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

Author:  Leo Lenting  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  7:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents 
A PUBLIC company should provide full and fair PUBLIC disclosure of 
information!
     
All investors deserve equal access to accurate information in a timely 
manner.  To do otherwise would erode the credibility of the 
marketplace.  Investors do not need analysts and their institutions 
placing their own unique "spin" on the information after they have 
established their position.       
     
It is ludicrous to assume that if this regulation passed that less 
information would reach investors.  In this day and age more information 
has reached individual investors than ever before.  Analysts will still 
be required to provide advice to their customers and others seeking it.
     
This is America, stop providing a select few with a distinct advantage! 
-- 
Leo Lenting 
San Luis Obispo, California

Author:  "Daphne Yang Lin"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  5:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
It's time to end selective disclosure for financial analysts.  You will only 
benefit the market if you allow the individual investor to peruse ALL relevant 
information regarding their investment choices and options.
     
Daphne Yang Lin
DIO YANG DESIGNS
Tel:  (310)204-2811, ext. 2
Fax:  (310)204-2858
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  9:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
    I just learned that selective disclosure even exists, as it seems to be 
common sense that people be informed and not live under the omnipresent 
shadow of Wall Street.  The average investor, however smart in his 
investments, cannot compete with the inherent advantage that Wall Street 
analysts have over the rest of the population simply by being part of the 
elite sect that is Wall Street.  On the Motley Fool website Bill Barker 
brings up an interesting point about how "...groups of analysts contribute to 
the overall mix of information in the marketplace, greater accuracy of market 
prices, less volatility...": "Is it true that analysts make the markets less 
volatile?"  A very intriguing question.  Does this mean that every volatile 
change that the market goes through is to be attributed to pure, unfiltered 
by the elitist analysts, information reaching real investors?  When the 
market is steady and progressing should that be attributed to the firm hand 
of Wall Street's bureaucratic hand at the tiller?  There are just too many 
questions that beg to be asked but the only one seems pertinent right now: 
Why did it take so long to change?
    Just the assumption that the common people cannot make good decisions 
enough to be allowed to uncolored information is a disheartening view of our 
society.  Only in America, where we broke free from our bonds of aristocracy 
would the government, over two-hundred years later, impose a regulation that 
some be "more equal than others" in an Orwellian irony.  End this rule of 
elitism.  No good ever comes from denying people the information to make 
their own choices.
     
                                                Sincerely,
                                                Brent Lusenhop
                                                A Common Investor

Author:  "Jeff May (Deloitte & Touche)"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  5:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
SEC Representatives,
     
As I am extremely doubtful that my words or the words of the others will be 
read, I will spare you redundant rhetoric and simply say that I support the 
dissolution of selective disclosure.
     
Regards,
     
Jeff May
     
     
     

Author:  "Dennis R. McCrumb"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  7:35 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
This proposed rule should have been implemented long ago. The individual 
investor deserves to have all the information avaialble to brokers. It 
cannot hurt those that are unable to understand every aspect, but not 
having the information places others at a disadvantage.
     
Dennis McCrumb

Author:  "drrman@swbell.net"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  9:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
When it comes to investing in the market, we should all be equally 
informed on all
matters.
D. R. McGee
Wichita, Ks.
     

Author:  "Mike McKelvey"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  5:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
The current method of diseminating information, i.e. via "pet analysts", 
reminds me suprisingly of one of the basic tenets of communism, namely the 
"Vanguard". Under that system, a priviledged few called "the Vanguard", 
party faithful all, were allowed to know the truth. The "masses" we then fed 
what the Vanguard thought was good for them. It was assumed that the 
Vanguard would act in the best interest of the people. We all know how that 
turned out.
     
We are entering a revolutionary (to borrow another Marxist term) era. 
Communication and information are available as never before. Government and 
agencies must decide whether free access to information is to remain and 
grow, or whether someone (government or other) will be allowed to continue 
appoint a capitalist Vanguard to filter news for us.
     
Please don't stifle the burgeoning group of people who want to get and stay 
informed! Don't judge us as "stupid" or "irresponsible"! Approve Regulation 
FD.
     
