Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: "Josie" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 11:30 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed FD Regulation
------------------------------- Message Contents
I agree with your proposed regulation FD.
The current practice of leaking information to a select few is, in my
opinion, perpetuating the adage that "the rich get richer, the poor get
poorer." It does not allow investors a fair chance to benefit from news on a
timely basis.
Witholding information for the general public at large and disseminating it
to a select few seems an illegal practice.
I have worked in Silicon Valley, for example, for more than 25 years. I've
worked with VC firms as well as Investment Bankers. They are retired now
with the multi-millions of dollars they have made in the stock market (as
well as those whom they chose to share insider information....this I have
witnessed), while the rest of us stumble around wondering how we missed the
boat.
I definitley support your FD proposal.
Cherilynn Ames / Menlo Park, CA 94025
Author: "Anthony; Danny C (MN14)" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 11:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am very much in favor of the public getting information at the same time
as anyone else (i.e.. brokers). The public then has the opportunity to do
something with this data, even though they may or may not. The opportunity
is what I believe to be the primary incentive.
mailto:danny.c.anthony@honeywell.com
http://www.ssec.honeywell.com
phone: (612) 954-2085
fax: (612) 954-2051
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 1:32 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation fd: file no s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Good afternoon! My name is Mikael Appler and I am an investor. My method of
investing is via the internet, and I must say that I am in full support of
passing regulation f.d.; I feel that the more information that reaches the
investor, the better off the investor is. Though I would not consider myself a
day-trader, I do believe that important information regarding a company that I
am either researching or currently invested in should be available to me at the
same time that it is available to the institutional investors. There has been at
least one occasion in my experience when a stock fell (particularly in
after-hour trading) and I had no idea why, other than that the institutions were
selling. The next day I come to find that there was in fact a reason, but that
it was too late for me to take advantage of the information because those who
held large blocks of the stock had already made their moves. At any rate, I
believe dissemination of information is almost always a good thing, and I
certainly believe it applies in this instance. I would ask for your careful
consideration regarding this ruling, and I hope that you come to the same
realization that I did; please pass this rule! Thank you for your time, have a
great day!
- Mikael Appler
Author: "Arnold Binney" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 11:30 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Since the SEC Chairman has always come from the ranks of Wall Street brokers,
and since the SEC has never seriously challenged the stranglehold Specialists
have over the price of equities, I challenge you to do the right thing and pass
the above regulation.
Author: "Blomquist; Kathy" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 10:54 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is time that the American public is treated as intelligent, self-willed
adults. We do not need mother, father or big brother to hold our hands and
make decisions for us.
While there may be cases of people who will lose money due to more
information, that is part of being an adult. Make informed decisions and
then live with the consequences. That is how life is.
Please, vote to give the public the same access to information that the
select few now receive.
Kathy Blomquist
Passives Product Specialist
Avnet (MN)
email blomquis@iname.com
Author: Steve Bond at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 12:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I hope you pass this rule. it is quite unfair for one party to get
information over another. this rule must be passed.
regards
steve bond
Author: "Scott Brady" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 5:47 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in individual investor who believes that a well-educated individual can
perform better than most analysts (who have an inherent conflict of interest
when dealing with companies, in that if they were honest about their
recommendations,
they would not stay in that company's favor).
The best way to become well-educated is to have access to information about
a company. Therefore, I am hoping to see this proposed rule implemented.
Thank you for your time.
Scott Brady
Author: Bill Bramlett at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 12:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Level the playing field! The public and the stock analysts should hear
the same news at the same time.
Bill Bramlett
Private retired citizen.
Author: "R Buxton" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 11:40 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Richard G Buxton
rgbalive@etahoe.com
SEC
Laura S Unger
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
Dear Ms Unger:
Since when are you in a position to decide what is information overload for
the public? What gall you have to assume that you know what is best for me-
or what is too much information.
An even playing field is crucial to all. Analysts do not deserve special
information.
If you went to your doctor or dentist or lawyer- how happy would you be if
they decided that in order to prevent information overload- they would not
tell you important details (about your health). Do not forget- many people
treat heir finances with equal importance.
Richard G Buxton
Author: "Ron Capel" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 2:26 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
Please add my name to the growing list of individual investors who support fair
disclosure. Material information should be made public as soon as it is
disclosed to wall street analysts. I encorage the SEC to take this historic
step.
