Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: Rob Ashby at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 1:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support this regulation fully. Partial disclosure from public
corporations is not acceptable to me. All investors should have full access
to information. I relied on professional money managers and stock brokers
during most of the 90's. I lost a lot of my capital and never came close to
matching the S&P 500 index results. Since that time, I have retired and
decided to manage my portfolio myself. I have made money and actually
beaten the S&P 500 each year.
I have read the arguments against this regulation and find them
completely
ridiculous. If the industry really has my best interest at heart, why did
they squander so much of my hard earned income? I paid huge fees for bad
advise. Advise given to me so they could use my investment money to make
their large clients more money. They did not act in my best interest then
and will not in the future. Their claim that I am too stupid to interpret
basic financial information for myself is insulting. The hard part for me
is to try to determine how the professional managers have spun the
selectively disclosed information in order to manipulate me. There is
simply too much conflict of interest in the current system.
The industry needs selective disclosure because they are unable to
compete
on a level playing field. Since most of the "professionally managed" (I
keep hearing numbers in the 90 percentile range) fail to match the market,
what value do they add?
Information is power. With the Internet and other modern means of
communication, it's time to give all investors equal access to information.
If the large brokerage houses cannot find a way to add value to their
services, then they deserve to pass into history.
Ralph R. Ashby, MD
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 3:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please stop selective disclosure,
Thanks, Rod & Ann Barfield
Author: desnoterns@webtv.net (John Barrett) at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 4:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
------------------------------- Message Contents
Vote for a level playing field.
John P. Barrett
Author: "Thomas E. Bielinski" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 2:17 PM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed reg FD: file no. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madame:
I am writing to encourage your adoption of Proposed Regulation FD.
i have reviewed the letter dated 4/6/00 from Lee Spencer, written on
behalf of the SIA. The letter obviously attempts to maintain a
priveledged position for analysts and their employers, to the
detriment of the investing public.
That letter makes much of the role of analysts in uncovering and
distilling information for we "dumb clucks" that comprise the
investing public. Mr. Spencer overlooks the fact that most analysts
serve as mere cheerleaders for public companies. How often do you see
a "sell" recommendations ? To the extent that analysts are privy to
inside "dirt" on a company, you are assured that it is only that
analyst's employer, friends, and customers that share in the
information promptly.
I request that you make this regulation permanent. I write to you in
my capacity as an individual investor.
Sincerely,
Attorney Thomas Bielinski
Brookfield, Wisconsin
tbielinski@aol.com
Author: Valdis Budrevics at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 4:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective disclosure is an elitist measure. Keep the playing field
level for all investors.
Valdis Budrevics
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 2:15 PM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD, File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
THE CHICAGO BAR ASSOCIATION
321 South Plymouth Court
Chicago, Illinois 60604
April 28, 2000
Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20549-0609
Rule-comment@sec.gov
Re: Proposed Regulation FD, File No. S7-31-99
Dear Mr. Katz:
The Chicago Bar Association (CBA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on
proposed Regulation FD. In general, the CBA supports the SEC's objective of
eliminating selective disclosure, which provides an advantage to certain
analysts and may erode credibility in the marketplace.
In response to the SEC's request for comments, the 1934 Act Subcommittee of the
CBA's Securities Law Committee met to consider the proposed regulation. The
comments below reflect the views of the Committee, but do not necessarily
reflect the views of any individual member of the Committee.
Initially, the CBA would observe that the SEC's selective disclosure concern
appears to be directed primarily at the conference calls between company
officials and the "sell-side" analysts. If this is truly the directed focus of
the concern, as an alternative to the proposed regulation, the CBA would
recommend a precise, narrowly tailored regulation requiring that all such calls
be accessible to all investors (through a universal call-in number or webcast)
and announced in advance, as is the practice of more and more companies every
day. However, assuming the SEC elects to proceed with Regulation FD in the form
it is drafted, and although not each and every aspect of the proposed regulation
was considered, there was consensus as to the following comments.
Definition of "Person acting on behalf of an issuer"
As drafted, the CBA believes that the definition provided for "person acting on
behalf of the issuer" is overly broad, with the danger that statements by
unauthorized employees, officers, consultants, advisors of the corporation, and
others may trigger a disclosure obligation or corrective statement where it is
unnecessary or burdensome. For example, if an analyst is researching a
manufacturing company and calls an environmental consultant or the employee of
the consultant to ask about his or her opinion concerning a certain remediation
project, on an "off the record" basis, how would the company executives
responsible for complying with Regulation FD learn of the statement? Why should
the company be responsible for the statement or its impact when the
environmental consultant has been engaged to assist the company in environmental
matters but not to make public announcements on behalf of the company? The same
issue may even arise with a company's own sales representative, especially if
they are independent representatives, not employees. Moreover, there would be a
substantial amount of time devoted to considering whether or not any such
disclosures were material under SAB 99 and the relevant case law. On balance,
the CBA believes that it would be more appropriate to limit the application of
the regulation to those officers of the company authorized or designated to
speak on behalf of the Company. The standard for the authority necessary to
bring the disclosure within the proposed regulation should be premised on actual
or ratified authority, not apparent authority.
