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

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  1:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Dear Madam or Sir:
     
I believe it is grossly unfair, and in fact should be criminal, for companies 
to give important information to Wall Street analysts without simultaneously 
giving the news to the public at large. I hope you will right this most 
non-democratic practice.
     
Thank you,
     
Michael S. Adler
www.TheAdlerGroup.com

Author:  Fred Aker  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  6:35 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Please stop selective disclosure. It is nothing more than legalized 
insider tips and trading practices that put individual investors at a 
disadvantage.
     
Fred Aker
107 Elliott Dr.
Butler, PA 16001
     

Author:  "Dick Akerman; Sr"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  8:27 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Please change the rules! Why should the "big boys" have the right to 
receive important information without simultaneously providing the same 
news to the public at large. Give us, the small investors, a level 
playing field.
     
Richard S. Akerman, Sr
Sheila M. Akerman
2 Ray Drive
Rochester, NH 03867
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  10:07 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents 
     
     
I agree with the proposed regulation above.
     
I agree with rules that would allow companies to give important information to 
Wall Street analysts,  simultaneously to the public at large.
     
Don Baker
Zurich Centre Group
     

Author:  "Donald Beaton"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  7:38 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Fw: Proposed Regulation FD: File # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
     
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Donald Beaton 
To: rule-comments@sec.gov 
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 7:31 AM 
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
     
     
As an individual investor, I add my full support for Proposed Regulation FD. 
Todays market climate reflects the greater involvement of the individual 
investor who has benefited from the access to current corporate information. 
This access has greatly promoted market efficiency.  Proposed Regulation FD will
further enhance this.
     
     
Sincerely,
     
Donald Beaton
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  7:36 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I am opposed to selective disclosure.  Companies should give information to 
everybody at the same time!
     
Frederick S. Beckner
President
Gulfstream Fisheries, Inc.

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  1:57 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
The most elementary component of economics in a capitalistic economy is 
"perfect information" which means that everyone should have equal access to 
information at the same time it becomes available to anyone. Anything short 
of this position is a hindrance to the competitive forces which are so vital 
to the efficient operation of the economy. Since barriers to information is 
the equity markets as a whole affects all segments of the private sector, it 
is by far the most dangerous and anticompetitive situation in our entire 
economy. You must require all information that is to be disseminated be done 
so to the entire public simultaneously. Thank you, Arthur Bender (818) 
769-4141

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  7:55 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Comment on Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
     
     
It's very clear to me as an individual investor - part of a huge growing number 
- that the release of essential information relevant to making sound investment 
decisions must not be a privilege reserved for the few anymore. As an investor, 
I am a business owner also. I should have the right to know first-hand what is 
going on with my business. You, the SEC, has rules about insider trading, right?
Doesn't it ring with the sound of inconsistency if the act of insider trading is
illegal, but "inside" or "advance" information on public companies is allowed to
be put into the hands of the few as a significant advantage?
     
Jay Benigno
Individual Investor
     
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  2:23 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: file no. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Dear SEC:
My name is Jeffrey Berg. I would like to be on the record in support of your 
proposed ruling on equal disclosure of information by companies. The 
professional analysts apparently want to believe that the average investor is 
helpless to make sense of the information that a publicly owned company has 
to release. I believe the real motive behind this position is self serving 
and I thank you for proposing to put all investors on the same level. 
Thank you,
Jeffrey W. Berg

Author:  Jerry Berringer  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  12:35 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I was surprised to learn that information can be passed to analysts 
without being available to the general public. I always assumed that 
information relevant to the financial outlook of a publicly traded 
was considered inside information, and had to be fully disclosed 
rather than passed around to a select few for them to profit from 
prior to full disclosure. Silly me. My ignorance notwithstanding,
I for one am against any selective and less than full public disclosure. I 
would not trust Wall Street analysts, any more than I would any other 
group, with what could be very profitable information when said 
information is not generally known to the public. As for Wall Street's 
argument that they are protecting investors from themselves, I say
phooey. I managed to make a little money on my own until I started 
following "professional's" opinions. Didn't do too well based on a "Buy" 
rating. I say let any and all information be available to the public at 
large if and when available at all. Just say no to a select few having 
the temptation of profitable inside information all to themselves.
From my own recent experiences, I learned not to give what comes 
from analysts or brokerage houses much weight in making investment 
decisions anyway. All they are really interested in is my money, and 
how much of it they can keep for themselves (commissions, etc.).
     