Thank You
     
Michael P. McKelvey
mikemck@smartlink.net
     

Author:  leemeier@bctonline.com (Lee Meier) at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  10:33 PM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
0100,0100,0100Dear Sirs:
     
     
I've never heard such specious nonsense on the part of anyone intending to 
seriously convince me of their logic. Balderdash. The Securities Industry 
Association is merely attempting to protect their turf and exclude the rest of 
us 
American investors from rightful information. 
     
Please disregard their plea for privilege and let us have what is public domain 
in a 
timely manner.
     
Thank you,
     
Lee Meier / 12261 SW Tooze Rd / Sherwood, Oregon 97140Times 
New Roman 
     
     

Author:  "Michael Menke"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  10:28 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Greetings,
     
I am writing to encourage you make it so that individual investors receive 
important investment information at the same time that it is released to Wall 
Street and other analysts.  
     
Michael Menke
630 - 12th Avenue East
Seattle, WA  98112
206-322-3769
     

Author:  Steven Mickelson  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  9:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation FD:  File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Complete and full disclosure to the public is the only way that all 
investors can evenly participate in the free market.  Using gatekeepers 
of information will only warp public perception.  They do not always 
portray NEWS accurately.  Unless you want everyone to see late-breaking 
news with a BROKER slant to it, why not disclose?
     
Steven Mickelson
     

Author:  kevandglo@webtv.net (K Munns) at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  9:24 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: PROPOSED REGULATION FD: FILE No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
The individual investor is the most numerous of any investers and the 
backbone of the American Securities/ Market System.  It is NOT up to any 
government agency or group to say that the American Individual Investor 
is not worthy of nor capable of digesting information pertaining to a 
publicly traded  company. The SEC should be concerned with the American 
Investor and seeing that the INDIVIDUAL has the same information as any 
Institutional investor.   Are the individuals working for the 
institution any smarter or more concerned than the individual looking 
out for his/her own FINANCIAL FUTURE ???
ALLOW THE SAME RIGHTS  TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL. 
Kevin Munns
6550 Inkster
W.Bloomfield MI 48322   
     
     
     
     

Author:  "Joanna Odom"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  7:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I am greatly concerned that there is any consideration being given to 
allowing certain people to have access to investment information before the 
general public has access to that information.  I do not need some 
self-appointed expert to tell me what the financial information is, what it 
says, or what it means; I DO need access to that information myself to 
perform my own analyses and make my own decisions.
Although I am a financial professional, I believe my position is equally 
valid for any investor.  Please remember the American investing public is 
not a bunch of idiots.  We are fully capable of making our own 
decisions--and living with the consequences (positive or negative) of those 
decisions.  It is an insult to the intelligence of any investor to suggest 
that he/she is incapable of making investment decisions; yet that is exactly 
what the broker-analysts are saying.
There is great potential for abuse by the broker-analysts if they have 
access to the information before the general investing public has access to 
the information.  The broker-analysts could create a market for a stock or 
sell their under-performing stocks before the general investing public even 
had access to the information.  Such a situation would un-do virtually all 
the good done by the regulations, etc. following the crash of 1929 and 
establishment of your agency.
The best results will be obtained by allowing simultaneous free flow of 
information to all investors.  Investors will then be able to make their own 
decisions and live with the consequences (positive or negative) of those 
decisions.
I am suspicious of those who suggest that free flow of information should be 
restricted.  What are they trying to hide?
The best you can do for the American investing public is to require that we 
be provided with all pertinent information to permit an informed decision. 
Allowing selective release of information to so-called experts before 
release to the American investing public will raise suspicion and, in 
general, cause harm to the average investor.
     
Respectfully submitted,
Joanna B. Odom, CPA, Attorney at Law
     

Author:  "Al Ose"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  9:34 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99" 
------------------------------- Message Contents 
To whom it may concern,
"All men are created equal". Please do not select "grand imperial cailiphs" to 
get information that all serious investors need.
Best regards, Allen L. Ose - Motley Fool subscriber
                    3311 enchanted Drive
                    Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494
     

Author:  "Tim Patterson"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  6:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I will be watching my elected officials.  They will loose my vote at the next 
election over this one issue if they side with the fat cats.  I expect the 
public to have equal access to the information.
     
Tim Patterson
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  10:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File no. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I am strongly for your proposed rule for banning selective disclosure, and I 
agree with Chairman Arthur Levitt that selective dissemination of financial 
material information is a disservice to investors.
     