Definition of "Public disclosure"
First, under the current proposal, posting information on the company's website
would not satisfy the requirements for "public disclosure." The CBA recommends
that the SEC revise the proposed regulation to provide that a posting would
constitute public disclosure. In today's environment, the CBA believes that
information posted on websites is more quickly and universally disseminated than
any other form of disclosure, for small and large companies alike.
Second, the current proposal requires public disclosure within 24 hours of a
non-intentional selective disclosure. That proposal causes practical problems
because of a number of circumstances, including weekend or holiday selective
disclosure events, weekends or holidays following a selective disclosure event,
and the inability to obtain corporate approval for public disclosure within such
time period after appropriate review and materiality consideration. This
difficulty would be even more pronounced in companies whose operations are
worldwide or whose executives are frequently traveling. An acceptable
alternative would be to require the disclosure promptly, or, if a specific
standard is desirable, within two business days (which would be a minimum period
needed to accommodate for global time zone differences).
Sincerely,
Jerry J. Burgdoerfer
James J. Eccleston
Co-Chairs, Securities Law Committee
Michael E. Kernan
Chair, 1934 Act Subcommittee
Author: "Burke; Jerry; CTR; OSD/C3I" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 3:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File Number S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I FULLY SUPPORT full, complete and timely disclosure of information that
companies now provide exclusively to Wall Street analysts. The government
prosecutes those who engage in making a financial gain using "insider
information". How much different is it, then, to make major financial
decisions using information that is not available to everyone? There is
also a very strong smell of "you scratch my back (with inside information)
and I will scratch your back (with a good evaluation)". I believe that the
briefings and "insider information" provided Wall Street MUST be published
in a public forum. Isn't that what American is all about? Jerome J.
Burke/Independent Investor
Author: "J. J. Capone; PhD RAC" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 1:55 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I'm opposed to this proposed rule since there is no reason why the
information, if made available to the WS Analysts should not simultaneosly
be made available to the public. This is a biased and unfair release of
potentially valuable and public information.
J. J. Capone, PhD
DIVERSIFIED BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Office (847) 934-8080 FAX (847) 934-8125
EMail jimc@dbtco.com
Author: "Clark; Colin M" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 12:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
I am in favor of the proposed rule to stop selective disclosure. I believe
that free access to information by everyone is in the best interests of all
investors and the companies they own or propose to own. Brokers have a
raison d'être only to facilitate the transfer of that ownership, not to act
as gatekeepers of information.
Colin M. Clark
cmclark@home.com
Author: "tclifford" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 2:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
End selective disclosure!
Tracy Clifford
Author: "Joe DeGroat" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 2:26 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I fully support of the SEC's proposal to "level the playing field" by
implementing new rules to combat selective disclosure of information by public
companies. I too am alarmed by the growing incidence of 'selective disclosure'
of material corporate information. I agree that it is not appropriate for
companies to selectively disclosed important information -- such as upcoming
earnings figures -- in conference calls or meetings that are open only to
selected securities analysts and/or institutional investors, and which exclude
members of the public and the media. It is critical that this problem be
addressed and the SEC's efforts must succeed. At stake are the very principles
our market is founded on. The SEC serves a vital role in our markets and I am
sending this memo to urge the SEC to hold fast to your fine tradition and
continue to uphold what is fair and just. Please represent to common citizen
and stand firm for the rights of the many as opposed to benefits of the "elite"
on Wall Street. Thanks.
Joe DeGroat
3914 2nd Ave NE #5
Seattle WA, 98105
Author: "Dorsett; Cecil R COL EAMC" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 3:36 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs,
Please level the field and allow all investors to have access to the same
information at the same time. It is time to halt the practice of selective
disclosure to analysts without making the same information available to all
investors.
Thank You,
Cecil R. Dorsett
Author: "Wayne Eaton" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 4:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Why should Wall Street analysts have access to insider information? They
certainly aren't catering to the small investor, such as myself. They're just a
much added expense with very little benefit in this new digital electronic age.
