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 8:55 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 this e-mail to voice my comments on the proposal to disclose public information to the public at the same time that that information is provided to Wall Street brokers. One of the original selling points for the SEC was to use it to ensure that investors were working in a level playing field. The SEC is used to stop unfair trading practices such as using insider information to get a jump on the market before bad or good news was made public. The current system of releasing information to just the Wall Street brokers before releasing that information to the public is a form of insider trading. We the single investors are left out in the cold while the stock prices react to news that we are not allowed to hear. If the SEC is truly designed to protect the public, then let the public have the same information that everyone else has. What benefit to the public can be served by withholding information until the 'big boys' get done using it. I am in favor of requiring companies to simoultaneously publicly publish all information that they are providing to the Wall Street borkers. Marcus Albro


Author: Jim Armogida@enron.com at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 11:31 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: proposed regulation FD. File # S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents There is no question that such a rule should be adopted and implemented. Selective disclosure is always detrimental to a free public market, if anyone acts on it. To think that analysts (who often affect the market anyway more than they should) can be positioned to draw 'more enlightened' conclusions on a given company than the market can generally simply gives them, their company and their customers an edge that they never should have--to the detriment of the uninformed. My vote is strongly in favor of the rule.


Author: Ed Austin at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 8:56 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: FD:file No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Dear sirs: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 I think This regulation is very unfair to the investor Edwin Austin 1307 Coronel Ave Vallejo CA. Thanks for Hearing my comments.


Author: at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 12:27 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Dear Sirs: As a committed stockholder who trades regularly and does my DD I feel cheated not to have the information analysts are given that influence their decisions that I would not be privy to in a timely manner. Sincerely, Mason Batchelder


Author: Keith Buckingham at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 10:45 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents To whom it may concern: I would like to register my interest in ensuring that companies must disclose information to the public at large. Keith Buckingham NVidia Corporation 408 615 2534


Author: "anonymous" at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 11:20 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: file# S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents As an individual citizen, I wish to register my support for fair disclosure. B. D. Chain Covington, La.


Author: at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 1:46 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Don't allow companies to give important information to Wall Street analysts without simultaneously giving the news to the public at large. Michelle Charters


Author: "Elizabeth J Estrada" 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 To whom it may concern: I was a broker at Prudential Securities (series 7, 63) and I never thought it was proper to hold back any information from the public, even temporarily. As a professional, I believe the time spent (1) studying the data; and (2) gaining experience to gain perspective on the market(s), is the basic requirement of being a good broker. Furthermore, as a broker I discovered that most people simply do not have the time or patience to read through all the data out there for them to make decisions, so they are more than happy to pay even a premium for some peace of mind. Therefore, none of the brokerages will go out of business with a sumultaneous release of company information to the public and private sectors. Acampora, a well-known analyst for Prudential, will always have a strong following because of his strong business sense and his accomplished record. What should happen is so very obvious to me: as a shareholder, I am an owner; how can these people have privileged information they can sell to me when it is my right to know it along with them? As a tax accountant I make my own trading/investment decisions, and it is disgusting how money manipulates what should be freedom of speech. It is unbelievable that this has gone on for this long. Fair disclosure must happen to make this industry be honest and forthright and fair; people will always pay money for the advice of those who provide a service. Just give the public a right to know whether the good advice is just that or a insider tip.


Author: Steve Finch at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 12:00 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I am for fair disclosure. All people should be notified of corporate status at the same time, not just large investors. Selective disclosure gives too much advantage to those at the top at the cost of those at the bottom. Steve Finch Manhattan Associates, Inc. 770-955-5533 x1180 mailto:SFinch@manh.com


Author: at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 1:39 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents AS an individual investor, I want full disclosure to all parties. Scott C Ford


Author: "Gray; Michael G." at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 12:27 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99" ------------------------------- Message Contents The SEC should support this fair disclosure regulation. It is unfair to individual investors, like me, not to receive corporate financial information that the analyst's are privy to. Michael G. Gray 140 Via Del Sol Walnut Creek, CA 94596


