic
reactions by the professional money managers and analysts, as can be readily
confirmed by analysis of volatile trading periods.
Fourth:
With the advent of internet access to analyst meetings and conference calls, the
individual investor would have the same access to company video/phone
conferences. The SIA's assertion that their members somehow have innate
capabilities to analyze non-verbal communications as in their statement
"changes in choice of words or tone of voice) over a series of telephone
conversations or face-to-face meetings" is unfounded in fact and in requirements
for analyst's credentials.
Fifth:
The marketplace also provides a more basic incentive for individual investors;
profit on gains of securities and success of the businesses.
Conversely, securities traders and money managers charge fees based the
transactions in and out of funds, purchases and sales of assets regardless of
the gain or loss of the client investor. I have yet to see a broker charge fees
based solely on the client's account gains.
With these observations in mind, it is clear the individual investors' incentive
is much more focused on the success of the businesses in which she/he has
invested than the SIA members who would deny equal access.
Sixth:
Contrary to SIA assertions, the idea of individual investors reading
prospectuses and periodic reports is not at all out of line with reality. The
advent of internet access to EDGAR, research reports and prospectuses has made
this a reality today. The SIA's statement shows that they feel they should read
prospectuses and make recommendations for us. I feel individual investors have
the right and the responsibility to perform their own research and perform due
diligence.
Seventh:
Issuers would be foolish to ignore the public and individual analysts. The
assumption that companies would provide less information less frequently would
fly in the face of reason. No company who needs capital, no executive who
promotes his company would exclude such a large segment of the capital market as
the individual investor. The brokerage house analysts and money managers who
often make markets in the company's securities have been demonstrably reticent
to throw hard questions at their partner companies in such analysts briefings.
One only need look at the puny list of"sell" ratings of these analysts to see
they do not like to give bad news about companies which with they may do
business or make markets. I have been unable to find any negative ratings by
brokers of companies whose stocks are marketed by the brokerage house or mutual
fund.
I hope you will act to implement the rules which allow us to participate fully
and equally in the market.
Sincerely,
Paul Bohn
245 West Main Street
Mount Sterling, OH 43143
Author: "Catalina Bosch" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 11:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Madam or Sir:
In all fairness and in a democracy as practiced in the United States, I
clearly believe, information should be made available to the public that is
not currently accessible.
It is difficult enough to sift through the information available to small
investors and seen through the eyes of analysts. Even the investors best
efforts to assimilate the information and attempt to come to their own
conclusions, are secondary to what is available to analysts, who obtain the
information first hand.
Certainly, this type of disclosure, once legally mandated, will have, while,
unpredictable effects on the market, raises the possibility of creating
greater market efficiency and possibly short term volatility and
instability.
Yet the latter risks are minor, compared to the possible benefits. The SEC
is taking a very presumptive posture regarding the investing public's
ability of properly analyzing company news and making wise investment
choices. Notwithstanding the bull market in the 90's, statistically,
Americans have become poorer due to debt, poor investment choices and
politics favoring the rich and privileged.
I predict that maintaining the status quo of such a state of affairs leads
us all into a danger zone, that of non market efficiency and
unpredictability. Contrary to unpopular thought, a change in the law may
create accountability among companies necessary in several areas of concern
by keeping inflation and unemployment in better check and more often than
not away from fiscal or monetary policy intervention; preserving the
environment and becoming more socially responsible; and creating news events
that become public forums allowing for more equitable distribution of
capital amongst investors through equitable access to information.
Arguably, there is room for error, and unpredictable behavior, and frankly,
John Q public must be given more merit. Let's face it, many of the analysts
had to start their careers without much knowledge, they were given a chance
for differing reasons. The same argument holds true for John Q Public, he
or she, deserves to be given the opportunity to inform themselves
accordingly.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
A concerned citizen, mother and business woman.
Catalina Bosch
Author: SBrumfield at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please level the playing field by stopping a company's release of
information to only a few analysts and not the public at large. This
seems unfair at best. Thank you.
Sharon Brumfield
Individual investor
Author: "AAFES" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen and Ladies of the SEC:
I don't believe companies should be allowed to disclose important
information to
Wall Street analysts before giving that information to the public at large.
