Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: "Alexander; Bruce" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:57 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing as an individual investor to express my support of Proposed
Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99, and to address the position of the SIA
that such a regulation would undermine their contribution to the securities
market.
The SIA essentially argues in its filing that a level playing field would
somehow devalue the work of the professional analyst and that this devaluing
will inevitably result in inhibiting investors' ability to gain more
in-depth information. I wholeheartedly disagree.
Let us understand that analysts add no value by simply being the first to
have access to information. Instead, analysts add value by adding
expertise and perspective when evaluating information. An increase in the
number of investors with direct access to market information would not
affect this skill or the demand for good analysis. To the contrary, one can
easily argue that increasing availability to financial disclosure will, in
fact, result in increasing the demand for top flight analysis.
The SIA addressed their most basic fear concerning Proposed Regulation FD.
The SIA is understandably less concerned about protecting the individual
investor than it is in protecting the revenues of its members. The SIA knows
full well that a level playing field would threaten the premium they charge
for services that are based on the firm possessing information the
individual investor does not have access to (not their analysis, but the raw
data from a company).
To the extent that companies can use selective disclosure via analysts as a
means of technically meeting current SEC disclosure regulations, while still
hiding information from individual investors that the company "would rather
not disclose or would prefer to disclose", this is not a practice that the
SEC should continue to tolerate among publicly traded companies.
As an individual investor, I believe it would only be right for the SEC to
focus on rules that promote what is best for the investor (the ultimate
owner of the securities) rather than for intermediaries in the securities
owning process. For these reasons I support Proposed Regulation FD: File
No. S7-31-99.
Sincerely,
Bruce K. Alexander
Author: "Ariel Assaf" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:43 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think this is absolutely ridiculous. Even if it is true that investors
would hurt themselves (which is not the case) it is extremely dangerous to
make a law allowing you to protect them this way.
Author: Mike Corey at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 7:12 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly urge you to approve the proposed disclosure
rules. The big wheels will say that is new rule
increases market volatility. What they are really
upset about is that they will not be able to profit
by knowing something the little guy doesn't know.
Sharing disclosures from companies with everybody
helps to level the playing field between the small
investors and the large investors.
Author: "michael cowing" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:10 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To the SEC:
I want to echo the sentiments of Turner, which are in accord with my own.
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 in depth 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?
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,
Michael D. Cowing
A. C. Associates
Author: Paul Crispi at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:41 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
One reason I can see for NOT reporting to both analysts and the public at
the same time would be so that the institutions can dump large blocks of
stock on bad news before the public has time to react. This would, in my
opinion, be noting more than 'frontrunning", which, if not illegal, is
certainly unethical. I believe we have enough unethical institutional
investors as it is, who only are interested in lining their own pockets
with as much money as possible at the expense of the individual investor.
The proposed regulation would deter this action a bit, and is certainly one
of the reasons why the institutions do not want it to pass.
Please don't screw us little people as is so often done with tax breaks to
the rich. Pass the regulation now!
Paul Crispi
10 Westview Road
North Haven CT 06473
Author: "mira desai" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 7:20 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
msg sent again
Pls realise that the rest of the world sooner or later follows the standards
that SEC sets. I am writing from India and several times we have had SEBI
change our rules because of a SEC precedent. We admire SEC for its ethical
practices, toughness and fairness. Equal disclosure of information will be
one more pro investor step.
Mira Desai
Mumbai
India
Author: "Dunegan; Patricia" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 7:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: "'pdunegan@teleport.com'" at Internet
CC: "Dunegan; Patricia" at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary
Securities & Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street NW, Stop 6-9
Washington, DC 20549
Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Dear Mr. Katz,
I support public disclosure ... let's end selective disclosure
(discrimination) and level the playing field.
Patricia Dunegan
pdunegan@teleport.com
2 Farley Street
Nashua, NH 03064
Author: Mark Edmunds at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:41 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To the SEC:
It seems obvious that it is unfair to allow information to be given to a
select few so those individuals can make stock transactions ahead of the
news becoming public. It is the same principle involved in punishing
insider trading. The stock market has become everyone's investment tool,
not just brokers, fund managers, and analysts. It would be contrary to
the American way of doing things to allow this practice to continue.
I am not affiliated with any company. I represent only myself as a stock
owner and citizen.
Renda Edmunds
Author: Brian Ehresman at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:54 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am for eliminating the current selective disclosure system.
Thank you,
Brian Ehresman
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:39 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an investor with my entire life savings invested in equities, I disagree
that analysts should have a first look at company information in order to
interpret it to the rest of us. This gives them an insiders edge that is not
unlike an employee sharing information with family and friends for which they
would be prosecuted for insider trading.