Author: "William Hall" at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 9:51 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I support the SEC's objective of eliminating selective disclosure. The advantage currently enjoyed by certain analysts and investors is clearly unfair to the public at large. Thank you. William R. Hall Wayne, NJ


Author: at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 1:07 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents As a small investor and as the owner of a business which is based on access to information, I strongly support the free flow of analytical information which can help me make more informed investment choices and selections. I vehemently oppose selective disclosure. Thank you, Nina C. Harrison, M.S. Harrison Research, Inc 1226 Brooklawn Road Atlanta, GA 30319


Author: Mitch Hendrickson 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 Dear sirs: I strongly support the proposed Regulation FD. As an individual investor, I am personally at a disadvantage when my access to material information is delayed or filtered. By the time I have access to the information, the market has already been moved by those who are effectively "insiders" when looked at from my perspective. It is also the morally correct thing to do - the current system of selective disclosure is simply unfair. Sincerely, Mitch Hendrickson


Author: John Houser at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 11:29 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I believe I have the right to have access to companies' information as soon as it is disclosed to any investor. Please change the rule that currently allows companies to give important information to Wall Street analysts without simultaneously giving the news to the public at large. John Houser, M.D.


Author: "Patrick Killay" at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 12:10 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Dear Sec Members: I am writing to urge you to pass the proposed regulation that would require companies to reveal their news and important infomation to all investor and not to just the few. Thank You --- Patrick Killay --- p2killay@earthlink.net --- EarthLink: It's your Internet.


Author: Holly King at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 12:38 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Jonathan G. Katz Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission Dear Mr. Katz, I am one of those small-time investors who strongly urge you to support full disclosure. It seems to me clear and obvious that open and free flow of information is not only desireable but necessary, especially as more and more individuals by choice or default take charge of their own investing. Such changes as the one you propose are of course threatening to entrenched interests who benefit from the status quo. I just hope their "clout" isn't greater than that of all the ordinary investors who would truly benefit from your proposal. Sincerely, Holly Beth King, Ph.D. Freelance Writer Individual Investor


Author: "Lafford; Rick [OCDUS]" at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 12:08 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I firmly support a law prohibiting the practice of "selective disclosure" currently practiced by many companies. A publicly traded firm should be required to inform the general investing public at the same time it informs the financial community. The information shared should be identical and public in every way. The current practice of selective disclosure has far too many potentially negative uses and often prevents the public from fairly valuing a companies securities. I realize that the financial community has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, allowing them to peddle information to the profit of their respective firms, but I firmly support any effort designed to assure all investors receive the same information in a timely manner. Though it should not take a law to achieve what many would consider common sense, if this is what it takes, then so be it. Richard M. Lafford Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Process Engineering 100 Indigo Creek Drive Rochester, NY 14626 *phone: (716) 453-3619 fax: (716) 453-4310 *: rlafford@ocdus.jnj.com


Author: at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 12:04 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed regulation FD:S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Selective disclosure should be illegal. Those of us who invest based on our own knowledge are unfairly subject o his discrimination. Bob Lawther MinMar Press


Author: "leppert" at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 9:22 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents No organization or person should have preference with information. Full disclosure is absolutely necessary to have a fair and democratic market. Knowledge is power. Most investors are sophisticated enough to deal with information, or if not satisfied they understand something, seek advice from 'experts'. By putting the knowledge (and power) in the hands of a few Wall Street analysts, the rest of us investors are put in the role of serfs to these oligarchs. That is not the American Way. No man/woman has more rights or privileges under the law than another. Equal opportunity across the board! Florence B. Leppert, CLU 1081 Pelican Lake Lane Las Vegas, NV 89123-0832 702-897-5556 phone/fax


Author: "Robert Victor Lukas" at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 9:47 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Give all stockholders the same information at the same time, PLEASE.