Joe Perez

Author:  "Narayanan B. Perumal"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  10:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
     
Please give individual investors like me the opportunity to share financial 
and other information about companies in a democratic fashion. Do not let 
only a select group of privileged stock analysts be privy to all such 
information released by the business organizations. After all, as stock 
holders we own part of the organization's interests!!
     
Narayanan B. Perumal, Ph. D.
Florida State University

Author:  "Chas Piette"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  7:59 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
AS a small independent investor, I support this proposed rule that will tend to 
level the playing field between Wall Street and Mian Street.
     
Thank you for listening to my opinion.
     
Charles Piette
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
414-871-5911
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  10:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation F.D. File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Please allow for new fair disclosure rules.  Thank you.
     Candace Pocino

Author:  Chris Pomeroy  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  10:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulatio fd:file no.s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Equal access to all!  There should be no partiality to who can have 
access to all of the available financial information.  In the private 
sector this would be called insider trading and the participants could 
be prosecuted,fined and jailed!
     
Chris Pomeroy
     

Author:  Marc Pope  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  10:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Disclosures should be public knowledge not to a select few to profit 
from!
     
                                    Marc Pope
     

Author:  Timari Prevish  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  9:10 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I was unaware that analysts had access to privy information that others 
didn't.  I always thought  that analysts were using the same information 
that I was and wondering how a stock could possibly be such a strong buy 
with what I have available to me.  I don't like to buy anything based on 
what other's say, I like to do my own research.  So, since I don't 
really understand why XYZ analyst thinks that ABC Co is such a strong 
buy - I don't buy it.
     
But now that I know that there are people that have access to such 
information - I am worse off.  How do I know that XYZ analyst has the 
information and gives ABC Co a strong buy but analyst TUV doesn't have 
the privy information and gives a hold.  Which am I to believe?  I don't 
have access to the privy information so I can't make a decision on my 
own.  I am just supposed to blindly accept these analysts have to say?
I would rather not invest!
     
Quoted from June 2000 issue of MacWorld Magazine (page 25) "In a report 
issued after a February visit to Apple, Merrill Lynch computer analyst 
Steven Fortuma wrote that he expected Apple to unveil an 
Internet-appliance strategy this summer, possibly at the Macworld Expo 
in July".  Now that I know that Steven probably knows something that I 
can not find out, am I likely to believe this statement?  Maybe.  There 
is a 50 % chance that this information is valid.  Would you invest?  I 
am not willing to buy AAPL based on this - I need more concrete 
information.
     
I do not see how having this kind of information available to everyone 
would hurt analysts.  I would think that it would only help them as 
their work would have more credible information behind the analysis.
     
Timari Prevish
62 Blue Spruce Ln
Ballston Lake, NY 12019
timari@nycap.rr.com
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  9:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: PROPOSED REGULATION  FD:FILE NO.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I REALLY FEEL IT IS A MATTER OF FAIRNESS TO LET THE INFORMATION FLOW TO 
EVERYBODY AT THE SAME TIME.  WITH COMPUTERS AND THE INTERNET THE INFORMATION 
WILL BECOME AVAILABLE EVENTUALLY, BUT THE PEOPLE WHO RECEIVE IT FIRST WILL BE 
THE ONES WHO BENEFIT FROM IT, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE REST OF THE POPULATION. I 
SEEN NO REASON WHY THIS BILL SHOULD NOT PASS UNANIMOUSLY.
Raymond Price 
Cutting Edge Investments

Author:  "Bob Prouty"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  7:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99" 
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Selective disclosure is an outmoded model, and should be eliminated. 
Equal access to all is the only common sense way to proceed.  
Thank you for your consideration.
     
Bob Prouty
NeBig Investors Group
bprouty@premier1.net
(360) 734-8784 
FAX: 733-0414
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  9:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I think that with so many of the "public" in the market that we "the public" 
should get the same information that the institutions are given.  
     
Myra Reide part of "the market"

Author:  "Delbert L Reser"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  9:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Any information given to SEC, should be available for public consumption at same
time.
     
