Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:49 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Investment information should be equally available to individual investors
and Wall Street analysts.
In a country known for freedom of speech and a free market economy we should
be able to say that all investors are created equal by equal information.
Selective disclosure goes against all the freedoms we believe in. Please put
an end to this practice so that we can all invest with equal information.
Tina Allen
4205 S 2275 W
Roy, Ut 84067
(801) 731-5680
Author: Kevin Ashworth at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:30 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
No more selective disclosure! Full disclosure for all!
Thank you for your time,
Kevin Ashworth
__________________________________________________________
kevin.ashworth@circle.com
251 Park Ave S
New York, NY 10010
Author: Glen Baines at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:25 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It's difficult enough to invest with the big boys! The legislation to
give important nformation to Wall Street analysts without simultaneously
giving the news to the public at large is abhorent. Count us against it.
Glen & Diane Baines
Author: Randy Boettcher at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:01 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
If we are to have a free and open market, then why would the government
allow a "special interest" group (Wall Street Analysts) have an
advantage over the investing public? This rule change would then
legalize insider trading, which I believe the SEC is suppose to protect
the general public from.
A few questions regarding the information:
What are the analysts going to do with this information once they have?
Why is it important to have it before everyone else does?
Who will benefit from this information? The general public? The
brokerage houses?
Who will not benefit from this information?
Will the analysts and subsequently the organizations they work for be
prohibited from using this "insider" information to their benefit?
Will the analysts be prohibited from owning and trading securities
associated with this information?
Will the analysts be prohibited from providing this information to
others before it is publicly known and what would be the penalties for
doing so?
My feeling is that if the company is publicly traded, then the entire
public is entitled to any information effecting the value of their
investment at the same time. No exceptions, no separate classes.
Randal L. Boettcher
The Procyon Group, Inc.
Author: "Stuart Boyle" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:59 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a consumer in this market accurate and timely information is critical to
my personal finacial success.
If this information was available to me I would be prepared to invest more
money in the market.
Stuart Boyle
Seattle WA
Author: janet breslin at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 11:17 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
NO Selective disclosure!!!
Janet Breslin
Author: Nick Broussard 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
As an individual investor, I support full disclosure to the public.
Author: "Bret Brunner/BCBS" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:37 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I see no reason why information made available to brokers should not also
be public. I strongly support fair disclosure. In seems ridiculous to me
to suggest that there is a public benefit to secrecy, partial knowledge and
selectively informing certain operators in the system.
thank you
bret brunner
434 harrison
helena mt 59601
bbrunner@bcbsmt.com
Author: Tesser at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of more disclosure rules for professional traders.
-Jon Cocks
Author: Amy Curtis at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:48 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Any proposal that analysts be privileged in their receipt of information
in addition to, prior to, or other than that available to individual
investors inevitably leads one to the conclusion that the government is
impermissibly discriminating against individuals and is aiding the
securities industry in subverting the requirements of disclosure that are
the backbone of the securities laws.Amy Curtis,individual investor
Author: "Joan Dokson" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:57 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please support rule changes to require that companies provide the same
information to the general public as they do to Wall Street analysts. Thank
you. Joan Dokson
Author: "Moe Dubreuil" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:28 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
April 27, 2000
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to you in support of the proposed new rules to combat selective
disclosure of information by public companies. I believe it is time to
eliminate the market inefficiencies that stand between public corporations
and their owners.
Please be vigilant and fight hard for these proposals. They are in the best
interest of investors and in the best interest of fairness.
Sincerely,
Maurice J. Dubreuil
18 Ash Swamp Road
Scarborough, ME 04074
Author: Kay Elmore at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: kelmore@metrowerks.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the rule for the following reasons:
The public is entitled to the same information that the analysts have
access to.
Informed investment decisions can only be achieved with ALL the relevant
information about a company. Analysts should NOT have special privileges of
access to financial information which they can choose to make public or
not, to
suit their own spin. Public companies MUST disclose full information TO THE
PUBLIC, not just to analysts. Anything other would be kin to "insider
trading."
kelmore@metrowerks.com
Kay Elmore
9801 Metric Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78758 USA
ph 512.873.4761
fax: 512.873.4922
http://www.metrowerks.com
Metrowerks - A Motorola Company
Author: Robert Quaintance Fomon at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 11:25 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a registered investment adviser, I believe information should be
disseminated more democratically. Everyone should have equal access to the
information. In addition, I think IPO's should only be conducted on a dutch
auction basis.