Ron Capel
668 Biscoe RD
Troy, NC 27371
Author: "Carlson; Craig" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 11:55 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The one thing that makes companies in US markets preferable investments to
any other market is the free flow of information. Proposed Regulation FD;
File No. S7-31-99 should be enacted.
The argument of information overload is silly and ridiculous.
Craig W. Carlson
9701 Russell Ave. So.
Bloomington, MN 55431
Author: JP at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 12:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Give us small investors the same break that the big guys get. Companies
should release their info to the public and not just to Wall Street. Level
the field.
John P. Jinnette
--
Join the fight against spam.
Join Cauce
www.cauce.org
Author: "dc" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 12:47 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the proposed regulation and urge that it be put into effect.
David Cummings
dc@mail.sc.cninfo.net
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 2:15 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Lawrence E. Cutting
P.O. Box 991
San Jacinto, CA 92581-0991
Tel: (909) 654-9417
Fax: (909) 654-1394
Email: Lawcut1@aol.com
SEC
Dear Sir:
It is ludicrous and asinine to prohibit companies from passing material
market-moving information on to favored Wall Street analysts without
simultaneously making the information available to the public at large. I am
as capable as 85% of the Wall Street analysts who operate in today's market
environment. In fact, I wonder how some analysts come to their silly
conclusions on what they term to be an "investment".
Companies should pass all material market moving information out to the
public at the same time as they pass this information to analysts. Why should
one group be favored over another? It is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Sincerely,
Lawrence E. Cutting
Private Investor
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 5:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir/Madam,
I STRONGLY support the Fair Disclosure (FD) rule.
Whether the FD rule will cause information overload
(as suggested by one of the SEC commisioner) or not is
only a mere speculation.
If the Wall Street analyst's are allowed to have the
information before the public, then they should not be
allowed to trade those company's stocks, between the
time they receive this info and the info is made public.
In this day and age the information is power. It affects
the stock price like nothing else does. If the SEC is
truly a body to enforce rules that protect the investor,
then they have no reason to object to FD rule.
It doesn't matter how matter how many people benefit
from it. The point is: IF A PIECE OF NEWS IS LIKELY TO
AFFECT THE STOCK PRICE AND IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE PUBLIC,
THEN ALL THE INVESTORS OF THAT COMPANY SHOULD HAVE EQUAL
ACCESS TO THAT NEWS.
Thanks.
- Deval.
Author: Charles Dibb at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 11:33 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enactment of Rule FD is, of course, necessary.
Sincerely,
Charles R Dibb, MD
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 1:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: open disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Whomever,
As an independent professional money manager, I am opposed to analysts
having a comparative market advantage . I work hard to beat the market, I pay
my taxes, play by the rules and aspire to the American dream. Why should a
select group have the priveleges of insider information at the expense of the
rest of us. This distortion itself in of itself is a well kept secret that
should be highlighted on the front pages of our major financial newspapers
for the general public to be aware . Wall Streeet insiders are rigging the
market against the general public, if that angle were exposed there would be
a serious backlash against those administrating the rules .
Sincerely Joe Dirnfeld
Author: "default" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 1:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
I certainly take exception to John Adams opinion that most individuals
are not capable of managing their own money.
Perhaps he should make himself aware of how many investors have
401K's and IRA's that they invest on their own, and the billions of
dollars this amounts to. I think we're quite able to seperate the
"grain from the shaff" so to speak.
Many of us do not have a real high opinio of Wall Street Analysts.
After all, it is just their opinion. Data can be digested in many ways.
People, including myself, are much more educated in fanancial matters
today than they were a few years ago. Many of our college
students we hire in the summer already have Master's degrees.
Swim or sink, we should be allowed the same information as the
Analysts, good or bad.
E. Colleen Dixon
Bettendorf, Iowa
Author: John Dragos at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 2:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the proposed Fair Disclosure regulation. I am in favor of
simultaneous disclosure. I am 53 years old, a college graduate, who has
been investing for approximately 30 years. The last 20 years I have used
self-directed IRA'S and discount brokers to execute my orders. I think I
am capable of taking care of my own investments and making my own
investment decisions.
Sincerely,
John D Dragos
Author: Ross Dreher at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 1:59 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To who it may concern,
I feel it is extremely important that the selective disclosure rule
be repealed. With the coming of the internet (and the vast amounts of
investment related information that it provides), the need for brokerage
based consulting for the general public has come to an end. In the past,
Americans were unable to obtain the substantial amounts of research
materials such as financial statements and news quickly enough to base
investement decisions on. There was a need for brokerage house assistance.