        Delbert L. Reser
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  10:03 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99" 
------------------------------- Message Contents 
    I just wanted to go on record as being against selective disclosure.  I 
can handle the information myself without having it filtered by "helpful" 
security analysts.  
     
    Just a common everyday investor,
    Ron Richard
     
     

Author:  "Jon Rivkin"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  10:03 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg FD:File#S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Please eliminate the selective disclosure that you currently have .
  Public disclosure is the only way to level the playing field for ALL
investors.
  If any news pertaining to stock performance, earnings, insider info,
ANYTHING!! that should be disclosed, should be disclosed to all interested 
parties, not just a selected few.
 Thanks for this forum of input.
  Jon Rivkin
     

Author:  ian  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  7:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Lets level the playing field and have companies provide data to all 
shareholders not just selected analysts.
     
Sincerely,
Ian Robinson
     
     

Author:  Brian Ross  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  7:03 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
To Whom it May Concern:
     
I feel that the current practice of selective disclosure as used by 
companies is harmful to the individual investor and should be 
discontinued. I support the proposed regulation since it will provide all 
investors, from the institutional analysts and portfolio managers to 
those of us who manage our own portfolios through discount brokers, with 
the same information at the same time.
     
Sincerely,
     
Brian Ross
     

Author:  "Michael Sammons"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  9:08 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Come on Guys,
     
     Lets be fair.
     
Michael Sammons

Author:  Brad Schaublin  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  5:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
     
Stop Selective Disclosure.
     
Progress, please !
     
--
     
     
Brad Schaublin, M.Ed.
az us webworks
brad@goldcanyon.com
http://goldcanyon.com/
http://miragemall.com/
http://azuswebworks.com/
http://lifelonglearn.org/
     
     

Author:  Lee Shephard  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  5:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I fully support changing the SEC regs to support fair and open 
disclosure. Since we punish insiders for taking advantage of inside 
information, why should we permit the institutionalization of analysts 
doing the same thing?
    Lee Shephard
    Oakland, CA.
     
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  9:54 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
As a smalll investor, I appreciate the focus you've brought to this area of 
securities regulation. Unfortunately, proposed Regulation FD is needed, 
increasingly so as more and more individuals partcipate in the market. Many of 
these people, I suspect, are investing not so much because they want to, but 
instead because they feel they have to. Many of us simply have limited 
opportunities to generate sufficient capital to support ourselves in retirement;
hence, our entry into the market. The self serving statements of some analyst 
groups that "they know what's best" don't entitle them to a monopoly on 
information. They remind me of former GM Chairman Charles Wilson's statement, 
"What's good for General Motors is good for everybody."  Earlier this month a 
friend of mine invested in an unnamed  stock in the low 70s. The company's share
price started slipping immediately afterwards, and a news article soon appeared 
that the company was issuing a secondary offering of common stock at 50. Why was
the price slipping before the secondary offering announcement was made? Could 
the "knowledgeable" analysts have known this up front? This needs to be stopped.
                                                            Warren Small
                                                            Atlanta, GA
     

Author:  "Bill Swain"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  9:37 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I support the proposed SEC regulations preventing selective disclosure of public
company financial information to the financial community before disclosure to 
the general public.
     
Bill Swain
     

Author:  "Brad Thompson (HOMEADVISOR)"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  5:35 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
     
It is not the place of the SEC to maintain a high roller broker life style. 
The SEC was created to keep stock trading honest, and above all to make sure 
that everyone was not defrauded out of their money.
     
I feel that keeping information from the public is in a sense a limited case 
of fraud. If I don't have access to this analyst or the brokerage firm he is 
related with, then I operate at a disadvantage. When I make an investment in 
a company where secret information is known but not revealed, then the 
clients of the brokerage where the information is known is at an advantage.
     
If I lose money in an investment of this sort, is it not a case of fraud? 
Would I have lost money had I known this information?
     
Anyway, I fully support Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
     
Brad Thompson.

Author:  Vengly Tong  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  9:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
     
I hope that the SEC will carry out this proposed regulation of dismantling 
selective disclosure.  This unfair practice assumes individual investors 
to be "incapable" of their own evaluations of a company.  Not only that, 
selective disclosure creates an unfair playing field that Wall Street 
feels comfortable in -- this is because only a select few (i.e. the ones 
who can profit the most) will know what to do with their investments while 
the individual investor may be left holding the bag.
     