I don't buy the argument that analysts need to get information first so
they can mediate between companies and investors. Perhaps once this
argument made sense, but -- now, when information can be instantly and
cheaply broadcast -- not anymore.
Ed Busheme
Duncanville, Texas
Author: "Campbell; Thomas" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:48 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs;
I would like to add my voice to the proposed regulation changes. I
would support the changes to allow individual investors to have direct
access to public traded companies information without having first to go
through certain analysts first. We are certainly in a "new" investing
market with the advent of Internet trading. Many of us are specifically
choosing to take our own investments without the help of a brokerage or
analysts. It is therefore important for us as individual investors to have
direct access to all companies to make our investment decisions.
Thanks you for your time and consideration,
Thomas Campbell
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 12:18 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Rule Makers
I believe that the general public should be given critical information
about public companies at the same time as the investment analysts.
I believe the full service brokerage's argument that releaseing
information to analysts before the public would increase market volatility is
wrong. It is my observation that the analysts and brokerage jobs are to
generate trading. WE all know that trading generates income for the
brokerages and the analysts and they are rewarded. Their "buy" and "hold"
(which we all know means "sell") ratings result in immediate transactions by
the institutional investors and the media hyped investors. I don't believe
this kind of volatility is of service to the company involved, or of service
to the economy, or the general public who invest in quality companies for the
long term.
I urge you to create rules that give the general public the same
advantages (information) at the same time as the analysts.
Very truly yours,
Stephanie Carleton
Registered Nurse
50 Dundalk Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15235
Author: "Chris Casebolt" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 7:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual, small investor in the Securities markets, I am in favor of
proposed regulation FD. I am a big boy and do not need Analysts interpreting
company information for me. In fact, the current practice of public companies,
especially those I own, privately disclosing information to analysts, sounds
like collusion.
Please implement "FD".
Christopher J. Casebolt
710-B South Broadway
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Stock Holder of:
General Mills (GIS)
Celera Genomics (CRA)
General Motors (GM)
J.P. Morgan (JPM)
Caterpillar (CAT)
Eastman Kodak (EK)
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts (KREM)
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the proposed rule, and encourage your approval.
Thank you,
Steve Dakolios
Lakeville, MN
Author: "Ralph DeGennaro" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 9:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the rule because I think it's wrong to give analysts special info
before the
public. I am learning basics myself and trust myself, colleagues at the
Motley Fool,
and others more than I do Wall Street analysts. Analysts are biased
themselves,
that's why they issue an average of 72 buy ratings for every sell rating,
and why some
analysts never issue a sell rating. The companies the analysts work for
have a
conflict of interest too often. Please stick to your guns on this one.
Ralph DeGennaro
220 Second St., SE #304
Washington, DC 20003
ralph@ralph2k.com )
Author: " Gregory Doddridge" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:28 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 proposed regulation. For Wall Street to argue that
individual investors are not capable of disseminating complete quarterly and
annual statements is naive in the extreme. The monopoly of information that
Wall Street analysts have is absurd. Why can't individual investors rely on the
same information that analysts use in making their decisions? An investor
doesn't need a third-party opinion as to whether to invest or not. The numbers
of a company are the same for the analysts as they are for investors. What is
different is the definitive slant analysts put on the numbers. Investors have
to form their own decisions about which companies to invest in without outside
interference. It would be a tremendous victory for the freedom of information
to allow this regulation to be approved.
Greg Doddridge
Author: Rick Fornoff at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
As an independent individual investor, I strongly support the proposed
rule mandating full disclosure to all investors by publicly traded
companies. Opposition to this measure would seem to be self-serving at
best by brokerages and investment analysts. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rick Fornoff
63 Mann Road
Asheville, NC 28805
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 9:56 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think the proposition is a fair one that would be in the benefit of
investors at large. Information should never be the privy of a few.
Carl Foster.
Author: Roland & Diane Freeman at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 9:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. ST-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Why you would even begin to think that the public is too ignorant to know what
the companies are telling the Wall Street Barons during information disclosures,
is only indicative of your own ignorance. Why do I feel that "rational"
arguments will not do anything to make you understand the truth. A wise man once
said, "Those who ignore history are destined to relive it". Be careful, lest
you also say "Let em eat cake".