However, with the coming of new technologies and the ability to obtain
information as quickly and efficiently as brokers, I think it is important
that the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans be expanded to investment
matters, also. Please pass Regualtion FD.
Sincerely,
Ross Dreher
Atlanta, GA
Author: "Smythe DuVal" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 1:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Vote Yes -- Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I whole-heartedly disagree with Wall Street lobbyest that they have a single
good reason to warrant special access to financial information. They are merely
protecting their vaulted position.
This issue is clear cut and there's nothing confusing about it. Selective
disclosure is plain wrong -- it hurt's the middle class, and protects an elite
few who can use the information to manipulate customers for their own profit.
I urge you to pass Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
Thanks,
Smythe DuVal
Marietta, GA
Author: "Eggum; Hardys (SD-EX)" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 1:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is outrageous to think that the public does not deserve the information
within the same time frame as Wall Street. This must go hand in hand with
the fact that analysts can push a buy rating while their firms are dumping
on the market. Vegas would love to play buy these rules.
Hardys Eggum
Author: "Tom Ellis" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 12:29 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 in favor of requiring companies to disclose relevant information to the
public at the same time as financial analysts.
Sincerely,
Tom Ellis
Author: Tom & Cathy Friedland at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 10:31 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
TO: news@fool.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File#S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs;
Please, please put the proposed regulation into law. It is totally
unfair to provide cogent information to any group of investors before
disseminating it to all interested investors. How often the price of a
security jumps or falls a signifigant amount from such selective
disclosure with the investing public finding out why later. We little
guys should not be at a disadvantage. You members of the SEC should be
protecting the rights of all Americans.
Thomas W. Friedland
Portfolio Manager
Thomas W. Friedland M.D. Employee Pension Plan
Author: Airbus SFO at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 11:42 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whomever is voting,
I am a responsible adult who is fully capable of reading and
understanding the English language. Give me the information. The very
idea that only the large brokerage houses are capable of understanding
information or that I'm somehow part of a 'Mob Mentality' is ludicrous.
VOTE FOR REGULATION FD.
Sincerely,
Thomas V. Gurskey
TVG Enterprises, Inc.
2800 Gulf Boulevard, Suite 2B
Belleair Beach, Florida, 33786.
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 1:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I'm in favor of the Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99. I am one of
the many stockholders of Abercrombie and Fitch that were "victimized" by the
large institutional investors that obviously were purvey to information that
led to the dramatic decline in the stock price. As an individual investor I
feel the playing field should be leveled and everyone have EQUAL access to
information.
THANK YOU!
Scott Gustafson
Author: Hendry Tracy-P28610 at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 11:32 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
This letter is specifically for the commissioners who have doubts about
changing the law. (Laura Unger and Isaac Hunt).
I read that Commissioner Unger was worried that individuals would experience
"Information Overload". My response to this is... "Isn't this better than
not having enough information?"
It is absurd that you must be an Analyst to be allowed access to important
company information. It is absurd to think that you must be an Analyst to
be able to comprehend or understand the information that companies provide.
It is absurd to think that we (individual investors) must have an Analyst to
interpret information for us. It is absurd to think that we (individual
investors) will lose all of our money without the help of a "professional"
Analyst. It is absurd for the SEC to decide who is and is not qualified to
hear important company information.
The current law is absurd.
In case you forgot, these companies are PUBLIC companies. They are not
semi-private. It is completely unfair for Analysts to have access to
information before other investors. I AM NOT DUMB! I can interpret
information. Give me the "Information Overload". Give everyone the
"Information Overload". It is the only FAIR thing to do.
Sincerely,
Tracy Hendry
Individual Investor, Self-taught Analyst!!!
Author: Debby Horowitz at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 10:33 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hi There,
I am absolutely FOR Regulation FD. It is without quivocation that individual
investors CAN manage their own finances if they want to. What added value do
analysts provide? Please tell me how the individual investor should react when
an analyst changes his/her rating on a company from buy to market-out-perform or
from buy to accumulate...huh!?!
Please let individual investors arrive at their own conclusions if that is what
they want. We can still choose to listen to the analysts if we choose -- but at
least let that decision be ours!
Thank you,
Debby Horowitz
Author: "Wayne Keil_at_work" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 2:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have written before, but will do so one more time in light of your
upcoming vote!
This year I watched one of my stocks go from 64 to 19. The most insulting
part about it was that as I was watching the stock fall on my internet
screen, I could see who was selling. There was no bad news and here were
the same institutions who were promoting the stock, dumping it in large
blocks. A few days later, the bombshell hit that they would miss earnings.