We, the Great Unwashed, may not always respond to news without emotion, but
analysts are not always correct either. Information is power and analysts are
empowered to serve the interest of their own masters. They are not without
emotion or vested interests of their own.
Your current policy is elitist and does not fairly serve the public who pays
your salary. Who is your master--the tax paying public or Wall Street big
shots?
Claudia H. Eldridge
Author: John Fairbanks at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:27 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe the passage of this rule is absolutely essential to provide a
level playing field among investors. I am absolutely sick and tired of
people in the "wall street white shoe club" having access to information
that I don't. I applaud your efforts to restrict this activity.
John Fairbanks
One Life Investment Group, LLC
Author: Bpear at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 6:53 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please allow fair disclosure ... individual investors should be able to
get/see the same information as the institutions. We can analyze data on
our own without getting someone else to do it. If we can't do it yet, we
will learn.
Bartley Fong
1516 Cedar St
Berkeley, CA 94703
Author: "Martha Fuller" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Right on, SEC!
I am a citizen of this country and a private investor. I wanted to share
with you my thoughts concerning your excellent proposal requiring the fair
disclosure of information by publicly traded companies to the public. I
strongly believe that the practice of releasing investor information to a
few favored analysts runs contrary to the basic fundamentals that this great
country was founded upon. All men (and women) are truly created equal and
should expect equal access to the tools that aid the pursuit of the
blessings of liberty.
The current trends toward this goal, such as webcasting conference calls and
other important announcements, should be not only encouraged, but required
in the interests of the basic principle of fairness. The ability of
companies to selectively disclose material information to some sources and
to receive good coverage as a result makes for a mockery of free flow of
ideas and information. Reading a balance sheet is not rocket science,
please give me a fair chance.
Thanks for your time,
John Fuller
prog1@hotmail.com
Author: Bill Givan at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:16 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of this proposed regulation.
William R. Givan
Author: "dan godek" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:03 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to voice my support to change the rules that currently allow
companies to give important information to Wall Street analysts without
simultaneously giving the news to the public at large. The small investor
deserves access to this information in the same timely manner. Withholding
information from the public investor for whatever period is simply
unconscionable. Thank you for this opportunity to state my opinion in this
matter.
Author: "Greenwood; Matthew" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:32 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing to state formally that I am *against* selective disclosure. I
absolutely am able and willing to make my own investment decisions. Please
do not hinder my ability to do that by limiting the amount of information I
am able to obtain without relying upon another party.
While I have read some of the justification behind selective disclosure, I
simply am unable to believe that there are legitimate arguments for how
selective disclosure would benefit me as an investor. It reeks to me of an
attempt to reestablish brokers and brokerage houses as a required part of
due diligence investing, hence trying to restrict the growing number of
individual investors who are learning to manage their own finances.
Brokers and brokerage houses do play a valuable role for those who
require/desire their assistance. I am one of many who do not need/want
their assistance, and would appreciate a continued level playing field.
Please do not cater to those whose motives are driven by a fear of educated
investors.
Matthew L. Greenwood
thrawn@columbus.rr.com
All comments contained herein are my own, and not those of my employer, ISP,
etc etc.
Author: "C. Daniel Smith" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:47 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Stop selective disclosure.
Christopher Hart
Author: "Ted Hatch" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:54 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am against selective disclosure and would like to see this changed!
Please do not allow Wall Street lobbyists to have an affect on this
proposal! Thank you in advance.
Ted Hatch
1966 Jamestown Drive
Palatine, IL 60074
Ted Hatch
Author: "Jim Houghton" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:03 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an active individual investor I urge the SEC to adopt this rule, which
would create a level playing field for all investors. It is outrageous that
Wall Street brokerage firms should have privileged access to important
company information before the public can get it. Don't they have enough of
an advantage anyway?
Jim Houghton (houghtonjf@hotmail.com)
Author: davidhoward at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:41 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As part of the investing public and someone who is not privy to "whisper
numbers" and analyst insider informaton, I strongly urge the SEC to adopt
measures which would limit special privileges not given to the public at large.
In other words, expand the definition of what constitutes insider information.
Thank you,
David E. Howard
Author: "Joseph F. Hubel" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:03 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
The practice of selective disclosure should be ended in the interest of
empowering the individual investor. I have read the rebuttals offered
by the Wall Street crowd and feel insulted by their arrogant self
serving arguments. What gives them the right to presume a superior
intelligence and that I as an individual investor would be unable to
properly discern information without their selective commentary.
In the arena of investing, we have the right to any information we am
legally entitled to in a prompt and timely manner without the filtering
Wall Street seems to think we need.