Wayne E. Eaton
Author: "Daniel F. Fox CPA" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 4:10 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD - File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of this REG.
CREATE A FREE MARKET!
VTY,
DANIEL FOX CPA
Author: SFA Architects at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 5:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have Read press release 99-171 and I am in agreement with your
proposed rule changes. I am a small individual investor in control of
my own stock purchases and sales; and I have the same right to the
information in a timely manner as the brokerage firms and analysts. It
will be in the best interest of an efficient marketplace for all
investors to have equal access to all company information.
James F. Geers
Author: "Dr. Jacque A. Griffith" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 3:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
"Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
Please.........Discrimination is against the law.....Meaning treating one
different than another.......and this sounds discriminatory to me and
others.....
Let's draw the line....don't allow the laws of equality to be broken -
preserve order - we are at a time where people are being brought to answer
for the laws they break.....since no one.....no one.....is above the law....
...before someone else draws it for those who disregard these laws....
Here's to justice and your ability to uphold or break the law of
discrimination....
Meaning treating one different than another.......
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 3:04 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
The practice of selective disclosure may have had some basis when it was put
into
force, although it is hard to figure out what a reasonable basis might have
been.
However, in today's environment, it is downright biased towards Wall Street.
Overall, it is hard to understand how simultaneous disclosure of information
to the
public and the analysts can be detrimental to Wall Street. If Wall Street
claims
to be better equipped/skilled to dissect and digest the news before revealing
it to
the public, then it's a lame excuse because simultaneous disclosure still
provides
the same edge to them based on their skills. As a matter of fact, it is quite
evident
based on the overwhelmingly "positive" recommendations given out by analysts
on the companies they follow, that they are in fact using the "early"
disclosure to
"dress" the facts as presented by the companies, to make them look more
"favorable". And let's not even mention the potential for "insider" trading
due to
"early" disclosure to the select few!
The only fair way to address this is to have "simultaneous disclosure"
and then let the analysts (who are "specialists") dissect the presented
information
and come out with their own recommendations. The large part of the public that
cannot dissect the news to form their own opinion will still base their
decisions on
the analyst recommendations. The smaller (but growing, due to the ubiquity of
information & learning on the Internet) part of the public that is skilled
enough to
dissect the news will be able to use it in a more timely fashion, for their
purpose.
The bottomline is, as the world is opening up, as we are entering the 21st
century,
artifical "barriers" are being torn down; one cannot keep providing
"subsidies" to
the "privileged" when it comes to information sharing. Let's tear down this
"artificial"
barrier to the sharing/availability of information since it does not alter
the factual
situation of the company; instead, it only discriminates by limiting the info
on
the factual situation to a select few.
Anil Gupta
An Individual Stock Investor
Author: Mike Hatz at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 12:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support this proposal.
Mike Hatz
United States Technical Services
Author: "Ingles; Kim J" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 2:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe that all companies should make public all information and not give
it to a few select analysts .
I'm suprised that you would even consider otherwise....
Author: Stephen Jones at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 3:55 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
I appreciate your efforts to level the playing field of available
investing information. Regulation FD is a common sense approach to
improve equal access to corporate information. Many times I have
witnessed the stock price of a company move sharply up or down only to
learn later that the company selectively disclosed material information
on a closed conference call, analyst meeting, or broker conference. Such
selective disclose undermines public confidence in the fairness of the
market. It is obvious that you will receive pressure from brokerage
firms and institution investors suggesting that eliminating selective
disclose will be burdensome. They do not want to lose their inside
advantage and insider profits. However, please remind them that many
institutions that we, as a society value, have similar burdens.
Democracy is a very messy system. It requires that people are able to
embarrass public officials through their freedom of speech, we cannot
force our religious beliefs on others, and police cannot force a
confession from a suspect. These are burdens that we accept to have a
free and open society. Under Regulation FD companies will have to
provide equal access to information to all investors. This might reduce
insider profits, trading on non public information, reducing the
information advantages institutions have over small investors, and cause
other problems from the viewpoint of the favored few.
There was an interesting example of the importance of selective
information to the favored few. Approximately two years ago a brokerage
analyst for Boston Scientific (BSX) cried in public that he was dropping
coverage on BSX because the company would not provide him privileged
access to information. How, he wailed, could he cover a company if he
had only publicly available information to base his conclusions. Poor
man, he recognized the difficulty that small investors have when they
are excluded from selective disclosure of material information.
