Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: "Jacalyn Baglieri" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Wall Street should not be allowed any information that we little people are
not privy to. The SEC is a government agency ...government of the people, by
the people and for Wall St. ...oops! I mean for the people.
Author: "Frank Barry" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Analysts have no inherent right to have early and privileged information about
public companies.
Do the American thing and open it up to everybody.
If regular folk are so stupid, it shouldn't matter to analysts anyway.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:32 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Thank you for trying to end selective disclosure. Please do not cave in to
the Wall Street Wise.
Thanks,
Dave Bauman
Author: "a.bloom" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
If companies are unable to act honourably then it is up to government to
encourage companies to do so.
All current, past and potential investors in a publicly traded firm must be
permitted simultanneaous access to all information regarding that firm as soon
as possible after the firm knows 'information' worthy of distribution -
'Information' is ANYTHING worthy of distribution to an analyst or a collection
thereof or to any person who, upon knowing such information prior to the public
at large is likely able to profit from such information by selling the
information to others and/or by the quick purchase or sale of addition shares in
the firm.
To encourage select distribution of information encourages the belief that the
select few recipients of information are receiving the info as payment for past
and future favours. Why else should someone receive such important information
and of course, whyever would lobbyists be employed to thwart the implementation
of the captioned regulation..?
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
I am OPPOSED to publically traded companies giving important information to
Wall Street analysts without simultaneously giving the news to the public at
large. Any efforts by the SEC to disallow this practice would be much
appreciated by myself and doubtless the majority of the investing public.
Joseph N. Bottalico
Individual Investor
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:47 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have read the ideas of the Securities Industry Association lobbying on
behalf of its full-service brokers. It's simply wrong; I don't agree that
analysts provide a better service for the owners of securities by operating
on an unequal playing field with access to information denied to the people
who own or contemplate owning those securities. Their ideas make no sense.
If it betrays common sense, what is the motivation? SIA desires unfair
access to information by its members' analysts because they resell the
information to the public. While there's nothing wrong with reselling
information, making that information more valuable by giving them unfair
access to it is wrong.
Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt said, "The
all-too-common practice of selectively disseminating material information
is a disservice to investors and undermines the fundamental principle of
fairness. This practice leads to potential conflicts of interest for
analysts and undermines investor confidence in our markets..."
I couldn't agree more and applaud Proposed Regulation FD.
-L. Braverman
Author: "Ken Brock" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 9:24 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: fd: file No s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Since it is my moey the wall street types depend on to make a living,
then I should know the news the same time they do or before. I am small
invertor, but my little 1000's are big to me and my family, so send me
the news the same time so I may make a judgement of investing on my own.
thanks ken.
Author: Raymond Browning at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
If analyst are so great at getting to the negative facts of a company,
how is it that there is a very small percentage of "sell" ratings by
analyst while the vast majority of analyst ratings are "buys"?
We all have a right to the same information, not just the brokerage
houses.
Respectfully,
Ray Browning
Author: John Budacovich at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549
Re: Selective Disclosure - Proposed Regulation FD
Securities Act Release No. 7787, File No. S7-31-99
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have been following with great interest the discussions regarding the
proposed regulation on selective disclosure and insider trading
referenced above.
This regulation, on the face of it, appears to be an attempt by the
members of the brokers industry to maintain a position of control in a
closed industry. To be frank, I find this extremely disconcerting. Such
a regulation may have been appropriate at some time in Wall Street's
earlier history. However, such a regulation today will seriously
restrice the ability of traders to make active and informed decisions.
Information should not reside in the hands of the few. Rather,
information is the life breath of our economy and should be available,
simultaneously, to everyone.
Regards,
John J. Budacovich
Author: "Carpenter; Scott" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 8:36 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am absolutely for the proposed regulation for Fair Disclosure. This is a
no-brainer. Why should Wall Street have access to information that the
average shareholder doesn't have?
Author: "Rendo" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Fair disclosure to the public, please.
Warren Doe
Crosswinds
Author: "Barry G. D'Orazio" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It's a new world. Investors are smarter and more empowered than ever.
The work securities analysts do -- and some of it is very valuable -- is
playing an increasingly smaller role in helping investors formulate
opinions and decisions.
Investors can and should have access to all the data they can in
conducting intelligent investing, and that includes getting the same
data securities analysts do, at the same time.
Let analysts make their money as *analysts* -- interpreters of data --
rather than as gatekeepers of it, as they mostly do today.
Sincerely,
Barry G. D'Orazio
bgdorazio@mindspring.com
Author: "Peter W. Dowling" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:26 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hello,
I'm writing to let you know my feelings about selective disclosure. It is
ludicrous that companies can give out information to analysts that may not
even own the company that they are not required to give out to me the
shareholder. Why should analysts get a competitive advantage over me the
individual investor in a company I already own!