It was my understanding that companies who sell stocks are owned by the people
who own the stocks. But you say that "we" do not have the "right" to know.
That doesn't sound like the America that my founding fathers attempted to
create. Oh well, "Big Brother" always did know what was best for all of us.
Congress and the US Government has never errored yet. ......Or, have they?
Please let ALL of us be able to hear what companies are saying to Wall Street.
Thank you, H. R. Freeman
Author: Tom & Cathy Friedland at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 8:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please level the field. Do not let any company give anyone their
financial information before the public.
Tom Friedland
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: file no. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
My thoughts on the subject include derision that the touts of Wall Street
believe they can continue to control the flow of important information,
thereby limiting my ability to act in the marketplace. I read and understand
financial filings and need no assistance. Ours is a highly educated society.
Wall Streets' touts simply want to line their own pockets. Please see to
it that the rule reflects the reality of an open society. Thank you. Toni
Gibbons, Arlington, Va.
Author: "David B. Goldstein" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 11:55 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Information should be avalable to all people, at the same time. Please
pass this regulation.
David B. Goldstein
Author: Agustin Gonzalez at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 9:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen,
I would like to voice my opinion on the Proposed Regulation FD: File No.
S7-31-99, which would affect the way financial information is disseminated.
As an individual investor, I am opposed to this regulation.
The passage of this legislation attempts to create an information divide
similar to the pre-internet era, making relevant investing information
available only to a privilege few. This favors the institutional brokerage
houses over the individual investors.
Agustin Gonzalez
3503 Willowbrook Dr.
Richardson, TX 75082
972-283-9413
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 9:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: PVHayes808@aol.com at Internet
Subject: Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
I just wanted to register my vote for not permitting selective disclosure
to "Analysts." I don't buy the arguments to the effect that this is a net
benefit to
individual investors. Let the masses have the information at the same time.
Level the playing field. Anything less is unfair.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Hayes
12 Robby Drive
Oakhurst, NJ 07755
H: (732)663-0045
W: (973)284-2144
Author: "Lee Holmes" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:57 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Comments S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs and Madams:
re: S7-31-99
I support making public all company discussions with brokerage analysts, which
smack of inside information.
I am not an analyst. I am a private citizen investing for my wife and me. I
have an M.S. from MIT in Aeronautics and Astronautics. I have an M.S. in
Management from MIT where I was an Alfred P. Sloan Fellow. My Sloan Fellow
master's thesis was on the use of computers in mergers and acquisitions. I am a
Professional Engineer in the State of Texas, certificate number 25879. I have
been a manager heavily engaged in engineering since 1960. I have sold three
companies which my wife and I started or acquired, and which we controlled.
I have managed two common stock portfolios, one limited partnership, and seven
corporations.
I believe I am a member of the public who is capable of analyzing corporate data
myself, and do not need the aid of a brokerage. analyst.
My suggestion for your consideration: Either drop the rules against inside
information or enforce it against companies and brokerage analysts, and prohibit
their private calls and other contacts.
Lee M. Holmes
508 West O'Brien Drive
Hagatna, Guam 96910
Author: "Junker; Leo (L.E.)" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:21 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I feel very strongly about this issue to sent you a note expressing this. I
think is should be my choice weather I want help or not. I am intelligence
enough to make my own decisions when it comes to my "OWN MONEY" Thank You.
Think Warm Weather....
Leo Junker
59-43313
313-795-7030
FMCC Bldg/Suite 1465
Author: Randy Juras at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 9:54 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I can not speak for all sectors, but as far as
technology stocks go, I trust myself more.
Lets take the case for fuel cell stocks. ALL the big
name Guru's try to fit these company's into "old
economy" formats. This just doesn't work.
Take Ballard. If you buy into them, you are looking
long term. And more importantly, you see the demise of
the internal combustion engine. P/E just doesn't mean
anything right now.
Take DCHT. Not much going there as far as P/E also.
But do they have a "good idea about replacing
battery's"? Yes! It seems like most, if not all
Guru's, can't see beyond numbers.