I look forward to this regulation being enforced in the near future, and I 
applaud the SEC for taking this bold, democratic step!
     
     
Regards,
Veng-Ly Tong
     

Author:  "Chandramouliswaran Prasanna Venkatesan"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  9:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I wholeheartedly support the change that would allow companies to disclose 
information simultaneously to the public.  The so called "analysts" have had a 
field day for long enough.
     
C. Prasanna Venkatesan.
     

Author:  Marisa Wallace  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  7:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg. FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I support the SEC in its efforts.  As an individual investor I should 
have the right to information that is being provided to Wall Street 
analysts so that I can make informed decisions regarding my 
investments.  To withhold information to the investing public at large 
is tatamount to insider trading.
     
Thank you,
     
Marisa Wallace
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  8:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
     
Please open up the rule.  Information is money, and I have an equal 
right to it, even though I no longer work for either the IRS or Wall 
Street.
     
ernie weeks
zqs investments and computing
(423) 281-7080
     

Author:  "Roger Williams Jr"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  7:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
To whomever it may concern,
     
In regards to the aforementioned Regulation FD, I find that any argument 
which may be raised against such file from passing to be purely absurd. To 
do anything but force publicly owned companies to fully disclose all 
information regarding the operations of their company to all persons seems, 
to me, a contradiction. If the company is to be publicly traded then does it 
not make sense that the 'public' be allowed full access?
     
A market is run by individuals or groups of individuals buy and selling 
goods to one another. To have a third party intervene in such procedures 
seems to be a waste of time and energy. While there are benefits to such a 
practice (if the third parties are completely honest with all involved) the 
blatant waste of time outweighs all of them.
     
To say that it would hurt the market by letting all information be 
distributed evenly to all persons of interest, is an insult to all involved. 
To say that only certain individuals can competently sort through all of 
this information so that it is not misconstrued, is also an insult.
     
The insult's are not only direct and blunt to our intelligence as investors, 
but also to our intelligence as members of a democracy. Perhaps we should not 
allow every individual the ability to vote for our representatives, only 
those that have reached a certain level of education. A level of education 
that is based more on wealth and public standing, rather than actual 
intelligence.
     
The antagonists' of this proposal are not surprisingly those who would be 
most greatly affected by it, in monetary terms. It is pure greed that argues 
that information/power should not be distributed evenly. The church did this 
in the middle ages. Communist Russia did this throughout the 20th century. 
Now it is this Commission's turn to decide whether or not this Market will 
represent this social disease in the 21st century.
     
Sincerely,
Roger Williams Jr
     

Author:  "Martha B. Withstandley"  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  6:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
------------------------------- Message Contents 
After reading the ideas expressed by the Securities Industry 
Association, I disagree with them. Isn't the SEC set up to protect ALL 
investors. Information about companies not only should be free to all 
investors but that information should be available to all when released 
by companies. Why should a select few be the first ones to receive that 
information?  My understanding of the SEC is not to show favoritism to a 
select group of individuals.
     
I endorse Proposed Regulation FD.
     
Martha Withstandley, a new investor who feels information should be 
released to everyone.
     

Author:  Ulf Wostner  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  5:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: Charles Overmyer  at Internet
CC: ar@toocan.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Regarding: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
     
No special privileges for Wall Street analysts!
     
 Let the public get all the information at the same time as the
analysts.
     
Thank you,
     
Ulf Wostner
     
Ulf Wostner,
Department of Mathematics
CCSF
     
     
     
--
==================================== ///// == 
= ULF WOSTNER, CIS & Math, CCSF       0 0
= Re: Paradigms - Shifts happen!       U 
= http://wiz.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~uwostner   W
=============================================
     
     
     

Author:  Steve Wright  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  5:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
To Whom It May Concern:
     
Please weigh my opinion for prohibiting "selective discosure" without 
simultaneously releasing the information to the general public.
     
It angers me to believe that their should be second class 
citizens/investors. The playing field should be level. Do not tolerate 
what currently smacks of insider deals/favoritism!
     
Sincerely,
Steve Wright
     
     
     

Author:  Jeff Zell  at Internet
Date:    04/26/2000  6:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Please level the playing field.
     
jeff