The problem today from allowing selective disclose of information is
enormous. Many individual investors feel that they cannot compete with
the institutional insiders. There is a sense of alienation from the
capital markets. Many investors feel that they must invest through
institutions since the institutions have inside information. Mutual
funds and brokerage firms will oppose Regulation FD since they want
small investors to feel that the individual investor cannot have the
same access to information that the institutions have. While it may be
advantageous for many individual investors to invest through
institutions the reason that they chose to invest with the institutions
should be based on the benefits of diversification, professional money
management, their knowledge of companies - not a fear that the deck is
stacked against the small investor.
Regulation FD will have immense benefits to society. A broad and
efficient market will be a more stable market. Individuals that are
investing with a 30 year retirement horizon have not panicked in market
downturn as much as institutional money managers who are worried about
losing their job if their quarterly numbers are not good. An efficient
market requires that all participants have equal access to all
information. Unfair profits that are received by a few insiders who
have access to selective disclosure of information undermines public
confidence in the market.
I read that the SIA wants to keep their privileged access to
information. This is to be expected. Why would anyone voluntarily give
up a privileged position? They admit that approximately 20% of all
companies exclude small investors from conference calls and that 26%
exclude the media. As a small investor I do not want to have my
knowledge of a company filtered through an analyst nor be forced to use
his brokerage firm. I want and expect the same access to information
that an institutional investor has today.
The SIA has commented that" We believe that many conscientious issuers
will seek to avoid the problems created by Regulation FD by eliminating
meetings with individual analysts and small groups of analysts, becoming
more circumspect in what they say at open meetings and eliminating the
current practice of frequent telephone conversations with analysts. All
of these steps will result in less information to investors." This
statement affirms the proposition that material information is provided
to a few analysts. The information provided to analysts is not equally
shared with all investors. Institutions pay fees to analysts firms in
the believe that they are gaining an edge in making their investment
decisions. An edge based on privileged access to material information.
The SIA wrote that "It hardly needs saying that analysts perform a
necessary and very valuable function in the US capital market." The
SIA's bias prevents them from understanding any other viewpoint. Many
investors do not think that analysts perform a valuable function. Many
believe that the analyst's value, if any, is a result of their access to
selective disclosure of material information. This inside information
is disclosed verbally to selective clients or later to small investors.
Equal access to information will not reduce the analyst's benefits of
education, experience, or concentration on a specific industry. Equal
access only eliminates their advantage to selective disclosure of
material information.
The SIA wrote that "The proposal could result in issuers declining to
engage in dialogues with individual analysts or small groups of analysts
and instead insisting on sessions at regular intervals open to a number
of analysts, with listen-only access to the media and the public. These
are likely to take on the orchestrated character of a Presidential news
conference in which members of the audience are authorized to ask one
question, and perhaps a short follow-up question, but not a series of
questions in dogged pursuit of the facts. Undoubtedly, the questions
from the different participants will not be coordinated or follow in any
logical order or comprehensive way. Due to fierce competition among
analysts to obtain the best information, they will be reluctant to ask
questions in an open session that tip off their competitors as to the
direction of their thinking or information that they think would be
meaningful. If the questions cannot be asked in private, they may not be
asked at all. Is that good for the market?" My comments are as
follows:
1) I would hope that Regulation would eliminate closed door sessions
whereby there is selective disclose of material information. Analyst
meeting should be recorded and distributed via the Internet such has
been done by Intel.
2) The whole thesis of this argument is that analyst need private
meetings in which they obtain non public information about the company.
If the analysts are so bright why can't they ask tough questions in an
open meeting. I have not observed opponents of the President of the
United States cowering and afraid to ask tough and embarrassing
questions.
3) A private investor does not have the opportunity to ask question of
management. Nor does a private investor have immediate access to the
information gained by the analyst. Many brokerage firms are now
releasing to public the on a delayed basis their company reports since
they have already privately disclosed the information to their best
clients.
4) The firms that are represented by the SIA are so used to privileged
access to information they are concerned about the value they will have
if they no longer have privileged access to selective disclosure of
material information. They are concerned about having to compete on the
basis of intelligence, knowledge, and hard work. The proposed rule does
not eliminate the role of analysts but removes their privileged
position. The are trying to protect what should be an illegal
privileged access to material information.
The SIA objected that meetings with analysts would require an attorney
to be present to determine what is material. They SIA is so biased
towards protecting their privileged position that they cannot imagine
losing that insider position. A simple solution for companies is to
make all meeting open and available via the Internet. No attorneys
would be required.
Back in the days when people rode a horse to work it was not feasible
for companies to distribute information to all investors at the same
time. However, modern communication networks have changed the means
that everyone can use to distribute information on a timely basis to
investors around the world. In particular real time media streaming
over the Internet enable companies to disseminate information concerning
their company to interested investors on a real time basis any where in
the world. The cost of this method of distribution is minuscule
compared to the benefits to an efficient market. Efficient market
require simultaneous equal access to material information.