Thanks for the heads up.
If you don't think that this system is unfair, I simply don't know what to
say. Perhaps this kind of thing has never happened to you, but it happens to
individuals every day! It is simply unfair. You have an opportunity to
rectify this. Don't be mislead by fear. I challenge the four commissioners
to make a statement that says the American investing public are not idiots,
and we can digest an earnings warning just as easily as an institution.
Neither of us needs more time handle that type of bad news.
Be brave and make a statement to the Big Money that wishes to control your
thoughts.
Best Regards,
Wayne Keil
Hallandale, FL
Author: Brian Kelley at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 2:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sir,
I am writing in support of the proposed FD regulation under
consideration by your panel. As a long time individual investor, I have
greatly benefited from the Internet and the increased availability of
information. I feel that the proposed FD regulation is another step in
the right direction, to level the playing field between individual
investors and "professional money managers".
I have reviewed several of the comments about this proposed regulation
generated from professional investment firms. Many appear to be
self-serving, with very thin arguments concerning protecting the public
from too much information. This is clearly not in keeping with the
trends of either the Internet, or the information age.
Sincerely,
Brian Kelley
912 Main St.
Grafton MA 01519
508-839-1366
Author: Jesse Kennedy at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 2:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
Please, it is only fair to make information available to all investors both
individual and institutional at the same time. Providing an informational
head start to the firms on Wall Street seems dangerously close to a type of
"inside," or at least "pre-outside" information. It stands as one of the
lingering injustices that promotes the suspicion, that thrived during the
insider trading scandals of the 80s, that Wall Street is on some level
looking to manipulate, rather than provide service to the individual
investor. In any system, there is only an "inside" if there is also an
"outside," and under the current rules individual investors have been on the
outside too long.
Let the experts at the firms on Wall Street earn their keep by knowing
better what to do with the information, not by having unfair access to it.
Fair disclosure promotes a sense of equal opportunity, fairness and
empowerment. It is, of course, everybody's responsibility to sift through
the greatly increased level of available information that has accompanied
the internet/communications revolution. The public can certainly handle it.
Ignorance, in the long run, is never bliss.
Strike a blow for freedom, democracy and equal opportunity. Please vote in
favor of Fair Disclosure.
Jesse Kennedy
112 Beals Street
Brookline, MA 02446
Author: "Keon; Tim P" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 12:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will vote Thursday on changing
the rules that currently allow companies to give important information to
Wall Street analysts without simultaneously giving the news to the public at
large.
I support the subsequent dissemination of information to the public and
analysts.
The existing practice is discriminatory, unfair, anti-American!
Tim Keon
Engineer, Brakes Test & Analysis
Chassis Develop. & Validation
PH (219) 428-3309
F (219) 461-4745
tim.keon@nav-international.com
Author: "Jeff Kilbride" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 11:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom it May Concern,
As an individual investor, I am extremely concerned with Thursday's vote
regarding the proposed Fair Disclosure regulation. How can we call Wall Street a
"free market" when a certain select class of analysts is privvy to information
not available to the general public? In today's economy, information is power.
With the rise of the internet, we've quickly seen the effects of freely
available information. At no other time in history has so much information been
available to such a wide range of people from all walks of life. It's time to
extend that freedom to the financial markets and approve this regulation.
I do not use a broker and I never will. Most are sub-par performers who charge
exhorbitant fees and commissions on trades. By limiting this precious
information to brokers and their analysts, you are effectively cutting me out
solely because you feel I am unable to understand or utilize this information in
an effective manner. This is a gross generalization and completely unfair to the
average citizen.
Analysts are not brain surgeons or rocket scientists. They would have you
believe that their profession is a highly specialized and extremely difficult
one taking years of full-time dedication to master. And yet, over 80% of all
analysts incorrectly predict the market and underperform basic averages like the
S&P 500 year after year. Where is their expertise if it produces such mediocre
results? Are you afraid that individual investors will do worse? Or are you
really afraid that they will do better and eliminate the need for these high
priced brokers and analysts who get paid whether their advice is sound or not?
My 2 cents...
Sincerely,
Jeffrey A. Kilbride
Sr. V.P., Technology
Solutions America, Inc.
http://www.solutionsamerica.com
Author: Bob Liggett at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 11:25 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Commissioners:
I have been a long-time client of a well known brokerage firm. I have
never received any timely input from this firm with regard to important
information passed from companies to their analysts. I feel strongly
about receiving this information in order to make the best decisions
regarding my investments.