So what I would like to do is treat those numbers
myself. I thought this country was based on the idea
that individuals could make there own choices. And
keeping information away from me is what has been going
on for a long time. The Internet has changed how the
individual investor works...and it is about time the
SEC grasps this fact!
Thankyou,
Randy Juras
Author: "Paul Kruper" at Internet
Date: 04/22/2000 4:48 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have 2 doctorate degrees and I am an individual investor. I have enough
education to make informed decisions and do not wish to have important
information withheld from me concerning the financial status of a publicly
traded company.
Dr.Paul R.Kruper - Kruper@dellnet.com
res:559-8971520 bus:559-6264031
Author: maxatom at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 8:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC:
As a private small time investor, I believe that the fair disclosure of
information by publicly traded companies to the public is in my best
interest and in the best interest of many other independent investors.
Please pass the proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
Thank You.
Sincerely,
Ben Kuzma
217 Creekside Way
Winters, CA 95694
Author: Michael and Amy Leviton at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 9:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The Legal and Compliance Division of the Securities Industry Association
(SIA) is the principal lobbying outfit for the full-service brokerages.
Their comments regarding Proposed Regulation FD are nothing more than
self-serving baloney, among the worst I have ever seen.
I, for one, don't buy the argument that individual investors are not
intelligent enough to make their own decisions about the value of
securities. I don't need Wall Street's analysts to hear and interpret
important information first. I should be able to hear it when they do.
They are not more important or better than I am.
The SIA's claim that "communications between [a company] and individual
analysts or small groups of analysts contribute to the overall mix of
information in the marketplace, greater accuracy of market prices, less
volatility and, in general, greater efficiency" is hogwash. These are
the same analysts who CONTRIBUTE to volatility by their "upgrades" and
"downgrades" of companies without regard to their client's interests --
only with regard to their interests of generating commissions for
themselves.
Furthermore, the SIA speaks of "analysts operating independently of, and
in competition with, each other that can relentlessly pursue an
independent line of inquiry and ferret out negative information . . . "
-- what?? Normal people cannot do this as well? Just because I did not
choose to become an MBA 20 years ago, or thousands of other people did
not have the right connections to work for a Wall Street firm -- should
this allow others to have access to information before others?
As a physician, I don't treat doctors and nurses any "better" just
because I work with them. Analysts and their companies shouldn't be
treated any "better" just because they deal closely with the companies
they follow.
Author: Dave Madsen at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please change the rules to eliminate selective disclosure of information
to analysts only. Any information given to analysts should also be
given to the general public.
Thank you.
David C. Madsen
Oak Lawn, Illinois
Author: Steven Mandel at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen:
I write to urge your strong support of Proposed Regulation FD. The
evolution of open access to information over the latter half of the last
century has proven to be a boon to the investing public. It has also
benefited the equity markets. It has helped the very market segments
and institutions which oppose its extension.
Please do not succumb to the regressive and self serving arguments of
the SIA and others. A level "playing field" benefits both issuers and
investors. The only "losers" are those intermediaries who presently
exploit their position by the selective release of information,
extracting a quid pro quo for so doing. The SIA's contention that their
continued control of information release is necessary to preserve
orderly well modulated market behavior is absurd. It is self serving and
majorly insulting to the individual investor.
Sincerely,
Steven Mandel, MD
Author: Don Myrick at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 9:35 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please don't let Wall Street manipulate important market information.
Level the playing field and let the investing public make its own
judgments without "Wall Street Insiders" taking advantage.
Don Myrick
45 Hawkins Store Rd.,
Kennesaw, Ga. 30144
Author: Don Myrick at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 9:35 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please don't let Wall Street manipulate important market information.
Level the playing field and let the investing public make its own
judgments without "Wall Street Insiders" taking advantage.
Don Myrick
45 Hawkins Store Rd.,
Kennesaw, Ga. 30144
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 9:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It has been known since the time of Jefferson that an educated citizen is a
better citizen. Certainly all investors should have access to ANY information
that some investors (analysts) possess. Please free us from the manipulation
of the elite.