Technology companies such as Intel, Texas Instruments, and Qualcomm have
showed that it is very easy for companies to provide investors access to
earning conference calls, annual meetings, and meetings with analysts.
The technology is available today for companies to provide all investors
access to material information on the future prospects of the company.
An examination at some of the objections the privileged few have raised
shows the weakness of their argument.
1) Regulation D will have a chilling effect on corporate disclosure.
Only companies that have selectively disclosed information to insiders
would be concerned. A company that broadcasts over the Internet their
meetings with institutional investors would not need to be concerned if
the information being discussed is material
2) Litigation is a risk. Again, open disclosure of all meeting is an
absolute defense against selective disclosure of information.
3) Individuals do not have the background to understand the discussion
in analyst meeting and need the information interpreted for them. Give
me a break. One only has to listen to the stupid questions asked by
many analysts or their pleading to company management to provide
earnings guidance to realize this is not a group that you want to filter
the information you have on a company to make your investment decision.
While some investors may want to make investment decisions based on
filtered information they should not be required to make their decisions
based on second hand information.
As an investor I have decided that I can invest intelligently in a
company only when I have access to earnings conference calls and analyst
meeting. The amount of information presented in these meeting that is
never disclosed in press releases is enormous. I invest principally in
technology companies. One can gauge the future prospects of a
technology company only if you understand their technology. Frequently,
design wins, actions by standards committees, and research efforts are
discussed in these meeting. These facts are generally not published by
brokerage firms in their coverage of these companies. Filtered
information amounts to misinformation and privileged insider information
for the institutions. Analysts meetings must be open to the public.
Formal printed information, no matter how comprehensive, is no
substitute for understanding the strength of management. Individual
investors should be granted access to the Road Show information provided
to institution investors. The presentations provide valuable insights
to the knowledge, experience, and responsiveness of management. This
information is not in the prospectus. Currently, institutional
investors have better access to information for making investment
decisions than individual investors. Streaming media over the Internet
would improve providing equal access to investment information.
The SEC is to be commended for seeking a means for all investors to
simultaneously obtain equal access to material information. Thank you
for your efforts to level the playing field for all investors.
Equal access to information now!
Stephen Jones
PO Box 2355
Lufkin TX, 75902
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 5:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: FD: File No S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Brokers, market makers, and the big-money boys have been ripping-off the the
little guy for so long they think that they are entitled to do so.
When someone like Richard Ney exposes them, they dismiss him as a crackpot.
The closed "system" keeps the status quo.
Stop playing with a stacked deck!
Philip J. Kaus
Investor
Author: Ari Kermaier at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 3:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a non-professional individual investor, I wholeheartedly applaud the
proposed regulation to require fair disclosure of material facts. The time
for the securities markets to be old-boys insiders' clubs is long over. Bravo!
Ari Kermaier
Author: Debra Latzen at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 3:06 PM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation: FD File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to have all the information at my fingertips, so that I, the
Individual Investor can make an informed decision about my Investments.
What about the saying " and the truth shall set you free" Don't
under-estimate the power of the individual, we are stronger and smarter than
you may think.
Debra M. latzen
Debra M. Latzen
Author: C Lawrence at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 2:19 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: file no. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please level the playing field. Not doing that is ensuring that the
rich get richer and the small investors get poorer. The premises in the
preamble to the constitution require that "all are created equal under
the law", yet big and institutional investors are treated above that
law. Are institutions afraid of the small investor? We're the addition
to the pot that has made stock trading more lucrative for all. Why are
we being discriminated against?
We're not asking for a break, just to be treated equally.
C J Lawrence
Author: Erik Ledbetter at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 4:48 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Securities and Exchange Commission:
I am writing to voice my strong support for the elimination of selective
disclosure embodied in Proposed Regulation S7-31-99.
As an individual equity investor I firmly believe I should be able to
evaluate the same material information about publicly traded companies in
which I am invested or in which I am considering investing at the same time
as any other investor, individual or institutional, large or small.
The securities industry takes the position that "The alternative model of
millions of individual investors and potential investors poring over
prospectuses and periodic reports is highly theoretical and out of sync with
the real world." Well, this in one real-world investor who knows perfectly
well how to read prospectuses and locate and read Edgar filings.
In response to the industry's "theoretical model," I would stress the
disadvantages to the individual investor of the all-too-real current model
in which underwrite IPOs and private and public placements for corporations,
and then turn represent their analysis of those corporations-their most
lucrative clients--as independent and skeptical analysis. Elimination of
selective disclosure would be a major palliative to this pervasive and
corrosive conflict of interest.