Sincerely,
Robert Q. Fomon
Author: GREG GALINSKY at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:28 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg. FD; File # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have invested in stocks since I was 14 years old; currently 49; and
feel that there are edges and advantages that the larger players may be
given will never come to me. Full disclosure now with the powerfull
advent of the internet and how quickly information is processed levels
the pllaying field for everyone. I would be in favor of full disclosure
and advise that conference calls be done via the internet also.
Thanks
Greg Galinsky
4073 Hubertus rd
Hubertus, Wi 53033
Author: "Green; Christine" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:33 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Public disclosure should mean that the public is told. I'm perfectly
capable of reading and analyzing statements from companies for myself and
deciding how to invest my money. I don't see why information should be
disclosed to Wall Street analysts and not to the public at large.
Please put the PUBLIC into public disclosure.
regards
Christine Green
christine_green@maxtor.com
phone (303) 702-4489
fax (303) 678-2729
Author: halpony at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 11:12 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective disclosure is a limit on the free flow of information which
imposes an economic "cost" on the efficiency of our financial markets.
Our markets and the global economy suffer when friction in encountered
in the dispersion of truthful information from essential sources.
John M. Halpern
Private Investor
Author: bettys at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:49 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I am conveying my comments on this proposed regulation. I am definitely
in favor of it and think it's sorely needed. It's about time that we as
individual investors have access to the same information as brokers --
and at the same time. Let's level the playing field.
Betty S. Helm, President
Executive Suites, inc.
225-922-4411
email - bettys@dns.ucc.net
Author: "Dick Hoskins" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
TO: "Legislator Patty Murrary" at Internet
TO: "Legislator Slade Gorton" at Internet
TO: "Legislator Brian Baird" at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Time to level the playingfield - independent investors without big money and
clout and a lobbying firm need to have ALL information from a firm given to the
public at the same time as so-called Wall Street analysts get it. No more
selective disclosure. I know Wall Street doesn't want this rule change, but the
people do.
Thank you
Dick Hoskins
rhoskins@home.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:55 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madame:
I agree that the current system of partial disclosure MUST be eliminated. I
have every right to know everything that is given to Wall Street analysts at
the same time.
Regards,
Walter & Susan Hughes
42484 Smarts Mill Lane
Leesburg, VA 20176
703-771-1477
Author: John Jeffers at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:57 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hello
I am an independent investor and work for a living as you see. As the
Japanese have cleverly observed the stockmarket and in particular the
Nasdaq are a verging on a Casino. But the funds people are the house
because they not only get to control the game but know too much ahead of
the rest of us thus they do a lot better.
At one time you could justify this because they had to do the research and
pay for that and trips out of their own pocket but I could also pay for
that if I had the means.
About 10 years ago after the '87 crash and with the Nasdaq a new phenomena
came to pass the "investor conference call" in which privileged information
was passed out to the top fund managers in return for what was hoped for
their support of these companies.
The fund managers liked this. It gave them sometimes a week jump on the
market and made life good. It became expected of every company which is
patently unfair because as a small investor I could not even buy this
information.
It is time to end this serious malpractice since it can be seen recognized
and we have the means of ending it.
SEC should not even tolerate Edgar online's day delay except for
subscribers and should require the industry put in place a server farm that
does two things. (Edgar's place is interpreting the information, filing
and charting it.)
1) All SEC filings are placed by the SEC immediately on the servers as
received. All filings are acceptable only by email with PGP signature as
handed out to SEC with initial IPO filing.
All news releases must be filed with the SEC. (Put out as they are today
just add the authorizing signature.)
2) The server farm posts all trader conference calls and investor
conferences by a method like Real Audio/Video. The calls are stored for a
year at least.
There is todays schedule and conference links and email question
address posted for conference calls on the farm.