David Parsons
Author: "Prodoehl; Kyle J." at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:26 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File #S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support the adoption of "full disclosure" to the investment
community versus selective disclosure to a full service brokerages and/or
analysts. The individual investor is more knowledgeable than the full
brokerage dealers believe and should be entitled to the information in the
same timely manner. I am appalled to think the analysts and full service
brokerage industry have the individual investor's interest in mind. Please
adopt the "FULL DISCLOSURE PROPOSED REGULATION THAT ENTITLES ALL PERSONS
WITH TIMELY INFORMATION AT THE SAME TIME AS ANALYSTS, FULL SERVICE
BROKERAGES, ETC.
Kyle Prodoehl.
Author: "richard reiter" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 7:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
April 23, 2000 10:30PM
Dear Sir:
Thank you for this opportunity to tell you that I believe it to be
absolutely necessary for intelligent public securities investors from
Atlantic to Pacific to have the advantage of "FULL DISCLOSURE" of all
important financial information, just the same as the analysts on Wall
Street.
Since it is the investor's money, NOT THE ANALYSTS that the considered
proposal is all about, I pray that you will approve the full disclosure
proposal.
Thank you for reading and considering this letter.
Respectfully,
Richard W. Reiter
90 Victor Ave
Dayton, Ohio 45405
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 9:44 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: SEC Proposed Regulation FD S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support Proposed Regulation FD S7-31-99.
Wall Street Analysts should not be privy to corporate information
denied to others.
Thank You,
Lyle Schafer
250 Oak Grove Dr
Dripping Springs, TX 78620
Author: "Alan J. Schweickhardt" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
I support full disclosure of Company info and announcements to the
public at large from the start. I think the SIA arguements are
unbelievebly lacking in fact and are out of sync with the real world.
They sound similar to the anectodotal arguements pushed by chiropractic
quacks.
Sincerely,
Al Schweickhardt
Individual Investor
Author: Eileen and Kris Singleton at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:34 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
450 Fifth Street, N.W., Stop 6-9,
Washington, D.C. 20549.
Re: Proposed Regulation FD - File No. S7-31-99
Dear Mr. Katz:
I write in support of proposed regulation "FD." The degree to which
individual investors impact, and in our aggregate constitute, the
market, has and will continue to increase as more people take control of
their investments in individual stocks and varied retirement plans. In
this regard we do not act on the advice or counsel of "analysts." We
are performing analyses on our own behalf, and for this we require
access to the raw information of commerce. In order to participate on a
level playing field we require, and deserve, access to the same
information at the same time as other market participants. The spectre
of this level playing field terrifies and threatens the livelihood of
for-hire analysts.
I also wish to respone to the comments submitted by/on behalf of the SIA
in a communication dated 6 APR 2000.
The SIA writes:
"We also think that the term "selective disclosure", which the
Commission uses in the proposing release, is overly broad. Disclosure
that is made "selectively" to a favored analyst in order to obtain an
improper quid pro quo is unquestionably problematic. However, the
proposal targets ordinary channels of communication between an issuer
and analysts that do not involve nefarious motives. As we discuss more
extensively below, we believe that these communications help get
information into the marketplace, whereas the proposal will discourage
issuers from exchanging ideas or information with analysts, as well as
deter analysts from vigorously competing to glean useful information for
their clients and the markets."
This logic has several flaws:
"Selective" disclosure is, by its nature, "problematic." Timely access
to information is at the heart of meaningful participation in the
market. What price would a for-hire analyst pay to have access to
market information three minutes, three hours, or three days ahead of
his competitors? What would she pay to continue to have such an
advantage?
If one is the sole conduit of certain (non-mandated for release)
information then one will disseminate it as a work product, for pay, and
on a schedule and in a forum that suits one's own needs, not those of
other market participants.
SIA continues:
"The proposal could result in issuers declining to engage in dialogues
with individual analysts
or small groups of analysts and instead insisting on sessions at
regular intervals open to a
number of analysts, with listen-only access to the media and the
public. These are likely to
take on the orchestrated character of a Presidential news conference
in which members of
the audience are authorized to ask one question, and perhaps a short
follow-up question, but
not a series of questions in dogged pursuit of the facts. Undoubtedly,
the questions from the
different participants will not be coordinated or follow in any
logical order or comprehensive
way. Due to fierce competition among analysts to obtain the best
information, they will be
reluctant to ask questions in an open session that tip off their
competitors as to the direction
of their thinking or information that they think would be meaningful.