Jerry Berringer
     
Saint Petersburg, Florida
     

Author:  "Bizer; Michael J.  LTC"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  4:58 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Dear Sir, 
    Please "Leve the Playing Field."  In today's electronically connect
stock market, information can be passed easily to everyone as well as the 
"select analysts."  We are are now able to by and sell the same stocks that 
previously we had to go through analysts.  Thus we all deserve the same 
information, unclouded by additional analyst thoughts about companies they 
represent.
    Thanks for helping out ALL investors.
     
Mike Bizer
6820 Cherry Lane
Annandale, VA  22003

Author:  "Black; Barbara"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  9:09 AM
Normal
Receipt Requested
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 concur wholeheartedly with the opinions in support of Regulation FD.  In 
particular, I would like to single out the Comments of W. Hardy Callcott, 
SVP, General Counsel, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., April 20, 2000. (File 
name: callcot1.htm)  .  In particular, 
I agree with Mr. Callcott's observation that Regulation FD has engendered 
unwarranted concern for the role of the analysts in advising investors.  I 
too believe such concern is unfounded and misguided.  As an internet 
investor, while I continue to seek certain analysts' expertise in 
interpreting financial information and world news, I demand that I have the 
same, timely access to material information so that I can formulate my own 
judgements.  Is not the current lack of simultaneous and equal access to 
material information an insidious form of "insider trading"?  Many times I 
have heard from people working in the investor relations business that their 
brokers' analysts function as informants, passing on material news as it 
happens, so that they can pass that news on to "special" clients.  Why 
should these analysts have advance  access to material information that is 
directed at the investing public?  Why should members of the public that 
have better "connection" benefit at the expense of the public at large?
In closing, I would like to thank the you and the SEC for tangibly 
acknowledging the severity of this issue of selective disclosure, and for 
creating such an effective tool as Regulation FD to end this inequity. 
Very truly yours,
Barbara E. Black
An individual investor, 
Member of the National Association of Investment Clubs and 
a partner in a small investment club of individual investors
     

Author:  bobboyd  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  8:01 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I support Fair Disclosure.  In order to support a more efficient 
market and a level playing field among private investors and full 
service brokerages, corporate disclosures need to be 
simultaneously available to all investors.  With the widespread 
availability of the internet there are no true barriers to 
disseminating the information.
     
Thank you for your attention.
     
Bob Boyd
Investment Management Services
2600 Sandlewood Court
Orange Park, FL  32065
     
     

Author:  "lbrockman2"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  2:14 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I am an individual investor who manages my own IRA through a Schwabb online 
trading account.  
     
I am in favor of the Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 in re above, 
because I do not feel that brokers or other analysts should receive any 
information that the rest of us don't.  The comments that I have read about the 
individual investor not being able to understand the information is pure bunk 
perpertuated by brokers who want to have a monopoly on infortation. 
     
I have a master's degree in engineering with a heavy emphasis in economics, and 
I have probably read and understood more about investment theory than the 
average professional analyst. In fact, if you really want to know how well 
professional analysts are able to handle information about investments, just 
take a look at their poor records vs random investing in the stock market, or 
read some of thier ridiculous recommendations on stocks to buy in today's 
overvalued tech sectors.
     
I invest both for the long term, and do some day trading.  Since I prefer not to
talk to brokers, whose main job is to sell, public information about companies 
is vitally important to me.  I already have enough disadvantages competing with 
the professionals, since I am not a full time trader and my information comes at
a slower pace on a 56k modem.  Please do not handicap me further by passing 
rules that allow selective disclosure.
     
Thank you very much for your consideration.
     