Author: "Maggard; Ken" at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 1:14 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99" ------------------------------- Message Contents Selective disclosure reeks of Denmark


Author: at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 12:30 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Reg.FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Please stop selective disclosure.............Warm Regards, Joyce Mariani


Author: Mike McAllister at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 12:49 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Dear Sir or Ma'am, Information from companies should not be distributed selectively -- that's the definition of insider trading in my book. I am all for open disclosure to everyone simultaneously -- why should big institutional investors have an edge on the information? They shouldn't. Mike McAllister Investor, Citizen of the U.S.


Author: Maureen McCauley at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 10:42 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents In these days when employers no longer routinely provide pension funds, and we continually hear that we "baby boomers" will not be able to count on Social Security, it is increasingly important as an individual to be active in the Securities Markets. To do this successfully takes knowledge, diligence, patience, and a fair amount of fortitude. Providing company reports to analysts first significantly impedes my ability to gather that knowledge I need to make appropriate investment decisions. I am a small investor trying to create savings for my retirement. I need to have as much information as a full-time professional stock analyst so that I can live on my savings and earnings for many years. Why should I not have the same access to information as Wall Street analysts do? Please level the playing field. I am not asking to have more access than anyone else, but the same. It's just plain FAIR. Thank you, Maureen McCauley 256 Circular Avenue San Francisco, CA 94131


Author: "McLemore; Stuart" at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 1:19 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99" ------------------------------- Message Contents I applaud and strongly agree with Mr. Levitt's effort to eliminate the selective disclosure of material information. As evidenced by the surge in numbers of individuals trading online at discount brokerages, a large number of people have taken on the responsibility for their own "destiny" when it comes to financial matters. This is the type of individual spirit that has helped make our country the great nation that it is. As part-owners of the companies we choose to purchase, or potential part-owners of companies that we wish to consider for ownership, we have the right to the same timely information to which financial professionals have access. Under our current market structure, no one has a right to such information for their own or for their employer's benefit any more than the individual that is making his/her own decisions about which securities to purchase and when to purchase them. Such material information should be disclosed in a fair and equitable manner so that everyone has the ability to access the same data in the same time frame. No one should have an unfair advantage when it comes to obtaining this data. Individuals who feel incompetent to interpret this information for themselves or, for whatever other reason, wish to consult a financial professional, would still be able to do so. Those who wish to make their own decisions would have the benefit of having timely access to the data to enable them to make prudent financial determinations. If anyone makes a poor financial decision, it would not be for lack of available professional advice which would still be in place under the proposal. Our market system should allow us the freedom to make both wise and foolish decisions. With better and more timely information, we all have a fair opportunity to make better decisions in a timely fashion. The choice to consult a financial professional is, and should be, up to us. Financial professionals would still have a valued place in the scheme of things. There is no threat to the competent and scrupulous broker/analyst. Perhaps windfalls derived from insider information would evaporate, but my feeling is that there is no place in our system for such unfair advantage. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and good luck in implementing Fair Disclosure. Sincerely, Stuart McLemore


Author: at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 1:46 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents As an individual investor, I support the proposed rule. I favor public dessimination of all information required by the SEC, and particularly favor full disclosure rules. All the information should be made to the general public and not just the brokers. Thank you for your time, Elayne Mendlovitz


Author: Mark Middleton at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 12:50 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents As a staff member of a $16 billion public pension fund and a private investor, I want to express my strong support for FULL disclosure of material facts which may affect share prices. "Selective Disclosure" is wrong. In the new internet economy, the disparity between disclosure to "analysts" and the public creates a distortion (inefficiency) in the market which benefits special wall street interests rather than the market as a whole. Simultaneous public disclosure is not difficult or burdensome and should be enforced. Thank you. Mark L. Middleton


Author: Pat Mimeau at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 8:48 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I am a small investor trying to create savings for my retirement. I need to have as much information as the analyst because I plan on living on this money for many years. Why should I not have the same access to information as they do? Please level the playing field. I am not asking to have more access than anyone, just the same. Thank you, Pat Mimeau 256 Circular Avenue San Francisco, CA 94131