Please vote to pass the subject proposed regulation.
Sincerely,
Robert Liggett
Author: "Jason Maroney" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 10:36 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Folks,
It has been brought to my attention that you will soon be voting on proposed
rule changes regarding information dissemination. It is my argument that
the rules must be changed to allow greater access to information.
To allow analysts inside information, as has been the norm for entirely too
long, amounts to insider trading in some fashion or another. Perhaps not in
the purest form, but in some fashion or another. The worrisome part of this
entire discussion lies in the fact that there are analysts who feel that
they are the only ones capable of "ferreting out" the necessary company
information. I would argue that is a farce. Upstanding, intelligent, and
motivated citizens everywhere, especially in this day and age, are quite
capable of comprehending the type of information typically in an analyst
"evaluation". I think that an average high school student would even
qualify.
For the sake of argument, however, I will entertain the notion that a Wall
Street analyst has some uncanny ability to read better than the masses. Under
proposed rule changes, I don' think that they would be precluded from still
doing so. Analysts will continue to play their self-proclaimed "ferreting"
role. No doubt, there exists a myriad of investors who have neither the time
nor desire to pour through company information, gleaning significant tidbits.
Let the analysts help them. But not at the expense of those who care to read
for themselves.
You have an opportunity to allow individual investors the basic right to
make decisions for themselves. Put the Wall Street analyst dogma aside and
do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Jason D. Maroney
Individual Investor
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 1:00 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 in favor of this rule. The individual American Investor is
intelligent and responsible enough to interpret financial data, in my
opinion.
Thank you
Cliff McMeekin
IBM AS/400 Support Line
Rochester, MN
xzy1404@us.ibm.com
If you don't care where you are, you ain't lost...
Author: "Frank Millikan" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 1:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I urge a vote in favor of the regulation. Wall Street analysts have a vested
interest in the current system. This system opposes the interests of individual
investors, who need to have information available to them at the same time as
the analysts do. I have been doing my own investing for nearly twenty years. I
would rather have unfiltered information than have to rely on the biased
opinions and manipulations of analysts from brokerage firms.
Frank Millikan
Author: Robert Oglesbee at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 9:48 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am greatly concerned by the proposed rule on selected disclosure. I believe
that to oppose this rule is bordering on criminal, and is definitely
un-American. I believe that the sooner information is widely available on a
company, the faster and more accurately the market can respond; thereby
allowing greater efficiency. Please make this rule into law.
Rob Oglesbee
Author: Larry Prokop at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 9:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
I am an individual investor and I hope you will enact
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99. I think
this will greatly benefit the average investor.
Sincerely,
Larry Prokop
Author: Pete Reed at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 10:35 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is un-American for Wall Street analysts to obtain
priveleged information before the investing public. By
the way, if professional money managers are so
valuable, then why can't most of them beat the S&P 500
over a significant period of time?
Peter Reed
Author: Chuck Reese at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 9:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I just wanted to send my support IN FAVOR of the pending proposal that
would prohibit selective disclosure of information by companies.
Thanks,
--
Charles Reese
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Voice: 805/893-4353
Fax: 805/893-3262
E-mail: creese@engr.ucsb.edu
Author: "Mike Ross" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 2:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor I would like to have information from companies
disclosed to me at the same time that information is disclosed to Wall
Street analysts. Please vote to pass proposed regulation FD: file no.
S7-31-99.
Thank you,
Michael C. Ross
Julia Ross
3007 Cornstalk Rd.
Waynesville, Ohio 45068
Author: "Schmidt; Mike" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 12:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: "Moore; Jim" at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Regards:
I have heard of Full Disclosure (FD) for quiet some time, but only recently
became aware of the upcoming SEC vote. I fully support FD and although I
could list several reasons why, the main reason is because these are public
companies. These companies aren't just owned by professionals, they are
owned by a very diverse mix of individual investors. What I'm talking about
is equal rights in a sense. Why should one investor be given preferential
treatment (Selective Disclosure - SD) over another? I'm almost tempted to
call SD borderline insider trading. What else do you call it when an
individual in privy to non-public information? Perhaps the information does
become public eventually, but that head start provided by SD gives an unfair
advantage. Sure, some of these professionals manage large mutual funds that
individual investors own and there might be some benefit to the "little guy."