If the questions cannot be
asked in private, they may not be asked at all. Is that good for the
market?"
This reasoning is also specious.
It appears that members of the SIA have not observed any competition
between journalists serially hounding newsmakers during a news
conference or performing exhaustive individual research to bring
together the pieces of a complicated story.
If competing for-hire analysts hesitate to ask the tough questions,
individuals with their own funds at stake will certainly not be so
bashful. The SIA on the one hand says that Companies will hesitate to
divulge information into a free market. On the other hand, they produce
convincing figures that show that companies are already making
conference calls public in real-time. The real question the for-hire
analyts seem to be asking is, "Can the SEC help us try to put the jini
back in the bottle?"
Sir, I strongly encourage you to resist the efforts of entrenched
interests to hold back the forces of progress which have helped make the
boom of the last decade possible.
Sincerely,
/s/
Kristofer L. Singleton
("1LTKLS" on the Motley Fool message boards)
3710 Takoya Drive
Ellicott City, MD 21042-4822
Author: "Joseph C. Sinkwitz" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 9:24 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Let's level the playing field.
Joe Sinkwitz
Author: "David Skidmore" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 11:28 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
I would like to take the time to elucidate some of the current
'reality' of the individual investor.As an investor, I spend 12-14 hours a day
poring over prospectuses, periodic reports, message boards, etc. I use analyst
recommendations occasionally as a direction towards my own research, but I
hardly find their information to be timely or even that useful, as a rule. To be
honest, I've found that if one follows both analyst opinion and certain message
boards, one will find that the reasons behind any given change in analyst
thinking will be discussed on the board days, sometimes weeks, before an analyst
actually says anything.
I would also like to address the possible affect of this proposed
regulation on the way analysts seek information from and about companies.
Instead the reward going to the 'first' to know the 'most', why can't the
reputation and rewards go to the one who asks the most probing questions, the
one who draws out the most useful information.
These are just some quick thoughts on a Sunday night, I've got a lot of
research to do to prepare for tomorrow.
Thank You,
David Skidmore
Author: tarno@lucent.com (Mark John Tarnowski) at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:48 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Mr. Katz:
I am in favor of the proposed regulation FD (File number S7-31-99).
My comments will be brief (relative to the SIA's response).
I have been a participant in the equity markets since 1992
as an individual investor. My professional affiliation is with
Lucent Technologies for whom I perform design and analysis
of communications systems. My title is MTS (Member of Technical Staff)
and the work that I do is commonly known as `electrical engineering' .
I believe that it is noble and just to ensure that
any information which has the potential to impact
the valuation of a publicly traded security be disclosed openly.
What I mean by `openly', is that such information
must be available freely in the original form and/or language.
In today's world this seems very easily done:
a company could simply post the text of the prepared information
on their internet site as either a web page or a downloadable file.
Information disclosed at a meeting which the company had not
planned to disclose could be posted within a reasonable
period of time after the close of the meeting.
Indeed, I believe there is great value for all investors
to have access to a textual transcript of the meeting.
In the arena of investments, I abhor a secret.
Ideally, we could all have information in real-time; however,
I agree that this could be overly burdensome to some companies.
Many years ago, I participated in a group activity
(an interactive simulation exercise)
which aimed to teach the participants the ways in which
information is distorted as it passes from one person to another.
The results of this simulation were amazing: it was
funny to compare what the message was at the first person,
at my position, and at the last person in the `grapevine'.
However, in dealing with my investment portfolio,
I do not consider the idea of getting secondhand (or later)
information about the companies of which I own a part funny.
I may heed opinion, but I value data (facts) more.
The status quo essentially creates a intermediate class
of investors: the analysts who are privy to information
which they may, may selectively, or may not disclose.
I call these analysts ``semi-insiders''.
These analysts, I believe, disclose the best information
to their firms and their firms' clients.