Author: "Sorin Muica" at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 11:43 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents As an individual investor, I support this proposal. I think that this will level the playing field and provide for fairer and more informed buying and selling of securities. I would rather make my own decisions on company releases and not have to rely on biased analysts for their interpretations. I think that this makes sense and should have been the law a long time ago. Sorin Muica


Author: "Murray_001" at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 9:46 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No.S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I'm in favor of the public getting the same information that the analysts get, and at the same time, then if the private investor needs analysis of the information, they will still have access to analyst's interpretation. My concern with the present system is that some analysts seem to be on the payroll of certain companies, perhaps the bank that brought the company public or any number of special interests that may exist. Shirley Murray


Author: "Myers-Stevenson; Irene" at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 10:08 AM Normal Receipt Requested TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Great Idea to combat selective disclosure! - Prompt and timely material information should be publicly disclosed. - Three proposals for access are excellent. - This would guarantee free flow of information and ensure the story being disseminated is the only! version. - This will also, finally! give individual investors, large and small, a fair chance in the decision-making process based on accurate and, again, timely information. Thank you for taking this initiative! iams4az@hotmail.com


Author: at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 1:41 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I support this rule, to help "level the playing field," and hope that you will enact it over the objections of the special interests on Wall Street. Thank-you, Art Nitzschke


Author: at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 1:41 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I support a more level playing field for all investors. I particularly agree with the comments expressed by Jon Katz of Schwab: "...selective disclosure is a substantial threat to the integrity of the US financial markets, and the Commission is right to oppose this practice. One of the major deterrents preventing Americans from participating in the securities markets is their perception that they are not on a level informational playing field with market insiders. Every time that a security's price moves substantially, and only afterwards does the information responsible for that move become public, investors lose confidence in the fundamental fairness of our markets. When such a price move is caused by insider trading, the Commission quite appropriately brings enforcement proceedings. We believe the Commission's insider trading enforcement program, while it can never entirely eliminate insider trading, has done much to increase public confidence that market insiders who systematically engage in this practice will be held accountable. By contrast, the Commission currently lacks an effective enforcement tool to deter intentional selective disclosure. " Indeed. -- (Rev.) Daniel Simer O Connell, D.Min. Parish Minister, West Redding, CT


Author: "Sanjiv Patel" at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 1:26 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Dear Sirs: I would like to thank you for considering a proposal where the playing field will be level to individual investors and professionals alike. In today's market of information, one can not afford to not have the same information the the professionals do. The companies should have a moral responsibility to investors at large to disclose the same information at the same time as professional investors do. Sanjiv Patel Sterling Heights, MI


Author: "Bill Pfeil" at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 10:14 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 With the Microsoft trial nearly over, I find myself thinking about monopolies. Perhaps the worst kind of monopoly, or one that affects the greatest number of people, is a monopoly on information. Monopolies of this sort have gradually disappeared as modern methods of communication replace the 'necessary' middleman. Think of books and newspapers, radio and tv, and most recently the internet. The current business model for many Streeters depends on a monopoly of information. Inside information about companies, ipo's, mergers, trades, rates, and commodities is their currency of power. How wrong they are to be scared of the information revolution embodied by the internet and the individual investor. Their scare tactics are as old as the printing press. And groundless. Just as mass-printed bibles did not remove the need for clergy, the information revolution will not destroy the Securities Industry. Wall Street will adapt and survive. But they will serve instead of rule. From the Securities Industry Association April 6, 2000: "Leveling the playing field for analysts, as among themselves and vis-a-vis the general public, will undermine the great advantages of the current system". Yes, but whose advantages? Clearly those of the Wall Street insiders who have enjoyed a monopoly on information up until now. Let's foster real competition and break up this monopoly. William E. Pfeil Reedsport, Oregon


Author: Jim Pinto at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 9:34 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Please provide full disclosure to all consumers. Jim Pinto 11 Megans Circle Newtown, CT 06470


Author: at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 12:18 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I support the Fair Disclosure Rule currently proposed. I believe that personal investors are completely capable of making their own decisions without having information watered down and filtered to us by "expert" analysts. David Pyles