Regards,
Peter W. Dowling
Author: "Kris Filipkowski" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:47 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the regulation to reduce selective disclosure.
Krzysztof Filipkowski
Author: "Fremd; Eric T" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 6:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
From what I have read I think it is wise to welcome the world of the
internet and open information. Level the playing field and open the doors of
information for all that want to log-on and track it. Do not continue to
give select groups of institutional investors and there analysts the unfair
playing advantage.
Pass this legislation!
Sincerely,
Eric Fremd
Author: Dan Gendler at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:16 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs and Madams,
Full disclosure to analysts that does not occur simultaneously with full
disclosure to shareholders and the public simply does not make common sense.
Full disclosure should occur simultaneously to all parties.
Level the playing field NOW. This is the only sensible thing to do.
Thank you for he opportunity to express my opinion on his important issue.
Dan
dgendler@mindspring.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:26 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: PROPOSED REGULATION FD FILE NO. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
HELP EVERYONE PLAY FAIR. DO THE RIGHT THINK. HELEN HAGOPIAN, 1175 GLENN ST,
PHILA, PA. 19115-2016
Author: Gene Hayes at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of the rule change outlined in the Proposed Regulation,
above. I am a person who firmly believes that I am responsible for the
decisions I make. Part of that responsibility comes from a willingness to
seek out and find the information I believe I need to make informed
decisions. This applies to my financial as well as my business dealings.
While I have used stock brokers in the past (and continue to use one to
help with the management of my Simple IRA through the business I own), I am
increasingly confident that I can make effective decisions about my
financial investment decisions using my own efforts to investigate
companies and make judgments about their relative investment risk.
Given the above, I resent the fact that under the current rules a selected
few are given information that can impact financial investment decisions
before the general public has had an opportunity to access this
information. The result, in my opinion, is an unfair business practice
favoring "professional" stock brokers and others (including large
investment fund managers). This means that the "average" investor does not
have the same decision-making opportunity that these privileged few have.
In the long run, given the increasing number of "average" investors in the
market, this situation will be a deterrent to democratic capitalism.
The proposed rule change, above, seeks to correct the current situation in
favor of fairness, openness, and the extension of the opportunity to more
"average" investors. The SEC should support the proposed rule change.
Eugene M. Hayes
Chairman & CEO
www.hayessoft.com
Author: Steve Herman at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 5:18 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
In my view, selective disclosure is a substantial threat to the integrity
of the US financial markets, and the Commission is right to oppose this
practice.
Author: Jim Hillis at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:07 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg. FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I'm for the proposal. It's about time analysts were cut off from
getting news about companies before all investors.
--Jim Hillis
San Ramon, California
Author: "Jerry Howard" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 6:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Keep the disclosers as they are. It gives people who can think about reality
a better chance.
Enjoy,
Jerry
Author: "Nile Jones" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:36 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
In Regardds to Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99, any rule that opens up
information to all market participants would be a good thing for the market as a
whole. Studies show that Individual investors are increasingly involved in
daily swings in the market and thus are a major force. They should be entitled
to the same information as anyone else who makes decisions that affect
participation in the markets.
Author: "Simon C Jung" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs @ SEC:
This age of technology has brought accessibility of information of all types
to the public. As a physician I know this is true and think it is healthy
to have the public informed as much as possible.
Personal investing is a household phrase as well. I think all should have
access to the previously privileged information of these companies. I also
think it is inevitable.
Simon C. Jung, MD
Author: "Hillis Leak" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 1:31 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: ReynoldsM at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: file # s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
There are some base shops (franchises) in Primerica that do not have full
disclosure. It is unknown how many citizens are ripped annually because of
lack of full disclosure. There is one shop belonging to Anthony Barone of
Lindenhurst New York that has had over three hundred people join the company
over the pass four years that have spent more to be in the company than they
made. A lot of these people are on fixed incomes, and looking for hope and
opportunity. They are not told a lot of vital things that they need to know
in order to make an informed decision to join the company or not. Once they
get in and make a little money they are afraid to leave fearing that they
will loss what they have. Once they realize that they will never make the
millions that they were told that they would make they leave quietly,
embarrassed. Some of these people don't report what happened to them not out
of embarrassment but out of fear. (why?). This man has threaten people, has
made remarks about links to organized crime, has double billed people, sells
only one companies mutual funds (Solomon Smith Barney), when the company
offers other funds. He has told is sells people that they could not present
other funds to customers because Solomon Smith Barney pays the highest
commission. An audit of his records will confirm this. Moving three times in
nine months will show that his records which is mandated by law will show
that he does not keep them up, and the person that he has keeping his
records is not security licensed. Full disclosure law needs more teeth. A
lot of decent innocent people would benefit from it, and a lot of dishonest
people could not prey upon them. We are aware that your agency has a high
turn over rate because you are not on salary par with other federal
agencies, but Primerica needs to be investigated and Anthony Barone in
particular.