Sincerely,
Joseph F. Hubel
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:11 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg FD File # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I call for FULL DISCLOSURE BY ALL ANALYSTS/COMMENATORS CNBC
PERSONEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yVETTE KATIB NOAZAC@AOL.COM Yvette Katib
Author: "Charles Killian" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:44 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation fd: file no. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe this reg. will help investors have more confidence in the stock
markets. The way it is now the individual investor is at a disadvantage and
insider laws are a joke.
Author: Todd Kunze at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:26 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective disclosure because I may not be as smart as the "anal cysts" to
figure out what all the numbers mean??? Thats crap!
Even though I may only invest $1000 to $10000 at a time I think its only fair
that I have access to the same information that everyone else does. Sure some
people are going to make dumb mistakes with their money, but selective
disclosure will not prevent that. (Just look at the day traders, abuse of
credit cards, people shopping for entertainment, etc.!) There is full
disclosure when I put my money in a bank, insurance policy, buy a house, etc.
Why not when I buy a fractional share in a company? In my mind it ranks
right up there in importance.
Please level the playing field so that all may decide for themselves with
access to the same information.
Thanks,
Todd Kunze
<>
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 7:06 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
I fully support your efforts in enacting full disclosure and
encourage you to dismiss the self-serving arguments of the SIA.
The apparent flighty nature of the 'professional' traders do
not, in my mind, make them any more capable of making wise decisions
than a lay person.
I applaud your efforts to level the playing field.
Robert Lesieur
robl@fastlane.net
Seeking sanity in an insane stock market
Author: "SigneLindell" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:38 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulationfd: file No s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please, everyone deserves info at same time. Enough with giving advantages to
large players.
Signe Lindell
Author: Aliyah Marr at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:14 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Proposed Regulation FD:
File No. S7-31-99
I vote for this bill!
The rules should be changed to allow all investors the chance to form
their own opinions and analysis of important information about
companies. By allowing analysts exclusive and first-time access to this
information, we create a situation whereby these highly paid and trusted
individuals have inside information on major corporations and future
stock trends; giving them power that may have little to do with their
innate abilities. Moreover, it creates a unfavorable environment for the
individual investor, who needs the same information to make his or her
own judgments.
The USA is founded upon a system of fair economic competition; let's not
make this only rhetoric for the uninformed: we need fairness in the
stock market. If a market analyst is worth their salt, they should be
able to gain their market vision from the same information, at the same
time, as Joe Smith. We, as individual investors, will only gain more
respect for investment analysts who play fairly.
The analysts who are against this proposal have their heads buried in the
sand; the individual investor has gained knowledge about the market, is
willing to take risks based upon his/her own information, and will fight
for the free and equal access of information. If the analysts win this
fight they will lose the respect of the individual investor; they may
discount this loss, to their eventual regret.
Aliyah Marr
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:04 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC Members:
I am writing to express my support for "Proposed Regulation FD: File No.
S7-31-99." With brevity, I have enclosed a portion of my position on the
subject.
One of the chief assumptions of modern economics is that of perfect
information. In a market economy such as ours, millions of people daily,
attempt to make decisions based on imperfect information. The
consideration most overlooked is that these persons are also attempting,
erroneously, to apply economic logic to their individual situations without
first acknowledging that their initial, most important assumption, is
incorrect. Information of this type is both misleading and damaging to the
individual investor. In their attempts to act logically, they produce
contradictory decisions, raising the level of uncertainty and confidence in
the securities in question, and the market in general. I am unsure if
market volatility would be enhanced or reduced by improvements in the
availability of information from these quarterly earnings disclosures, but
I am certain that this would extend greater protection to the individual
investor who is repeatedly trampled by the stampedes of the institutional
investor.
Thank You,
James McNeil
Author: Tracy Mendez-Vigo at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:13 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am all for leveling the playing field! I support S7-31-991
Thank you,
Author: mark michalski at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 7:39 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am IN FAVOR of Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99. As a private
investor in public companies, I feel I have a right the all of the
information available by a company in the same time frame as
analysts/brokers. Any other dissemination of information constitutes
insider information, which is illegal.
Insider information released to analysts before to the general public
allows analysts to formulate and brodcast opinions about a company,
giving the impression that their opinion is actually worth something.
I am IN FAVOR of Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
Mark Michalski
Seattle, WA
Author: "Thomas Noble" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:36 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg. FD File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
We are opposed to selective disclosure.
Tom noble
Noble, inc.
Author: Ryan Oliver at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:22 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Ryan Oliver
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:06 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I want to voice my opinion concerning the above proposed regulation.