Author: Lynne Saunders at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 10:08 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC TO: Lynne Saunders at Internet Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents It is disgraceful that the SEC continues to allow Wall Street analysts access to important company disclosures, while other investors around the company are precluded from receiving this information. I am an avid stock market investor, I make my own investment decisions based upon company research I conduct. I believe that my Constitutitional rights should allow me to receive the same information that has so far been deemed for Wall Street analyst eyes only. I fully support a change in the rules to allow by the SEC to allow companies' important information to be given to the public at large simultaneously with its release to Wall Street analysts. Regards, Lynne Saunders -- Lynne Saunders VP Marketing YourSafety.com (formerly SafetyCop.com) 2542 S. Bascom Ave Suite 225 Campbell, CA 95008 Ph: 408.371.5571 Fax: 419.858.4884 Email: lsaunders@yoursafety.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or attached files is strictly prohibited.


Author: Stan Schup at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 11:17 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents It is called-- Fair Disclosure --make it so. Let us have fair disclosure. Stan Schup Jr.


Author: Beverley Seader at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 12:20 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I am for a change in regulations that will increase the information available to the individual invester. It seems unfair to me that Wall Street analysts can get more information than the general public. Beverley Seader


Author: at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 12:48 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents As an inidividual investor, there is NO reason why I should not have information accessability at the same time of everyone else. It needs to be a level playing field whenever possible. We already lack some of the channels of communications that analysts and others have, so why allow for others. Gale Shirk 36053 S.Golf Course Drive Tucson AZ 85739


Author: at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 1:03 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I find it hard to believe that the SEC would even consider not giving the same information to all investors, either professional or recreational. There aren't many reasonable arguments to protect the professional secrecy they currently enjoy, so please open up the information to all investors. Thank you. Brandon Sick, MD Hartsville Family Healthcare


Author: at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 12:56 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Selective disclosure is only good for one purpose and that is to give those in favor a step up over the rest of us who suffer the consequences of "insider trading." I oppose selective disclosure. I'm shocked to find out such a thing exists. Madeline D. Sitzes, Attorney at Law, Houston, Texas


Author: fjslaten@webtv.net (floyd slaten; jr) at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 12:02 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I am a small individual investor. As such, I am already at a disadvantage to the "big boys". So, I am very much in favor of the above proposal requiring fair (public) disclosure of material information by securities issuers. In this age of instant communication via the internet, the old method of selective disclosure has no place. It serves only to maintain unfair advantages for the larger "preferred" investors. In this day and age, I don't think its right for me to have to wait until the insiders have digested information and decided how they want to move the market in stocks I may hold in my portfolio and when and whether they even want me to know why. This proposal has a direct impact on my interests. I say go ahead, pass your rule because its good for the individual investor. And, its time. Thank you, Floyd J. Slaten, Jr.


Author: Cheryl Sjern 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 Dear SEC: I am in favor of the fair disclosure regulation. Wall Street analysts should not receive preferential treatment in regards to company information. Please adopt S7-31-99 Thank you, Cheryl Stjern


Author: "Margot S. Tate" at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 1:38 PM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents I am strongly in favor of system under which companies disclose information important to the individual investor be improved, and this SEC regulation is a good start. Thank you for addressing this issue. Margot S. Tate Manager, Software Manufacturing Soliton Associates Inc.


Author: Todd Van Horne at Internet Date: 04/27/2000 9:46 AM Normal TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 ------------------------------- Message Contents Selective disclosure is NOT in the interest of capitalism. Please support full and fair disclosure. Thank you, Todd Van Horne Portland, OR


Author: Linda Ware 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: I am opposed to the new regulations that would allow non parallel information release about companies to analysts vs the public. In this day and age of open information transfer it is not acceptable to withhold any information or to create "classes" of information holders. Please keep the current rules in place so that the playing field is the same for us all. Linda Ware

http://www.sec.gov/rules/0427b05.htm


Modified:05/17/2000