Author: "piko11" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 6:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am an individual investor and I feel that there is no reason why I should not
get all the information that Wall Street gets. There is no reason for the
investment banks to get privileges over the individual investor. It's plain and
simple, level the playing field. We live in a country where equality is
paramount.
Steven Lee
Tacoma, WA
Author: johnron at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
My name is John Leggett and I am an private investor. I highly
recommend
that the proposed regulation for fair disclosure be passed as a
requirement
for all companies give equal disclosure to the public investor. This is
one
thing that has been overlooked for a long time and needs to be
corrected. It
has created a very unequitable condition in the market place in favor of
institutional and broker operations. The growth of the market that has
come with the internet and the availability of information only
reinforces this believe. The current system is ripe with at least the
appearance of insider trading.
Author: "Rollo McCuller; Ph.D." at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 8:58 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am very much opposed to selective disclosure!! Selective disclosure
is not consistent with the concept of a fair market. I am an individual
investor who has grown tired of the manipulation of information that I
do not have fair access to. such manipulation of information is
routinely done by large brokers. I must ask you not to continue such
practices. Please do not give such an upper hand to brokerage houses
that use such advanced information to feather their own nest. brokerage
houses should earn their living by value added information, not by
advanced information that is not equally available to all investors.
William R. McCuller, Ph.D.
Private Psychologist
106 Edgewood Ave.
Morganton, NC 28655
Author: "J.T. McQuitty" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 7:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
I cannot imagine opposing this regulation except to manipulate stock prices
at the expense of the individual investor.
J.T. McQuitty
111 Thibodeaux Dr.
Lafayette LA 70503
Author: "Kenneth Miao" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:55 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
My name is Kenneth Miao (kmiao@worldnet.att.net). I have no company
affiliation. I believe that there should be full and fair disclosure to the
general public. The public deserves to have the same information that the
analysts get with no preference to the latter. It is quite insulting that
you folks are considering a rule that would allow the analysts to continue
to have preferred access to company information. Of course the public can
handle the information.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:07 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Given the number of individuals who are investing on their own these days, it
seems unconscionable to allow companies to give information to Wall Street
analysts before they communicate the same information to the general public.
We should all have an opportunity to receive the same information at the same
time. A better educated public is more capable of responding more
appropriately which can only benefit our country in the long run. Thank you
for your time.
Pat Moore; Columbus, Ohio
Author: "Chuck Norman" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:44 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
We should have a level playing field!
Chuck Norman
US Citizen
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
**********************************************************************
Author: cwiff@webtv.net (Cliff Probst) at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 6:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Allowing selected recipients to recieve important business information
first, that will later be made known to the general investing public is
an unfair advantage. It puts me as an individual investor at a distinct
disadvantage. I oppose this practice.
Clifford E. Probst
6009 E Roosevelt Ave
Tacoma, WA 98404
Author: Ron at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 7:44 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 the abolishment of "selective disclosure". Please do not
allow the Securities Industries Association to lobby you into allowing
this practice to continue.
Ronald A Pyle
Private Investor
Author: Govindan Rajeev at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 1:59 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is rare in life that something is clearly the right thing
to do. This is one such instance. I cannot think of any valid
reason why selective disclosure is a good idea. The arguments
in its favor seem to portray analysts as a benevolent bunch,
gathering information with probing questions and then gently
dispensing their wisdom in doses that the investing public can
handle. I am fairly sure that reality is far different. Those
analysts who have superior analytical skills will be able to
do their job with public information; the rest can contribute
to the nation's productivity by finding new work. Investors will
only benefit from the more equitable flow of information.
I hope the SEC will listen to the voices of individual investors
and decide to enforce full disclosure.
--Rajeev
San Diego
Author: "Lee Ratner" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Mr. Katz,
I am writing to express my approval of the proposed regulation "Regulation FD:
File No. S7-31-99."
As an individual investor for the past five years, and an internet user going
back to pre-internet days when I was in the Air Force ten years ago, it has
always been my experience that the amount and timeliness of the information
available strongly influences all choices. With the use of on-line trading and
self-service brokerage accounts, it is more important than ever that information
be allowed to flow freely and quickly among market participants, to include
individual investors. As an individual investor, I have the majority of my
retirement funds allocated to individual stocks in my portfolio. In order to
make the wisest decision possible, it's vital that I have access to the same
information at the same time as the major brokerage firms' analysts do.
