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: "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


Modified:05/12/2000