U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
SEC Seal
Home | Previous Page
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

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


Modified:05/09/2000