Larry Brockman
1390 Mosswood Lane
Smyrna, GA 30082
     
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  7:54 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
                                                27 April 2000 
     
Mr. Jonathan G. Katz 
Secretary, 
United States  Securities and Exchange Commission 
450 Fifth Street, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20549 
     
Re: Proposed Regulation FD, File No. S7-31-99
     
     
Dear Mr. Secretary
     
    I would like to add my voice to that of Mr. W. Hardy Callcott, Sr. Vice 
President and General Counsel of Charles Schwab and Co., Ms. Bonnie Burdett 
Dennis and Mr. Louis M. Thompson, Jr. of the National Investor Relations 
Institute, and others in support of SEC Proposed Regulation 
     FD: File No. S7-31-99      to end selective disclosure of corporate 
accounting information.  
     
    As a private investor I salute and applaude the efforts of the SEC over 
the past decades to make the securites markets more equitable, more open, 
more reliable and more honest.  Even those who most ardently oppose 
"government regulation" of private industry and business must concede that 
without the SEC's "Wachdog" powers and committments, not only would private 
investors be vulnerable to fraud and inaccurate business disclosure, but 
businesses and the market themselves would suffer from the loss of investor 
confidence if the SEC did not insist on accounting and disclosure standards.
     
    I feel that Proposal is yet another step in the efforts of the SEC to 
make the markets more open and equitable, and that by increasing shareholder 
information and awareness, the SEC will be encouraging more investment in the 
markets.   
     
    I hope the SEC will pass Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 in a speedy and 
timely manner.  
     
Sincerely,
Lawrence Broh-Kahn
Boca Raton, FL 

Author:  "Michael"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  1:17 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Sir/Ms:
     
I heartily applaud your recent consideration of eliminating pre-release of 
market information to Wall Street brokerage firms, before release to the public.
 It would be tantamount to elimination of "Jim Crow Laws" with respect to
individual economic freedom in this country.
     
It always amazes me how brokerages can espouse the wonders of a free market, 
while refusing to give up information.  This is NOT a free market until ALL 
Americans have access to equal information, available simultaneously.  It is 
easy to see the old investment firms' struggle to preserve their positions. 
Obviously the internet and direct investing have taken a toll, seriously 
reducing the income reaped from having "inside" or "special information" among 
their attractions.
     
But now is the time for First-Hand and FULL disclosure in this technological 
age.  It is tiring to try to track the path of institutional investors, 
particularly with no concept as to why they are selecting various small growth 
funds (usually after they hit at least the $5 share mark).  Soon after, the 
price of the issue may have skyrocketed, and small investors are left in the 
dust, or worse, confronted with the same questions that preceded the mad rush - 
is this a company that will continue as it has?  Has the stock price been 
inflated by late-breaking hype (usually) and the fundamental agony of learning 
too little to late when the stock may have been within reach - before the giants
gobbled and inflated the buy price.
     
I don't forsee the day when Wall Street brokerage houses will no longer be 
important or sought after for IPO services or consumer investment and 
advisement.  But like the market, it is time for an adjustment we are ready for 
- the findamental right of all Americans to participate in the market economy on
an equal basis.  Other industries across the board have experienced good times 
and bad, and in that process often the more fit have survived and grown, while 
those who did not remain competative through product or service delivery have 
gone under.  That is what "opportunity" is all about.  I don't recall any major 
Wall Street firms having gone under during any of the stock setbacks since 1929 
(which I truthfully DON'T recall...), in an economic era long passed away and 
based in a very different environment.
     
I support the necessity of Wall Street brokerages for the many essential 
products and services they provide.  Releasing critical market information would
instill motivation to improve upon their services to maintain a viable client 
base.  It is a shame that somehow Wall Street feels it needs (and deserves) 
special protections with information flow.  Recent events alone make the 
argument of "providing stability" almost laughable.  It is an obsolete and 
marginally shady approach we have tolerated long enough.  Let's make the US 
Stock Market a truly free market, and allow advancement and competition to 
fluorish in ALL sectors.
     