Transparency is the key prerequisite to fairness and efficiency in equity
markets. Disclosure of material information should be equally transparent
to all investors, regardless of size or affiliation.
Sincerely,
Erik Ledbetter
___________________________________
Erik G. Ledbetter
Director of Content
SMARTHINKING, Inc.
1819 H St. NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006
|V| 202.543.5034 x208 |F| 202.543.5589
___________________________________
Author: Mike Lipsey at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 4:10 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a shareholder of several publicly held companies, I fully support
the Commission's proposed regulation on fair disclosure.
Sincerely,
James M. Lipsey
4800 Arapaho Trail
Okemos, MI 48864-1449
lipsey@pilot.msu.edu
Author: Betsy/Mychal Loving at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 12:08 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Yes! Absolutely, it's time for information to be distributed fairly and
promptly to the investing public. The future of a healthy American
economy -- and a healthy democracy -- is in open accessibility to the
Market and in empowering all with appropriate information as it becomes
available to support savings and investment. Thanks for this wonderful
opportunity to support a big step forward for our country
Betsy Wright Loving
11918 - 246 St. NE
Arlington, Washington 98223-8129
360-435-0992
Author: Kelly Mead at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 12:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom this may concern:
I am writing this as a concerned citizen that Wall
Street has been allowed to participate in "insider
trading" with full legal approval from the government.
The time when investors needed someone to hold their
hands while making decisions about where to put their
money is over, if it wast truly needed in the first
place. Most consumers today have enough sources of
information to make informed decisions but by letting
Wall Street keep this power of communication you are
condoning insider trading to take place as all who may
wish to trade on a commodity are not able to obtain
the information that is being released to a select
few. I believe that this was a thing of much
contention in the 1980's. So is it the way of the
government to now condone this so that those of us who
cannot afford to pay those who have this information
to be trampled under their heels as they try to
monopolize trading stocks only through them. It is no
longer necessary to have thousands of dollars to open
stock accounts which if anything as increased the
economy of the United States. I would hate to see the
common man become disillusioned with trying to find
their fortune in our stock market because they
discover they are not trusted to make their own
decisions. That would be the gravest of insult to
those hard working men and women who work so hard
toward the American Dream to be told it's not for you
because your to stupid. That is what this is saying
to us that even tough its our blood sweat and tears
that make it possible for us to have that money to buy
stocks we don't have the intelligence to have it.
I would like to thank you for your time in reading
this letter.
Sincerely,
Kelly Mead
Author: "Gene Merrill" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 12:07 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Don't cave to the wall street lobby. Keep the playing field level and stop
selective disclosure.
--
gene merrill
portland, or
503.232.6321
Author: Tomasz Motylewski at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 9:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support your move to require public companies to disclose important
information to all investors.
I was even suprised when I have learned that there was no such rule until
now. My understanding was that companies have to publish such information, or
not disclose it at all.
I have been investing in the USA since over 8 months. Before I was investing
in Poland for few years. The big difference I see is that in USA usually I
see first the news and then the price movement. In Poland opposite.
Best regards,
--
Tomasz Motylewski
General Guisanstr. 184
4054 Basel
Switzerland
tel. +41-61-2673807
Author: Irina Rybalova at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 1:44 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Proposed Regulation FD - File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Michael Nuzhny
379 Leonard Drive
New Milford, NJ 07646
Re: Proposed Regulation FD - File No. S7-31-99
Dear Sir/Madame,
The selective disclosure to select few is shaking
the confidence of the Individual Investor. This
practice is unfair and the individual investor is
often misled. The select few brokerages are using the
information to their advantage first before it becomes
public. By doing so they may or may not break the law.
But the confidence is shaken. There are numerous
examples. The most recent was when the information
about the Microsoft revenue decline was available to
Goldman Sachs. A week later when it became available
to the public Microsoft was already down 15-20 points.
Only then MSFT was removed from Goldman's recommended
list.
Therefore, I support your regulation to ban the
selective disclosure.
Thank you. Michael Nuzhny
Author: "Lloyd Parmley" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 3:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Reference: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Please allow everyone equal access to investment information
Lloyd Parmley, D.M.D.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 5:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC:
Hello my name is Satyam; I am a 20yr old investor and a full time
college student. I have some thoughts on this subject that I feel are
important to this issue. I feel that it is in now way just, that you take
vital information from companies, etc., and filter to analyst first before
distributing that information to the investors. Why must you hold such
information from us investors? With such biases, you the SEC, are creating an
unequal playing field. Is not are money and insights just as important. We
live in a society were individuals have a right to access such information
without the influences of analyst objectives. It is our hard earned money
that we invest into the market and having our money dictated by "analyst" is
not just. We should have a right to foresee the market future of the market.