To make things easy if questions can be asked they must be asked by email
with the question moderator being an SEC employee sitting at SEC
headquarters (NEVER AT THE COMPANY) who will pass all acceptable questions
in order received and eliminate duplicates while ensuring no one has an
unfair advantage (I can't ask a good question more than once a minute
neither can they (fund managers)) until questions are over. The company
must answer from the first question they answer until the last question
they answer in order. They can only see the questions are from the
Moderator not any Fund manager. (Putting an end to "Fred talk to me later
on that.")
At a on site conference still the fund managers must submit by email. (They
all have G3 cellphones or Palm 7's anyway.)
In essence this becomes the equivalent of a very democratic electronic town
hall meeting. Fair to all and as dry or as interesting as the players are.
The beauty is no fund manager has an advantage over me except by spending
time/money for research, bringing us back to the original idea of the
stockmarket of the 50's in which if I subscribed to the Wall Street Journal
I could find out about the same as anyone else if I wanted.
John Jeffers
9 Par Court
Longview Texas
Author: Kris Jolley at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:29 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think if disclosure is required by the government it ought to be
general public information when it afects information about public
companies that offer their stock or assets for sale. I think,
incidently, that this ought to apply especially to corporate income and
taxes paid that reduce the share holder's profits and employee's wages.
Thank you.
Kris Jolley
Author: "BERNARD J KEARNS" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:47 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have a right to all of the information that companies give to the SEC. I think
that full disclosure to the public is long over due. The big investors have
enjoyed an abundance of information as well. We small investors have a right to
all the information available to the SEC and to the big investors.
Bernard J. Kearns
Author: "Jency Kelly" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:54 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Give us a break!!
We are currently losing billions due to government
(Specifically the federal courts) meddling with us - and the markets.
Traders, brokerage, etc. SHOULD NOT have access to information
Before the general public and the small investor does.
Jency Kelly
CBM Computers, Inc.
321 267-4655
Author: David Ledger-Thomas at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 7:28 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective disclosure is not right. Why should just the "big wheel market
analyst" be the only ones that receive important company information. The
individual investor should also have access to the same information. Both the
"big wheel market analyst" and the individual investor have a vested
interest in a particular company and should therefore receive the same
information at the same time from a particular company. I thought monopolies
were illegal in this wonderful country of America. The "big wheel market
analyst" should not be allowed to have a monopoly of information because it
was only released to them.
Therefore I am against having the SEC change the rules that currently allow
companies to give information/news simultaneously to "big wheel market
analyst" and the public at large.
David Ledger-Thomas
Author: Nell Licklider at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:25 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 favour of changing the existing fair disclosure rules in order
to promote a level playing field for all investors.
Nell Licklider
Author: mark lindner at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:25 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Individual investors should have the same information as any brokerage
company.
Lynette Lindner
Author: "Russell C. Lindsay" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:23 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please pass Regulation FD to level the playing field for ALL investors.
Selective Disclosure is an unfair business practice that should be
eliminated. It smacks of "insider trading."
Russell C. Lindsay, PE
PARC Engineering Associates
Asheville NC
Author: "TransTeC America" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:40 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Regulation FD File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
April 27, 2000
In response to this notification that you would like to continue to keep the
public investors in the dark, yet let the financial analysts in the pockets of
the "big-money" people, to use at their discretion, is a disgrace. The
government is of the people, for the people, not for those with a lot of the
dough. If you are not working for the people, then please find another job. We
do not need your sort in Washington.
MacGyver
Of The People, For The People
Author: "Henry Manley" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation FD No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Full disclosure should not be for a select few. If we are to be so
privileged as to own shares in
major companies. Then I see no reason not to be fully informed.
saddie
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 11:37 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs: The new law as it is proposed with selective disclosure to
registered brokers of certain financial information which would not be
available simultaneously to the public at large is to my way of thinking
unfair to the public and to the self directed investor such as myself. I am
oppossed to its passage and implimentaion. Repectfully, William M. Marsh
Author: Kelly at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:43 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think this is a necessary rule change, in light of the internet age.
Please level the playing field for all.