I have always utilized the services of a `discount' brokerage firm
because it is less expensive and I believed (and still do)
that it is easier to blame myself for a bad investment decision
than some other person (that is, a broker).
Hence, I do not get this best information; I get the scraps
which these analysts or their firms release to move the market
when the timing is best for the firms or for their `best' clients.
Consequently, I pretty much ignore the opinions of analysts
and securities firms.
There will always be participants in our equity markets who act on
opinion which is second-, third-, fourth-, etc- hand information.
However, there are at least a few of us who act on fact;
please help our cause by enacting a rule which opens the information
which some companies disclose to but a few (the analysts).
In conclusion, I believe that we should all be working toward the goal
of efficient markets and that this is best accomplished by not having
intermediaries (that is, semi-insiders) for the information which
could affect the valuation of a publicly-held company.
Best Regards,
Mark J. Tarnowski
BUSINESS:
Lucent Technologies
Room IH 2D-219
2000 N. Naperville Rd.
Naperville, Illinois 60563
voice> 630/979-2724
RESIDENCE:
815 W. Parkside Dr.
Wheaton, Illinois 60187-4877
Author: "N1 LT C. Thomas" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:43 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I'm writing to urge non-passage of this proposed regulation. Not to "level
the playing field" or to enforce my "right" to information, but simply to
ensure that through full disclosure, nothing is withheld favoring one group
over another. I don't need an analyst to analyze for me. My biases are
mine to affect the outcome of my interpretations - I don't need someone
else's biases to interfere with my own .
A free market, demands full, unfettered, unfiltered exchange of information.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Thomas
LT Charles S. Thomas, USN
Logistics Group Western Pacific (N1)
PSC470 BOX 2400
FPO AP 96534-2400
Work 65-753-2438 Fax 65-753-2469
SIPRNET N1@dms.clwp.navy.smil.mil
Author: "mthomas" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File #S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Individual investors should have the rights to information about companies in
which they are interested. We are perfectly able and competent to research and
make our own opinions about stock purchases. I surf the web at many "investment"
sites with stock analysis...and many of them have a different opinion about the
same stock...so they don't know it all.
Merdith Thomas
Retired (senior investor via online trading) doing great and loving it!!
Author: "B.Tolbert" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have recently been enlightened as to the disclosure of important
information on publicly traded companies and am very surprised that
companies are allowed to discreetly disclose this type of information at
their whim. I have reviewed the public minutes from the April 6th meeting
with the Ad Hoc working group on Proposed Regulation FD and I have the
following questions:
1) How is it that analysts make the market less volatile? And if they
do, I would like
an explanation for what happened on the 14th of April, was
everybody off
that day?
2) Since when do analysts spend much of their time ferreting out
negative infor-
mation on companies?
Also, I am still not clear why analysts need better information than
general paticipants in the market. With all their education and knowledge
you would think they could do more with less, not the other way around.
Other statements smack of upsetting the status quo and insider trading,
"...marketplace itself provides incentives for such diligence, for it is the
analysts who get to the market "firstest" with the "mostest" that under the
current system reap the reputational and financial rewards."
I strongly urge you to disregard this "good-ol-boy" theory and
consider this proposal on its own merits. Mainly, that it is common sense to
require important information be disclosed on publicly held companies. I
suspect there are several class action suits in court now that are directly
related to this issue.
Thank you
signed// Bart Tolbert//
Author: "Leslie Turner" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing to express my support of Proposed Regulation FD, and to address
the position of the SIA that such a regulation would undermine their
contribution to the securities market. In its filing the SIA made it seem as
if a level playing field would somehow devalue the work of the analyst and
eventually inhibit investors' ability to gain more indepth information. I
disagree. Analysts do not add value by being the first to have information,
but by their expertise in evaluating information. An increase in the number
of individuals with access to market information would not affect this skill.
And if companies have been using analyst as a means of technically meeting
SEC disclosure regulations, while still hiding information from investors
(through analyst) that the company "would rather not disclose or would prefer
to disclose", is this practice something that the SEC wants to promote?
Yet, the SIA did address their true concern about Proposed Regulation FD.