Even new investors have had hard lessons, and are likely to experience more, 
while others have thoughtfully prospered.  Let's try trusting people who choose 
to make thoughtful investments to make effective choices without allowing 
brokers to continue the "special class" status that has brought many great 
wealth as a direct result of equally "special" information.  Perhaps they would 
benefit from the experience of being "true investors" rather than simply 
positioning themselves for automatic advantages by this unfair barrier which has
been so demoralizing and unfair to everyone else.  Let's see some REAL 
accountablity for their knowledge and expertise (which many truly have), not the
absurdity of continuous "free tips" for otherwise under-achievers.
     
Sincerely,
     
W. M. Buck
A Small Investor for Competative Equality
     

Author:  "R. Christian Call"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  9:18 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I wish to voice my support for proposed regulation FD.  Important 
information about a company's earnings, operations, and so forth should 
be disclosed to the public, not revealed in advance to a select group of 
analysts.  Selective disclosure gives a certain small group of investors 
an unfair advantage over others--an advantage that (it seems to me) is 
not unlike the advantage of using "inside information" when trading.
     
I urge the SEC to implement proposed regulation FD.
     
-- 
     
R. Christian Call, rccall@monmouth.com
     
278 Gloucester Court
Aberdeen, NJ 07747-1878

Author:  "David Callihan"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  1:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
STOP SELECTIVE DISCLOSURE
     
The democracy of financial markets depends on all public information being 
available to everyone, at the same time -- individuals and investors.  Wall 
Street analysts have their own self-interests, and do not not what is best for 
me -- I can make that decision myself, in so long as I am operating on a level 
playing field. A strong democratic marketplace of equities trading, based on the
open availability of information, is in the best interest of the US economy and 
will strenghten the US economy, as investors will be able to channel equity 
investments into those companies which are the most dynamic, innovative and 
well-managed.
     
I strongly support the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) changing the 
rules to not allow companies to give important information to Wall Street 
analysts without simultaneously giving the news to the public at large. 
     
I am an individual investor and am quite capable of reviewing on-line SEC 10Q 
and 10K filings, and do not need Wall Street analysts to screen information for 
me.  I fact, I think that it important that all information that is realeased on
publically traded companies be available to indivdual investors.
     
Thank you, David Callihan
US Citizen
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  7:24 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation fd: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am an individual investor who relies on timely information released to me 
and not just the "big guys" in order to make wise and competitive decisions. 
Vote to disclose information to all not just a select few!
Thank you!
John Caputo
j7t7c7@aol.com

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  12:19 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Dear Sirs:
     Shareholders are owners of businesses. Under the law they are classified 
as common, preferred, etc. They should not be sub-classified by the 
percentage of ownership, much less if they write reports, work for brokerages 
or buy and sell for mutual funds. All owners common or debt should have the 
same information and access to management for answers to questions about 
operations. If companies do not want to answer to "smaller" owners, they 
should not offer their shares to them. If they take their capital then the 
companies should treat them as owners.
Thank you.
John Carter

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  12:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Gentlemen,
     
I applaud you in your consideration of the proposed rules changes, 
specifically ending the selective disclosure, the clarification of insider 
trading, and enhanced audit committee effectiveness.
     
I am a small investor, who prefers to do my own research and purchase the 
stocks of my own choosing through a discount broker. It is disappointing to 
think that because the firms on Wall Street have more money to spend that I 
might not be able to receive information which would have direct impact on my 
investment decisions.  I urge you, therefore, to adopt the Regulation FD.
     
I am encouraged also at your proposed changes in the insider trading 
defination.  It is good to know you are addressing a "loophole" through which 
some have presumably managed to slip through.
     
It is also good to know that the financial records on file will become a more 
reliable source of information as I evaluate a company for potential 
investment. I think the independent auditor is especially important in 
today's world when so many companies have had problems with sloppy 
bookkeeping and misleading statements.  
     
I urge you to adopt the changes you are considering.
     
Sincerely,
     
Kathie J Carter

Author:  "SHUN-CHIN & MARY CHOU"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  7:53 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I think everyone should have a level playing field with anybody else.   As of 
today, the analysts make living by taking advantage of their special treatment 
giving to them, rather than their ability, skill and knowledge.   This is 
discriminating against other people pure and simple.
     