Its our money that runs the economy. You should in no way be concerned with
the volatility of the market. Do not analyst make the market more volatile?
In fact, there initial agenda is filled with self earnings and visions of
self prosperity. They dictate the market as the way "they want the see the
market to proceed." The "analyst" have a need to dictate investors and our
use of money. Thank society for companies such as motelyfool.com. Who stand
up for the public, who goes arms way to provide such information and respect
or rights. How is it that you see us, the public investors, creating an
unappreciated analyst? Their reputation will still be just as important as
they were before. However, efforts to protect the appreciation of analyst and
withhold the public investors from information about companies earnings,
etc., is in no way equal. Equality is the only path that you may
travel.....Please, make the market to level the markets playing field, by not
doing so, I think you are withholding the market from true prosperity and
growth. In no way will the initiating of an equal market make the market more
volatile....This is just my thoughts, but there are countless others who fell
the same...Welcome to the 21st century, equality will prevail !!!!!
Satyam Patel
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 2:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am strongly opposed to Selective Disclosure. I would like the SEC to
require full disclosure eaqually. I was directly affected by selective
disclosure on a large trade in Compaq last year when teh company gave
analysts information that was not made immediately available to the
individual investor community. Please do no allow institutional investors
to harm small investors such as myself with this practice.
Respectfully,
Keith Prilliman
kprillmn@flash.net
Author: "Zita I. Rahbar" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 1:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I fully support the SEC's efforts to change the rules that currently
allow companies to give important information to Wall Street analysts,
but not to the general public. As investors, we all have a right to
have equal access to information necessary to make stock decisions and
it's high time that the playing field is leveled.
Zita I. Rahbar
President, Creative Marketing Solutions
Author: "Ramiz; Anwar" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 3:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Would like to vote against selective disclosure.
Thanks
Anwar Ramiz
Inter: Anwar.Ramiz@Compaq.Com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 3:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed reg FD FILE # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Individual investors and the professional investment profession should be on
a level playing field. Professionals should not have preferential treatment
to information.
I have invested both with the help of a professional and on my own. I do my
own research and do much better on my own.
Barbara Reyes
Author: Neil Roberts at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 11:59 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am strongly opposed to selective disclosure of information to
analysts.
Neil Roberts
Author: exel at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 4:56 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD - File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Irina Rybalova, MD
1465 John Street
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
RE: Proposed Regulation FD - File No. S7-31-99
Dear Sir,
I fully support your proposed regulation to ban the selective
disclosure. I believe it will bring more fairness, integrity, and
confidence to the marketplace.
Sincerely,
Irina Rybalova, MD
Author: Diane Schenker at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 4:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective disclosure is elitist and goes against the grain of us regular
folks educating ourselves and investing our money. If someone wants to
take the time to research stocks, invest and accept the results, that
person should not be excluded from what should be publicly available
information. The "Boys' Club" has got to end!
Thank you.
Diane Schenker
Web Editor at Davis Polk & Wardwell
New York, NY
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 4:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regluation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
April 28, 2000
SEC Representative,
As an individual investor, I support your proposed Regulation to stop the
practice of selective disclosure. Selective disclosure is a form of "inside
information" which disadvantages in the marketplace, the investing public and
shareholders. Any move to promote fairness will improve our markets. I have
little confidence in market fairness at this time. Despite this, I invest
because equities offer a means for the individual to get ahead financially
over time.
Very Truly Yours,
Joanne Schmidt
Retired
Author: "Paul R. Selzer" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 2:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
Why do some of the people on Wall Street receive trading information
advantagious to their clients whereas the individual investor doe not receive
the same trading information? It is as close to insider trading one can get but
this unfair practice has been going on for quite some time. I am in favor of the
new legislation proposed to provide this information to all investors.
Author: "Francis Slater" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 2:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please approve the proposed regulation requiring Fair Disclosure.
FWSlater
Author: Mark Talbot at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 3:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing to you in support of Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
The brokers, analysts and institutional investors who oppose this regulation
would like to keep control of information, because information is the power
they hold over the market. However, any good economist will tell you that
the greater the exchange of information between buyers and sellers in a
market place the more efficient the transaction is and the more valuable the
transaction is for both parties.