Also, individual investors may very well under-perform the market when they
manage their own money. However, considering +90% of all mutual funds
under-perform the market, what value is the individual receiving for this
"expert" advice besides high fees? I find that analysts are very good at
predicting the past, but don't do so well in predicting the future. That is
why they need SD, to maintain the little edge they have left before they are
exposed as mere mortals like the rest of us. The professionals are only
interested in one thing...commissions.
The SEC should do the right thing and put FD into effect. It is the right
thing to do.
Michael T Schmidt
Engineer
Author: Kenneth Swain at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 12:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg FD: File No S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am for having all disclosure happen at once. It is unfair to give
individuals and companies a head start with action.
You could go to jail for this under other circumstances. I do my own
investing and feel this practice should be illegal!
Kenneth E Swain
570 Western St
Hoffman Estates, IL 60194
kswain@ mediaone.net
Author: Ed Talenti at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 12:58 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hon. Commissioner Laura S. Unger, et. al.:
As an active online investor with an acutely crucial need for immediate
information on the publicly-traded companies on which I've placed my
hard-earned invesment dollars and retirement nest-egg, I am forced to
address this august body for the first time out of sheer necessity.
I think it would be unconscionable and near criminal on the part of the 4
SEC Commissioners to vote against the full and immediate promulgation of
Regulation FD, the Full-Disclosure Rule.
I think it is essential for the health of the Securities and Equities
Markets, as they have evolved in the past five years, to foster
small-investor faith and trust on the foundations of the Exchange process.
We MUST maintain our confidence in some fundamental truths:
1. That public companies MUST make full and fair disclosure.
2. That this disclosure MUST be timely, and allow everyone to make a
decision on their investment at the same time.
3. That this disclosure MUST be a matter of easily-accessible public
record, and available to all in a fair and equal manner
Please add my opinion to the tens of thousands of other individual
investors who have expressed their wishes to you.
We are sitting here watching you make this decision, and we want to
encourage you to take a stand and not cave in to the many special interests
who are desperately whispering in your ear. This is a chance for the SEC
to reaffirm your and our faith in investing's fundamental values.
I promise you we as investors, and voters, will remember the outcome of
this issue for a long, long time.
Ed Talenti, President,
Communication Systems Planning & Design. Inc.
cspd@usa.net
Author: "Darren Taylor" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 12:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
I am an individual investor and have been for 20 years. I do not understand
how there can even be a debate on this proposed regulation. If the SEC is
concerned about the individual investor, then the SEC should allow me to
receive information from the companies that I invest in at the same time as
the so called "Wall Street Professionals". Any arguments to the contrary by
Wall Street analysts appear to be self-serving, but that is to be expected,
their livelihood may be in jeopardy. But the SEC should certainly see their
arguments for what they are. Please do not presume that I need an analysts
input in my investing decisions. Do not presume that I will suffer from
"information overload". Fair Disclosure makes common sense and the burden is
on the SEC to do the right thing and give individual investors a level
playing field.
Thank You
Darren G. Taylor
Author: "Vajaranant; Mark" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 12:07 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam:
Individual investors need to have information about their investments in a
timely fashion. They should have access to important information that
affects their investments at the same time that "Wall Street analysts" do.
To limit the public's access to this information will indeed limit the
ability of the individual investor to make important decisions regarding
their investments and may contribute to any "underperformance" that might
occur. Furthermore, companies traded on the markets are "public" and as
such, should distribute important information to the "public" at the same
time they distribute the information to professional analysts. Knowledge is
power and the withholding of important company information to distribute to
the privileged few (professional analysts) is concentrating the power to
make informed decisions in a few hands. This is contrary to the tradition of
openness in our country. Please enact "Proposed Regulation FD: File No.
S7-31-99" in the interest of fairness, respect for the individual investor,
and the tradition of transparency and openness that has made the American
free market system the envy of the world.
Sincerely,
Mark Vajaranant (an individual investor)
Author: Sumeet Valrani at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 8:31 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
vote yes
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 1:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I understand that the vote on whether or not to continue allowing
preferential treatment for brokerage houses on insider knowledge will take
place this Thursday.
I'm a homemaker who has been investing for four years now. I've never used
the wisdom of commercial brokers. My portfolio has beaten the S & P 500
every year. I research the businesses, and then choose a great long term
company that I feel is a great investment for myself, my children and the
world at large. All I ask is that I get the same information that everyone
else does at the same time. This is America, right?
Julie Wiley
JMQuilter@aol.com
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0808b01.htm
