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