In other words, the proposed regulation should be passed in my opinion.
     
Shun-chin Chou
     

Author:  "Clark; Michael"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  7:30 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
TWIMC:
     
It is my opinion that everyone should get compnay information at the same 
time.  Isn't advanced disclosure just another form of "insider information" 
that gives institutional investors a leg up on small individual investors. 
It seems to me that with advanced information, somebody is going to profit 
by making stock moves before the public gets the news.  
     
It's time to put everybody on the same playing field.
     
Michael S Clark
Private Investor.

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  1:03 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
     
You have no right to tell me what to think. If you have honor, integrity or 
honesty then you would support laws which give the consumer and the people 
the right to make their own decision. I demand fair disclosure.
     
Regards,
Anthony J Costantino

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  9:19 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
     THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.  THERE IS NO REASON TO 
TREAT INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS AS IF THEY ARE UNABLE TO ANALYZE DATA NOW GIVEN 
ONLY IN "SELECTIVE" DISCLOSURES.  WE DON'T NEED BABYSITTING, JUST  AN EQUAL 
OPPORTUNITY.                 CARL S. CRAWFORD,   OXNARD CALIFORNIA

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  8:03 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
1) Is it true that "it hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary 
and valuable function in the U.S. capital markets"? Is it true that to 
perform that necessary and valuable function they need better information 
than the participants in the market? I disagree.
     
2) Is it true that, the "alternative model of millions of individual 
investors and potential investors poring over prospectuses and periodic 
reports is highly theoretical and out of sync with the real world"? There are 
many individual investors, myself included, who do read and review company 
reports to assess our investments.
     
3) Is it true that analysts make the markets less volatile? Doubtful, as teh 
analyst opinions are designed to spur behavior - mainly to generate income 
for their respective firms by recommending buy and sell strategies which 
generate commissions.
     
4) Is it true that analysts spend much of their time ferreting out negative 
information about companies?  
     
I think open and fair access is our right as individual investors. 
     
thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on this regulation,
     
sincerely,
Karen Cross
     
     

Author:  "Kevin D Dibb"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  7:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
SEC,
     
     I believe that individual investors SHOULD have access to the same
information, at the same time, as the larger institutions.
     
-Kevin Dibb
Fayetteville, NC
910-678-1474
     
     
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  9:10 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Dear Sirs:
     
I fully support and urge you to implement Regulation FD.  
     
Despite the cries of the privileged analysts who currently have a monopoly on 
corporate information, the time has come to let the shareholders in on the 
information and to decide for themselves. This in no way excludes the 
analysts from doing what they will with the information.
     
It's a quaint notion that the SIA would like to protect me from myself, but I 
am willing to take my chances.
     
     
Thank You,
Robert Dupre
384 Rutter Ave.
Kingston, PA  18704

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  7:10 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
To Whom It May Concern:
     
  I am for the proposed change in regulation that will remove at least 
a portion of the "class" structure in how publicly-traded companies 
report their financial information to the public.  The current system 
has created government-sanctioned "insider" trading, with the brokerage 
firms having access to public information before the public at large. An 
individual investor of modest means is at a significant disadvantage. 
The proposed changes will help to level the playing field.  
     
  Thank you for taking the time to listen.
     
     
  Respectfully,
     
  Douglas C. Dygas
     
     
   email: dygasd@hotmail.com 
     

Author:  "David B. Elliott"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  8:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
We as intelligent, well-read investors do not need the overlaying layers of 
the old-school "money-minds" that run the brokerage houses to interpret 
anything for us.
     
I, as a share-holder, demand access to the same level of information as 
everyone else in the financial market.
     
In fact, I feel that if we are denied this information, than that 
constitutes a form of "insider trading" whereby only a choose few have 
access to all the information.
     
I strongly encourage, nay, demand that the SEC implement the proposed 
regulation FD.
     
david
     
David B. Elliott
206 870-2490
19219 35th Avenue South
Seatac, WA 98188
     
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  9:04 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: PROPOSED REGULATION FD: FILE NO. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I RAISE MY VOICE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION.  AS AN INDEPENDENT 
INVESTOR I SHOULD HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION AT MY FINGERTIPS THAT ANALYSTS 
HAVE. 
     