Let's face it. The buyer is not the broker, or the analyst. They act on
the buyer's request, but they are not the buyer. The buyer is me and others
like me, the American Public. Now it is true that institutional investors
are the closet things to buyers because they have been entrusted to decide
and act for the buyer, therefore they may be considered the buyer. But, why
should one institutional investor have an advantage over another? Or better
yet, ask yourself why should a buyer who is represented by and institutional
buyer be disadvantaged for having that institutional investor chosen for him
and then not included on "selective Disclosure" information?
The fact is a level playing field is to all our advantage. A more efficeint
market is a more profitable market for all involved.
Sincerely
Mark Talbot
5337 Whitneville Rd.
Alto, MI 49503
mark@felder.com
Author: Jonathan Van Matre at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 2:28 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am strongly in favor of this regulation.
It is amusing, in a sinister sort of way, that the same experts in the
financial industry who are fond of appearing in the media saying that
individual investors have too much of a tendency to "buy the ticker" are the
ones now opposing this ruling. As an individual investor, I much prefer to
have as much information as possible about a company before buying. If Wall
Street really wants us to make informed decisions, instead of the uninformed
ones they claim are contributing to volatility in the market, then they
should turn loose the reins on selectively disclosed information and let this
regulation be implemented.
--Jonathan Van Matre
Author: "Johnny Waller" at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 2:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
I am an independent investor, and I write in support of Proposed Regulation FD
to eliminate the practice of selective disclosure.
In today's volatile market place some analysts perform as poorly as the
individual investor at times although they have the opportunity to profit from
selective access to material information. My point being, George Soros, and
Julian Robertson. While I understand "why" analysts are lobbying against open
access, "the almighty greed," I feel that now is the time for the fair and free
market. Having the same access to information will only level the playing field
and disallow discrimination. The analysts that make bad choices will continue
and the individual investor likewise, but at least the information will be
available to anyone that wants to make informed decisions.
I urge the selective disclosure of material information be banned.
Yours truly,
Beth Waller
retired Farm Credit Banks
Author: Rick Wilson at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 5:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen:
It is my opinion, that the public deserves, at the very least, to be
informed as much as Wall Street. In fact, I believe, the public should
have "full disclosure" and "full access" to all of a company's
information. This great country of ours was built on the solid
foundation of "of the people and for the people". Therefore, one must
conclude that full disclosure should always be give to the public. Let
the people make up their own minds and interrupt the information
according to their own perceptions and strategies.
----------------------------------------------------
Author: Richard S. Wilson, OIT
Systems Operations Manager
Nova Southeastern University
3301 College Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
http://www.nova.edu
E-mail: rick@nova.edu
800-541-6682, x4998 - 800 voice
954-262-4998 - Local voice
954-262-3801 - FAX
954-832-8020 - Alpha pager
9548328020@alphapage.airtouch.com - Email pager
http://www.messaging.airtouch.com/paging/sendpage.html
----------------------------------------------------
Author: Nancy Wilson at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 1:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I hope the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will allow
companies to give important information to Wall Street
analysts AND simultaneously give the news to the
public at large. While Wall Street, no doubt is spending big and
lobbying hard to keep the current system of selective
disclosure in place, I think the current system does the individual
investor a disservice. Individuals need this important information to make
good investment choices. Why should only the analysts benefit from the
selective information made available? Doesn't make sense does it?
Thanks for listening. Nancy Wilson
Author: Scott Wirth at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 4:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
As a recent college graduate and a new investor I am adamantly opposed to
this regulation. Investors in general need all the information for research
to have the ability to make a good decision. If an investor has all the
information and makes a poor decision - then the cause of the investors loss
can only be himself. However, if a poor decision is made because of a lack
of knowledge (being withheld on purpose) than this can be partly to this
regulation and should be unlawful! Give the investors all the information,
and let them make a choice. This freedom of choice is the foundation of our
government and our financial institutions - all I ask is to make the field
level and give us all the information you have.
Scott Wirth
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/28/2000 4:35 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
By further opening the disclosure process to the public, a more efficient
market will result. Selective disclosure to Wall Street analysts may have
served a purpose in the past when dissemination of the information through
their network of brokers was perhaps the most efficient way to get the word
out. However, that method was never very effective, as the "news" was
filtered and often too late and selective to be of much use to investors.
As the markets are public, it would benefit individual and institutional
investors to have access to the same information on a timely basis. I hardly
think the effect will do much to the large investors when I buy a 100 shares
of a company that disclosed plans to expand into a new market, etc.
As part of the SEC's mission to keep the securities markets a place where
everyone can play on a level field, I fully support any efforts to open up
the back rooms to the full view of the investing public.
Sincerely,
Mike Young
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0428b05.htm