I am against the current practice of selective corporate disclosures and
favor full and public disclosures of any and all information provided by
publicly traded corporations to any Wall Street people in private discussions.
The practice by public corporations of only providing selective information
to "insiders" on Wall Street and excluding the private investing public from
the same data and information is long overdue for regulations to bar this
long standing inequity.
Thank You
Richard Olsen
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:28 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
This proposed rule will only allow companies to hide information from the
stock buying public. Let us make up our own minds. Not with sifted
information from the analysts.
Alan Palash
Author: "Harold Peavey" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:38 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
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.
Harold M. Peavey
8 Rex Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19118
Author: "thomas phipps" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 2:10 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
1. With the continued governmental drive to hold the individual responsible
for his own retirement and saving, to allow the securities industry to
continue to operate as a closed society is disengenuous to the general
public.
2. Allowing a separate "secret" trading knowledge, only allows the
securities industry to profit at the general public expense.
3. Full disclosure should be the requirement.
Thank you,
Thomas W. Phipps
Author: "Greg Pool" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:37 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to comment on the on Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99. I
think it is time for the SEC to change it rules regarding the current system
of selective disclosure. I feel it is imperative that individual investors have
the same access to information that analysts have. Please level the playing
filed for individual investors!
I would also like to say that extended hours trading needs to be done away with
and I hope that the NASDAQ and NYSE never extend their regular trading hours.
Please don't allow institutions to trade before individuals have a chance.
Please level the playing filed for individual investors!
Sincerely,
Greg Pool
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:16 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: BSt.Francis@msn.com at Internet
Subject: "proposed regulation FD: FILE NO. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
HOW ABOUT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD! TELL WALL STREET TO BACK OFF.
RON PRYBLE
MORTON GROVE, IL.
Author: "Reed; Kevin (MED)" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: "'webfool@fool.com'" at Internet
CC: "'reed13k@earthlink.net'" at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen,
While it is a human tendency to maintain the status quo, it is hardly a
true measure of what is proper. The use of selective disclosure of
information at one time made sense. The cost for communicating was
enormous, and the majority of those who would receive the information
were not interested. Times have changed, as they always do.
Now the "age of information" is upon us. Through cost-effective,
individualized media, such as e-mail and the internet, the cost for
communicating information has dropped tremendously. Those people who
wish to know information have the ability to attain tailored knowledge
for their personal use, should they wish to do so.
A second change has also occurred. I believe that estimates are now in
the 50 percentile for the number of households in the United States
which own equity of one type or another. It is no longer true that the
majority of people do not care about market information. Will this
majority trade on the release of this information - maybe. Many are of
the buy and hold and unless catastrophic the news will not effect them.
But there will be those who will act on this information, and should
they not have the same right as everyone else to be informed. Not in a
delayed fashion, but in the same manner as everyone.
What right has an institution to knowledge that they have not generated
themselves? Why this is to become a body politic. To be one of "those
in the know" garners power. The U.S. market should not be a political
game - capatilism is based in a free market. Selective dissemination
skews the market in favor of those players with the power and money to
gain the "favor of the nobility".
I would like to say that in at least some things this country has loosed
the gates on freedom. I urge you to change the status quo and require
simultaneous public disclosure of all information.
And remember: "For evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good men to
do nothing" - Edmund Burke
R/Kevin
"A Fool indeed"
Kevin D. Reed
1603 Aldoro Drive
Waukesha, WI 53188
HPh: (262)650-6549
WPh: (262)521-6004
Fx: (262)521-6049
Beeper: (414)515-3388
E-mail: kevin.reed@med.ge.com
Author: Roberts Troy Contractor USTC at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:43 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am in favor of open communication to the public concerning the stock
market. I trade stocks personally and do not like to get second-hand or
filtered information after some analysts or money managers have had access
to it and often taken action before the individual investor has a chance.
Please make all information given to 'analysts' available to the public at
the same time.
Sincerely,
Troy Roberts
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:07 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Full disclosure should always be the law. Lets be fair!!!!
Michael A. Roe Sr.
Golden, Colorado
Author: "Johnny & Jeannie" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:08 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is an insult to the individual investor that we do not already have full
disclosure of information.
The current rule is a dis-grace of Wall Street!
John A. Rousselle
Author: "Ruggeri; Roberto Dr. - 212" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 4:15 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Gentlemen,
I as an investor and tax-payer would like to be treated the same way an
institutional investor is treated.
Kind Regards
Yours Sincerely
Roberto Ruggeri
Author: SaxistJack@webtv.net (Jack Schaeffer) at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 6:52 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Prop. Reg. FD File S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It's time for equal access to the information. Now that we have the
technical capability, anything less is unAmerican.