The SIA is not concerned about protecting the investor, but are more
concerned about protecting their pocketbook. Analyst know that a level
playing field would affect the premium they charge for possessing
information the investor does not have access to (not their analysis, but
the raw data from a company). However, is it truly fair to keep information
from the investor in order for analyst to continue enjoying "incentives for
such diligence, for it is the analysts who get to the market 'firstest' with
the 'mostest' that under the current system reap the reputational and
financial rewards." And truly that is what the SIA's position is really
about, REPUTATIONAL and FINANCIAL REWARDS, not the investors' interest.
As a proponent for the investor, I believe it would only be right for the
SEC to do what is best for the investor, and go forward with Proposed
Regulation FD.
Sincerely,
Leslie L. Turner
A Concerned Independent Investor
Author: "Boyd J. Tuttle (Japan)" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:53 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD - I oppose it
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs;
I am an individual investor who researches and studies my own stock picks in
much detail before selecting. I do not agree with your position on the
Level Playing field in favor of non-industry analysts assuming that that is
"more efficient" in terms of free market practices.
While for the moment it may be true (because of the dependencies engendered
by the status quo) However, in light of the new technology that permits
instantaneous access to information, can you still say that the rule makes
sense?
Accordingly to language taken directly form the regulation supporting
statements....
1) "it hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary and valuable
function in the U.S. capital markets" Is this true?
2) Is it true that to perform that necessary and valuable function they
[analysts] need better information than do 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 seriously doubt the truth of any of these statements given the direction
the market and society over the last few year. Do you believe that the
above "facts" will be true in 10 years? If you do then you must be blind to
what has happened to the world economy over the last 5 years due to the
introduction of the Internet.
The "democratization of information" is the inevitable trend and whether the
SEC supports that or opposes it will soon be irrelevant anyway. All those
who have tried to stand in the way of the this information tidal wave have
been quickly made as irrelevant as were buggy whips in the automobile era.
Rather than try to stand in the way of the oncoming information tidal wave,
the SEC should get "in sync with IT" and attempt to, at least, steer it in
ways supportive of the individual investor (who ultimately in terms of their
sheer numbers) will dominate the markets of the future anyway.
That is my input and opinion, perhaps my thinking is somehow flawed on this
matter, but I think not. In general and historical terms, history has
proven without exception, that educating the masses by enabling access to
better information has always won out over the model of an elite ruling
class who tries (but ultimately ALWAYS fails) to keep the masses in
ignorance.
Sincerely,
Boyd J. Tuttle
Author: "Ted Walter" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:16 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg FD: File No S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Greetings: I just finished reading the SIA's response to the proposed ruling.
It is a response that is an insult to my and other investor's intelligence.
Wait, that is being too kind.
What in the world are they smoking that they can make such comments without
rolling on the floor in laughter?
I encourage you to do the right thing on this issue and pull back the curtain
to reveal the "wizards" for who they really are....just ordinary citizens who
are interested in investments, investing, companies, their financial statements,
their business models, etc. To insist that ordinary people lack the
intelligence and fortitude to understand the markets, financing, business, etc.
is ludicrous and I resent the implication their response directs toward us. Of
course there are those who require help in investing and therefore provide the
revenue to advisors, but there is an ever-growing contingent who have seen their
investments shrink in the face of a dynamic, growing economy and wonder if the
advice they paid so dearly for was worth it. These are the people who SIA fear
and fear is the only motivation for such a response. Thank you
Ted W. Walter
Author: Carole Werling at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 9:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I understand that Wall Street is arguing that maintaining the current
system is not just in its own interests, but in mine as well.
I disagree vehemently - and hope that the law is changed to protect me
as well as the general public - I believe the analysts and their insider
information cause a huge amount of volatility .
Not fair - and not good for the economy
Hope a change is made to current laws to protect me.
Thank you,
Carole Werling
7274 Spoonbill Lane
Carlsbad, CA
Author: "Jim Winn" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 8:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S 7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
There is every good reason for passage of this Rule and not one valid reason
for failing to do so.
James G. Winn
Lawrence, KS 66049
785 842 7111
jim@winngrp.com
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0423b02.htm