Kelly McGee
Author: Sean McGuire at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:22 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I feel strongly that requiring companies to release to the public any
information they release to Wall Street is a good thing. The idea that I
need an analyst to tell me what company information means is, in my opinion,
downright silly. It is akin to telling me that I need a newspaper to tell
me what a politician means; it may be true for a large number of issues, but
for the issues about which I am personally concerned, it isn't - I am
capable of educating myself to the necessary extent to understand what is
being said. Similarly, while I may not be able to make sense of the
statements of a company in which I have no interest, it is my right and
responsibility to educate myself about a company in which I have invested
money; this education will allow me to make sense of what the company says.
Author: "slmerrill" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:21 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation F D File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
All the information that is available to the "Big-Guy-Investors" should also be
available to anyone who wants to avail themselves of it. We are just as
intelligent (and many cases more intelligent) as those folks.
Sharon Merrill
Author: "Miller; Andra M" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:25 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please pass the proposed regulation to make companies simultaneously give
important information to the public at large when they give it to analysts.
Andra M. Miller
146 W. 16 St. - 4B
New York NY 10011-6263
*****************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
is unauthorized.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice
contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in
the governing KPMG client engagement letter.
*****************************************************************************
Author: "Timothy D O'Hara" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:24 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to express my opinion that I strongly support fair
disclosure of information by publicly traded companies to the public.
Given that publically owned companies can provide information to a
select group of anaysts flies in the face of the term public. Why can
we allow privileged access and information to only a few so that they
can act on this information ahead of the other stakeholders in the
companies.
The goal should be in moving toward an more efficient marketplace. By
releasing it to the public, and not select members of the public, we are
pursuing the goal of an efficient marketplace that will react most
quickly to market information.
As a shareholder and a citizen, I urge you to enact fair disclosure of
information on publicly traded companies so that all people can have
that information.
Tim O'Hara
1973 Fairmount Ave
St Paul, MN 55105
Author: "Steve & Karen Painter" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Stop Selective Disclosure! Keep the playing field level and fair for ALL who
want to play.
Sincerely,
Steve & Karen Painter
Bedford, Texas
Author: "Roy Pierce" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:27 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I want the same disclosures to the public as to the
brokers in Wall St.
Roy Pierce
Global-Wide Standards Consulting, Inc.
Author: Thomas Ramagli at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:38 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: file #S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear sirs;
The notion that I, or any individual investor cannot make an informed
decision without the help of "analysts" is preposterous. Analysts simply
do not have the best interests of their clients at heart, but rather
their own financial interests and reputation as their first and foremost
concern. Individuals are the ones who are best able to guide their own
financial future, only requiring the occasional guidance from a
professional. These analysts should continue to interpret this public
data, not hold it hostage.
The SIA is a lobbying group that represents paid analysts who wish to
remain paid analysts by restricting the amount of information available
concerning publicly held corporations. Analysts are not totally unbiased
when they "analyze" a company, simply because they want to maintain a
friendly relationship with that company and continue to receive
restricted information that they can then charge customers for.
While not all analysts are as self-serving as I might suggest, the fact
remains that the industry as a whole does not operate fully in the best
interests of individual investors. Therefore, I strongly urge you to
"level the playing field" by ending the analysts' monopoly of selective
disclosure.
Sincerely,
Thomas Ramagli
tramagli@nji.com
Author: Sanjay Rao at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:29 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I hear the SEC is considering implementing a rule to prevent companies
from revealing important information to Wall Street without
simultaneously informing the public.
I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS INITIATIVE !
Speaking for the individual investor community as well as at least 20
friends that invest, this would be a great step towards equity (no pun
intended) in the stock markets.
Any beginner's book on technical analysis clearly shows that volume
buying (or selling) precedes a stock price surge (or drop). As
well-connected Wall St. folks have already received an information
preview, they are able to position their portfolios to anticipate the
price move. If the market-maker is one of those privy to this
information, and can control the price movement, the dice are loaded
even more against the retail investor.
This is such a truism in today's stock markets that technical analysts
actually use that fact to try and level the playing field. I have used
this to my benefit in the past. However, 99 of 100 investors do not
have the time or the skills to do rigorous technical analysis on their
portfolio, nor is it an exact science for those who do. For this
reason, 99 out of a 100 investors underperform in the stock markets
relative to the connected Wall St. folks.