Information I gather from the Edgar on-line site, coupled with my own research,
earnings estimates and information currently disclosed selectively by some
companies, help me make the best possible investing decision at that time.
Contrary to the SIA's belief that I am unable to make my own investing
decisions, I believe I have made some very wise decisions to date. It is
unfortunate that, with the selective disclosure practiced by some companies, the
market does not truely provide for a level playing field. I tend to avoid
investing in companies which practice selective disclosure, and feel that the
proposed regulation would give me greater and fairer choices in the future.
In the end, I believe the analysts will also profit. I currently do not pay much
attention to analyst's ratings because many of them are only rating the
companies for whom they also make a market. This, in my opinion, presents a
large bias in favor of a "buy" or "strong buy" rating. If the proposed
regulation passes and the analysts are forced to add some extra value to their
research, I believe many people will start to pay more attention to their
analysis. The analysts who are first-to-market with value-added research will be
the clear winner, along with the investing public at large.
Thank you for accepting my comments.
Sincerely,
Lee M. Ratner, MD
523 Covington Place
Slingerlands, NY 12159
Author: "Rick Scott" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 7:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective disclosure is illegal.
Rick Scott
pataric@home.com
Author: "cary simonds" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 6:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs-----Individual investors must have access to all public co. info. & in
a timely manner, (especially in our new internet economy), in order to survive
in today's stock market. Thankyou, Dr. Cary B. Simonds (individual
private investor)
Author: "Simon Skinner" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:27 PM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of full disclosure and against selective disclosure of
information. While in the past full disclosure would have been
problematic with the advent of new mass distribution technology
through the internet makes full disclosure less difficult.
I am not in favor of supporting private information cartels.
Regards
Simon Skinner
407 384 6514
-----------------------
Simon Skinner
simon@skinnerfamily.com
Author: Ilon Specht at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:15 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD:S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
My family and I strongly support passage of this
regulation Sanford
Specht
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:25 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 for the elimination of the practice of
selective disclosure. Selective disclosure unfairly benefits select groups of
investors and sections of the securities industry at the expense of small
investors. Such unfair practices are the antithesis of the principles on
which our markets are based and as such are unacceptable.
Sincerely,
Kevin Suddaby
Author: "George & Julie" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please stop selective disclosure. It is an unfair practice that is
perpetuated by the big Wall Street Companies and detrimental for the smaller,
independent investor. Please allow the Wall Street playing field to be
leveled, it will allow for more growth in the long run with the resulting
unhindered economy.
Thank you,
George Tanner
Author: Ruth Tetmeyer at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 5:47 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: FD File no. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am a small independent investor. I OPPOSE changing
the rules to restrict analyst access to information.
The unintended effect of such a change would be to gag
all employees and severely restrict the flow of
information to only lawyer sanitized press releases.
They would naturally err on the side of caution.
As an investor I want MORE company information, not
less. I am a long term investor, not a day trader. I
don't care if someone gets information a few hours
before I do. I don't check company news that
frequently anyway. Without technical and fundamental
information about the business investors are left at
the mercy of momentum traders.
Author: "walter towle" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:04 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
This second message is to assure you that I am capable of making my own
investmest decisions and the reply from the investment community that says they
are there to protect me from the "spin" of the companies is rediculous. If
anything, the individual investor needs protection from the investment companies
"double speak" miscommunications. Sincerely, Walter C. Towle, DC
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom this might concern, I am in favor of open disclosure of information
to the general public, I am owner of several stocks and I have the right to
have first hand information on the companies I own.
Thanks
Juan Carlos Valdes
Author: "Brian Wallace" 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
I support full disclosure to all interested persons. Including large brokerages
and small individual investors such as myself.
Brian Wallace
bwallace@flywga.org
Author: "Homer Welborn" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 7:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Stop Selective Disclosure
Homer F. Welborn
Author: "Jim Woods" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe that the individual investor has as much if not more right to
information as early as possible so that he or she can make intelligent
decisions about investing their money. No brokerage firm in the country covers
all stocks so their analysts may or may not be informing investors of new
information. It is after all the individual investors money that is at stake!!
James E. Woods
1812 South 6th Street
Ironton, Ohio 45638
jimcecil@zoomnet.net
Author: lzehr@cyberlodge.com (Lynn Zehr) at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 7:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
On the proposal issue, please keep us smaller investors on the same playing
field as the analysts with regards to receive information as fast as it is
available. Currently we are handicapped in this regard. I feel in some instances
the information received in advance of the general public is being used to gain
an unfair advantage in the marketplace. This proposal would make it a fairer
battle out there, in my opinion.
Thanks for the forum to voice my 2 cents worth.
Lynn Zehr
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0425b10.htm