     
TOM ENFINGER
ATLANTA GA

Author:  David & Barbara Evans  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  8:15 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99" 
------------------------------- Message Contents 
We support the proposed change.  We do not think any information should 
be given to any analyst before the info is released to the public.  
The web makes it an easy step.
     
Regards,
     
David & Barbara
     
     
-- 


David & Barbara Evans & Assorted Scottish Terriers

Truth is great and its effectiveness endures.
The Maxims of Ptahhotpe [c. 2350 B.C.], maxim no. 5
   

Author:  "ARGENCOR"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  12:32 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents 
To whom it may concern:
     
This e-mail is to submit to you my full support of the above proposed 
regulation. The argument that ordinary investors require of the Wall Street 
analysts for the filtering and interpretation of data is not only arrogant, 
elitist, inaccurate and not corresponding with the current information geared 
Internet era but unlike what this country is supposed to be about, i.e. equal 
chances, equal opportunities for everyone...and let the best man win.
     
Dr. Daniel O. Faisal
APT
     
     
     

Author:  "Elsie Faria"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  12:20 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Yes. Open disclosure. Level the playing field for all of us. 
    Elsie Faria

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  2:10 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Greetings:
     
Please do not change the rules that currently require companies to give 
important information to Wall Street analysts and to the public at large. 
     
Anything else would give Wall Street analysists an unfair advantage.
     
Thank you for listening.
     
Sincerely,
Michael Farrell
5174 Iroquois Avenue
Ewa Beach, HI 96706-3252

Author:  Bruce Galbreath  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  8:31 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
        I am a holder of stocks in several companies, none of which I work for.
My
employer is a Vermont State Government agency. I oppose the rule change. 
Instead, I would favor expanded opportunities for companies to disclose 
information in just about any way they wanted to. Rather than paternally 
protecting us, I think that the government should put people on notice that 
they must weigh the messages they receive from companies, testing their 
claims against other publicly ascertainable information and then, make 
their own best judgment about a company's performance and prospects. If a 
company engages in fraud, civil courts can provide remedies. Otherwise, 
caveat emptor.
     

Author:  "Mickey Gallaway"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  6:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Stop selective disclosure, pass the new rules for "Fair Disclosure".
     
Mickey Gallaway
2476 Bolsover, #472
Houston, Texas 77005
     
713-669-1470
     
mgallaway@ionet.net
     
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  8:31 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
WHAT I SENT TO 'THEM:'
     
The real question:  Is it true that an individual, in accordance with the US 
Consitution, has the right to succeed or fail based on the merits or 
discredits of their character?
     
The fact is that about one percent of the American population are simply too 
emotional to handle the market, and too paranoid to trust other people's 
opinions.  They see every individual flux and null of their stock dollar as a 
loss or gain, ad infinitum.  This minority of people, though highly 
intelligent, will buy and sell out of fear, instead of with ration, and 
caution.  We'll call this personality the reactive personality (RP).   RPs 
would normally only establish financial security by working their fingers 
until they bleed and using their raw intelligence and emotion to the best 
ability outside of the stock market.  The only returns they would show would 
be from a 401k, and IRA, and their savings account.  (Though six percent of 
the population fits into this category, only one percent are actually 
pronounced and uneducated enough to realize their own limitations.  This is 
called the incompetence theory, and there really isn't much all that new to 
it.)
     
For a pronounced RP to invest, they need somebody to act as a buffer between 
them in the market, keeping them posted of the long term concept, and out of 
the actual research and trading.  RPs tend to reacte to any information, lock 
onto one or two key words, and can't let go until they sell everything out of 
a paranoid, rationalized, but highly overstated fear of 'losing more money,' 
or buy their brains out and heavily overextend.  But the RP only makes up 
about 6 percent of the American population, and about ten percent of the 
global population, and as I said already, only about one percent of the RP 
are actually not smart enough to get outside help for investing.
     