That is patently unfair and we would greatly appreciate it if you would
shut down this gravy train for a few select, connected, people.
Indeed, we expect it.
Regards,
- Sanjay Rao.
Author: "Rasmussen; Thomas" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:39 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of Full Disclosure. It seems irrational that the government
could allow special privileges to select groups resulting in significant
economic gain.
Thomas Rasmussen
TRW
ICBM Systems Engineering, Integration, & Test IPT
Nuclear Hardness & Survivability Project Engineer
Phone: (801) 525-3404 Fax: (801) 525-3402
Thomas.Rasmussen@siinet.trw.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 11:03 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am for full disclosure to all at the same time, the public and all street
investors need to have the same info at the same time, it is fair to me.
Respectfully,
Michael J. Rodriguez
Author: Susan Scholtz at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:53 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Information should be for the public not for select brokers!!!!
Susan Scholtz
Author: psevern@webtv.net (Pris Severn) at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:25 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: PROPOSED REGULATION FD: FILE NO. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Change the rules so we will all get all the information.
Priscilla Severn
Pris Severn
psevern@webtv.net
Author: John Slivon at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 11:27 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support your efforts against selective disclosure of securities
information. I believe that open disclosure is the most satifactory for
individual investors.
John Slivon
Author: "ALAN SMITH" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:28 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I must admit that I was unaware that this practice was taking place and more
than a little surprised that a regulatory authority with the reputation of truth
and full disclosure that yours has, would allow what amounts to insider trading
by allowing these companies to discreetly give information to some Wall Street
analysts.
Open access, full disclosure and truth should rule the day. Otherwise, harm to
the trust of all involved will inevitably take place.
Respectfully,
Alan Smith
Tyler, TX
Author: Sandra Teseneer at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:36 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. Yes!
Sandra Teseneer
Author: Larry Tomko at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:08 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC,
I'm an individual investor, 2 years away from retirement from Lucent
Technologies. Until recently I thought that it was the law of the land that
companies had to disclose information to everyone, or no one at all - the whole
idea of "insider trading". But I have learned that companies can reveal
information selectively to favored brokers without revealing it to the general
investment public. I am appalled!
This regulation addresses the problem, at least partially. If the SEC doesn't
approve this, my faith in the SEC will fail.
Larry Tomko
630-713-707
ltomko@lucent.com
Author: btutelman@cohu.com (Bob Tutelman ) at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:15 AM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs,
I have read representative comments from both the professional stock
analysts and the individual investor community on this proposed regulation,
and after consideration I would like to weigh in on the side of full
disclosure without favoritism. To allow a company to disclose material
information to a select subset of the investment community is to sanction
insider trading; it is as simple as that. If the American (and now,
world-wide) investing public is to have faith in the fundamental honesty of
American stock markets, there must be no hint that a select few
(inevitably, the largest) are getting early access to important, valuable,
previously secret information.
The analysts have stated that, without their predigestion of financial
data, the public might react inappropriately, causing buying or selling
sprees. So be it. It happens all the time, even *with* the benefit of their
alleged wisdom. A free, fully informed market will correct it soon enough.
The analysts have stated that, without an opportunity to grill corporate
officers in a small-group setting, companies will be inclined to hide bad
news. So be it. They do it anyway. Sometimes the analyst community actually
helps them. When the numbers are published, the analysts will be able to
analyze (that's their job, after all) *facts*, not spin.
Frankly, the only downside I see to requiring full, simultaneous disclosure
is that the analysts will no longer have an early monopoly on profitable
information. And that's only a negative for the analysts and their fat-cat
clients who have been getting an unfair, undeserved free ride. It would be
a significant positive development for the general investing public.
Sincerely yours,
Robert A. Tutelman
General Partner
Tutelman Properties, Ltd.
Author: "David Yoder" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:34 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
As a private investor I am writing to encourage you to pass universal
disclosure for all investors, not just the wall street insiders. As a
responsible tax paying and equity buying citizen, I feel that I should be given
access to the same information as everybody else. A level playing field will
help to everybody to make better and more responsible descisions and help to
lesson our relience on other people who may have a conflict of interest with us.
Thank you for your time.
David A Yoder
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0427b04.htm