JohnCase (Jacl) Schaeffer
Author: Patrick Serpas at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 6:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
Please enact rules to require public companies to disclose the same
information to the public that they disclose to Wall Street analysts.
Patrick Serpas
1340 E. Clower St.
Bartow, FL 33830-7237
863-533-2812 H.
863-533-6800 W.
Author: Deanna Scoggins Slater at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:32 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am an educated investor and would prefer making my decisions with the
same tools our so-called "unbiased" analysts have in their hands. I pay
for my stock with my hard-earned money and to say that I must let those
analysts have information on companies they don't own stock in over me, a
paid shareholder, is unethical to say the least.
Deanna S. Slater
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:15 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir
I am your regular individual investor with a very small nest egg that
I seek to grow through the power of the stock market via the process of
invidual shareholder based ownership of companies that are publicly traded
in the stock market. I rely heavily on information disclosed by companies
via its SEC filing, annual reports etc.. I have found these filings to be
the most relevant and revealing sources of information. I do not rely on
analysts or other sources to make my decisions. The other sources may
merely add or take away from the weightage of my own conclusions, but they
are not the meat. It is the SEC filings and such other requirements placed
on the companies by SEC that is the single most relevant aspect of the
company reports that I rely on.
Now if SEC makes some additional requirements from companies for
disclosure of information to which the institutional investors are already
privy , it would be great for individual investors such as me, as it would
help me make an even more informed decision about my future and where I
would like to best put my dollars.
I have heard the arguments of the analysts that they play the role of
"filters" of information and help determine what is good and what is not!
Well, it is not that they will be denied this information! It is simply
that they will be getting it at the same time as anyone else. I do not see
how they lose out at all; except the privilege of being privy to inside
information - which seems to go against the grain of publicly traded
companies.
I strongly support the resolution to reveal all information to
everybody.
V. Srikanth
Contractor, AIC,
IBM Payment Registry/Gateway
(919)254-8765 srikanth@us.ibm.com
Author: "mort99" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:54 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg. FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Re: Proposed Regulation No. FD: File No. S7-31-99.
I strongly support the regulation to prevent selective disclosure. This
practice is nothing more than a device to permit market manipulation by the
select few who can act, and have their clients act, on inside information, to
the detriment of the investing public. This is intolerable, especially in the
information age when material information can be instantly published to all who
wish to have it. Thank you. Morton L. Susman, 700 Louisiana St., Suite 1600,
Houston, TX 77002.
Author: "L. Frank Turovich" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Folks --
Please add my name to the roster that supports the equalized distribution of
company financial information to all investors, both big and small. As a small
investor it is extremely annoying to know that others are getting information
that I may not hear of until days later, and upon which they can act, while I
can not. I ask you, who does this benefit?
This unfair practice should stop immediately. Every shareholder should enjoy
access to this type of information as it is released, regardless of whether
they own one or several million shares.
Thank you,
L. Frank Turovich
Author: Dan Vander Weide at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:11 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I understand that you are about to rule on selective disclosure.
I feel strongly that the playing field should be leveled for analysts
and the individual investor. The individual investor is already at a
disadvantage, generally having to hold a real job.
Many of us are having to invest for our own retirements (Social Security
may be there, but at what level?) not all of which is locked in a
sheltered
account. What role does the SEC play if not to protect us from those on
the "inside" scratching each others back?
One arguement is that the analysts provide a buffer to help avoid a
panic in the marketplace and masive reactions. I see no trace of that
with the status quo. The recent fluctuations in the markets provided
a great oppertunity to the finacial oganizations haveing close ties with
these analysts. However, it was often at the expense of the small
investor
with less capitol, being force to sell at the most inopertune time.
Can we honestly believe that these analysts present this information to
the public prior to positioning their own interests?
Dan VanderWeide
Holland, MI.
Author: "Joe Wright" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:52 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am 100% in favor of this regulation. Time to give the average investor at
least half a chance to keep up with his OWN MONEY. There are just too many
people whose retirement is tied to the stocks of a select few companies via
mutual funds ran by their 401K. People have a right to the same data as the
sharks who are advising them where to put their money.
Joseph O. Wright
Author: "Jon Zuegel" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:53 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly agree that all information disclosed by companies should be disclosed
to the public at large at the same
time. This is the fundamental basis of our free society & it is unbelievable
that anyone would argue otherwise!
Jonathan Zuegel, Scientist
University of Rochester
Laboratory for Laser Energetics
Voice: (716) 275-4425
Fax: (716) 275-5960
zuegel@lle.rochester.edu
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0425b03.htm