Psychological studies on personalities suggest that in such broad terms, the 
moderate personality (MP) is more common.  They keep a level head, sell less 
frequently, and don't react to minor or major fluctuations in the stock 
market (or lfie for that matter) with a knee-jerk buy/sell attitude.  The 
fact is, 94 percent of the people in this country, at least financially, fit 
into this category.  They save their money for the long term, don't even 
consider high risk investments as viable, and would never act on financial 
issues without having all the facts and taking the time to review them.  This 
kind of personality makes up the bulk of the successful private investors.
     
Why should we have people buffering the information for everybody when we are 
one of the most highly educated countries in America?  Even that six percent 
of people who have the reactive personality I mentioned has a majority of its 
people who know their limitations as individuals and involve others who are 
more moderate in the financial aspects of their lives.  I say let the 
individual live and learn, succeed and fail, on their own merits and 
discredits, as our forefathers desired when writing the US consitution.  Give 
us the facts, undiluted, and let us decide if we need an analyst to act as a 
lens, filter, or buffer, after we have the unwatered truth in hand.
     
Sincerely
     
Theron L Gibbons
Head Writer, Owner
Elucid Press
wwww.elucidpress.com

Author:  "Gilcreast; Keith W"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  8:34 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Please pass this proposed regulation, ALL investors should have equal access 
to information!
     
Keith Gilcreast

Author:  Gerrie Griffin  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  7:04 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents 
As an individual investor I am in favor of Regulation FD requiring 
financial disclosure by corporate entities be public and open. 
Limiting access to a select group of experts sets the groundwork for a 
closed financial culture consisting of select analyst and corporate 
spokesmen.  A culture that might tend to work for its own private good
over the good of the general public.   Manipulation of information by a 
small select group is much more plausible than manipulation of 
information by the public at large as the public at large is so diverse 
in its aims and ambitions.
     
Thanks for you time.
     
Gerrie
     

Author:  "David Hanley"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  7:57 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Sirs,
     
     
     
As a private investor, the proposed rule to allow selective disclosure runs so 
against the original reasoning behind the Securities Act and the Securities 
Exchange Act that it is almost incomprehensible this has gone this far.
     
Please re-read the preamble to the Constitution before you exercise any 
authority that was entrusted to you, ultimately as a result of this document. 
What you propose is to create a class of priviledged citizens, or Financial 
Royalty, through this rulemaking. This is utterly shameful.
     
Since there is no zero sum in the financial markets, benefitting one caste as 
you shall do will come at the expense of someone, won't it. Please uphold your 
oath of service or resign and let someone take your place who will remember what
the SEC is about.
     
     
David G. Hanley
     
307 Loma Vista
     
Burnet, TX 78611
     
     
     
     

Author:  "Jim Harrison"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  8:58 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Stop this unfair process.
Jim Harrison
TOPCALL Corporation
     

Author:  "Larry Helming"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  8:17 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File No.  S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I want to be on record as being AGAINST selective disclosure.  
     
Do Not let the wall streeters railroad this change into place.  Keep our 
financial information open.  
     
Thank you.
     
Larry R Helming
6612 Cliftwood Drive
Evansville, IN  47712
     
     
(812) 424-0258
rhelming@evansville.net 
     

Author:  Jay Hendrickson  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  7:35 AM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
To the members of the SEC:
     
I make my own investing decisions.
     
It is obvious to me that selectively provided information increases the 
possibility that my investment decisions will be inappropriate.
     
If the current practices were fair, then providing *me* with information in 
advance would not bother anyone.
     
Please go forth and level the field!
     
Cheers,
     
Jay Hendrickson
Landata Systems, Inc.
713 625-8309
jhendric@stewart.com
     

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  7:37 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Today's market is increasingly influenced by the individual investor who may 
or may not be buying securities through large investment brokers.  This 
investor largely makes  investment decisions based on information available. 
For this reason, it is important that all pertinent information be made 
available to all investors, and not just the privileged few.  As an 
individual investor, I speak for full disclosure.  Hannah T. Herman

Author:  "Hopfner; John"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  8:31 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
To whom it may concern:
     
                     I am writing to voice my support for the proposal to
bar selective disclosure of material information by corporations to 
securities analysts or selected investors, before such information is 
released to the general public.  To me this is such a straightforward and 
reasonable idea that I'm surprised it isn't already universal practice.
     
