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

Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading

Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99


Author: 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


Modified:05/17/2000