                     Since, however, it is not already universal practice, I
agree that it should become so.  If securities analysts add value for many 
investors by analyzing and assessing raw data, this is a service they will 
be free to continue providing to investors who feel the need of it, even 
given implementation of the proposed rule, .  However, the proposed rule, 
while not preventing securities analysts from earning a living, would at the 
same time achieve two significant benefits: (i) it would make information on 
publicly traded corporations available to all the public at the same time, 
eliminating the current situation where some segments of the investing 
public are privileged above other segments; and (ii) it would require 
securities analysts to earn their pay by crafting consistently value-added 
analyses.  At present the community of securities analysts, having access to 
material facts not otherwise available to the public, holds the position of 
gate-keeper of information.  No great depth of analytical ability is needed, 
when these individuals are given material information to which the public 
otherwise has no access.  The role of mandatory gate-keeper is neither 
necessary nor reasonable to be given to stockbrokers, much less to big 
institutional investors.  Nor should the SEC support or enable policies 
implicitly based on the premise that the average American stockholder is not 
capable of making reasoned decisions about which stocks to own, absent 
hand-holding by a securities dealer who can explain such abstruse concepts 
as "earnings disappointment" or "planned merger."
     
                                       --John Hopfner
                                      Federal Civil Service 

Author:   at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  12:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I am writing to offer my enthusiastic support to the proposed regulation 
requiring open disclosure from companies.
     
I am a small individual investor.  I do not utilize the services of a 
"full-service" brokerage nor do I rely on nor put any weight on analyst's 
recommendations regarding my purchasing or selling of securities.  I feel that 
they (as a group) do not possess any expertise or ability greater than my 
own.....except in one area. The only area where they have an advantage is the 
fact that some companies choose to reveal information to them exclusively or 
before they reveal it to the public including their own shareholders!! This 
seems an absurd practice to me as I tend to punish companies who do this by 
avoiding investing in them and of late seriously considering divesting. 
Recently IBP did just this with a coference call for analysts.....and after 
many months of flat to decreasing share prices their price has begun to rise. 
 It make me very curious as to what was said in this call and whether that 
has influenced the buying decisions of these analysts and their customers.  
     
The SEC is in place to regulate the behavior of publicly traded companies and 
to ensure that there is disclosure of financials so that investors can make 
fully informed decisions about investments.  The practice of selectively 
disclosing information and the presumed preferential treatment these analysts 
give to these companies in exchange for this privaleged information, is 
deceptive, unfair and against the intersests of all average investors.  The 
practice clearly supports analysts gives them undue power and almost gives 
them a informational monopoly.  I urge you to take measures to halt this 
behavior.
     
     
R. Neil Johnston, MD

Author:  Mel Jones  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  6:08 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
     
I am in favor of knowing all I can before I invest in a company.
     
Melvin Jones
Affiliated with no one.
     
Thanks you.

Author:  "Myron Jones"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  12:13 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99" 
------------------------------- Message Contents 
As a private investor, I feel that selective disclosure should be banned!  In an
open and fair market, information should be shared with all, not just the 
powerful few.  Selective disclosure seems to be an extension of insider trading.
 Please change the rules and require that any information shared, be shared with
the entire market.
     
Thank you,
     
Myron Jones    
12025 Pennsylvania Ave. N.
Champlin, MN. 55316    
Phone: 763-427-1714
     

Author:  "Kalambur J Shankr Kumar"  at Internet
Date:    04/27/2000  6:09 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 
------------------------------- Message Contents 
LET US ALL BE FAIR AND THE MARKET HAVE A TRUE AND FAIR LEVEL FIELD.
     
SELECTED PERSONS HAVE MADE ENOUGH BY THEIR ADVANTAGE AND LET NOT GREED TAKE OVER
AND DESTROY THE PLAINS
     
Kalambur Kumar