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

Author:  John/Linda Blanco  at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  6:41 AM
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I am a tax paying citizen of this country.  The government takes my 
money in taxes, why won't it at least give me information in return? 
Many of us are not ignorant as the government makes us out to be.  The 
former USSR kept knowledge from it's citizens so that they can control 
them.  Don't allow the government or the Wall Street analysts to control 
or manipulate the investing public!   The investment firms have an 
interest in keeping the public unaware.  Who's interest are you 
concerned with?
Thank you for allowing me to vent my opinion.
Retired "and tired" in Fenton, Michigan
John Blanco
P.O. Box 549
Fenton, MI 48430-0549

Author:   at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  2:54 AM
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
None of the information which a public corporation gives to a top name 
brokerage firm gets to investors like me for days or weeks. By then, the news 
has already been acted upon by any number of institutional or big investors. 
Whether you institute a new regulation won't change that much, but it will 
lead to a more level playing field.
Wall Street is frightened that many investors, myself included, have 
outperformed them and their best clients without resorting to any type of 
insider information.  We make them irrelevant and will continue to do so 
whether or not you pass your proposed regulation. 
Certainly the SEC should make information available to all, particularly in 
this age of instant email.  It is right, just and fair, among other reasons 
if you need more. But the SEC should also look into other ways in which Wall 
Street firms compete, including internal trading departments which bilk all 
their customers, favored IPO distribution which repays customers for using 
high priced brokers and in the most bald-faced manner, not to mention issuing 
buy or sell reports on companies to the public after the have disseminated 
the information to their favored clientele.
In short, not only should all information be publicly acknowledged instantly 
over the internet, but trading firms should be separated from brokerage firms 
entirely, IPOs should be distributed by lottery and made known to the 
prospective buyers the day before the offering (not in the Clintonesque way, 
distributed after the trade is already profitable) and all reports should hit 
the internet at the same time they are made to private clients.
Alan Greenspan holds investors to task for bidding up the prices of many 
securities to outlandish proportions. But the real culprits are the 
investment bankers on Wall Street who continue to offer such trash at 
ridiculously high prices. Wall Street is more guilty of excesses today than 
it has been since pre-crash days in the twenties.  Hold their feet to the 
fire. That is the reason you were formed. We are depending upon you to do 
your job.
Sincerely, Michael Conway

Author:  Bruce Coughlin  at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  1:07 AM
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I urge for you to vote FOR Regulation FD, which would change the way 
information is given out so that information is given to  investors at the 
same time it is given to analysts. Don't worry about information overload. 
We're a pretty smart bunch. Those that don't want to use the information 
will ignore it.
Bruce Coughlin 

Author:  "Chip Depew"  at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  12:06 AM
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
To Whom It May Concern:
From the Motley Foolweb site:
"It appears that it is not unlikely that at least one vote will be cast against 
the rule.
  Commissioner Laura S. Unger, while acknowledging in a recent speech investor
enthusiasm for
  the rule, fears that investors might soon suffer from "information overload."
Furthermore, she
  apparently feels that significant value is added to the markets by Wall
Street's analysts, and
  that it is by no means proven that analysts or companies are failing to
provide individual
  investors with a fair shake under the current system.
  A second commissioner, Isaac Hunt, has also expressed reservations about
certain parts of the
  rule, at least as originally drafted. Certain alterations have been made that
may make the rule
  more palatable to Commissioner Hunt, but Thursday's vote certainly will be
I respectfully request that the SEC commissioners vote to enact the Fair 
Disclosure Rule on Thursday.
With specific regard to Ms Unger's points as outlined above, more than 80% of 
analysts and professional money managers underperform the S%P 500!  I don't see 
a whole lot of value add there.  I think we have a bloated system where 
underperformance is the norm.  The headstart afforded the professional 
investment community by current selective disclosure policy is merely a tool 
used to attempt to offset that abysmal performance.
In a truly free market economy, the analyst and professional money manager 
should have to earn their stripes the same way the rest of us do.  If they 
indeed add the value Ms Unger believes to be there, they shouldn't need the 
support of a blatantly unfair advantage to be successful.  Level the playing 
field and see who survives.
The Internet has revolutionized the way we access information.  Using this 
information to track companies and make personal financial decisions based on 
careful research is American grass roots activism and self-reliance at its 
finest.  Its prudent use should be encouraged at all levels of financial 
policy-making.  Removing the existing bias toward those who would have us 
believe they know how to manage our money better than we do is a great way to 
encourage responsible individual investing.
Again, I respectfully request that the SEC commissioners vote to enact the Fair 
Disclosure Rule on Thursday and end this blatant bias toward the professional 
investment community.
Thank you for your consideration,
Chip Depew
Product Manager
Synchronicity, Inc.
(919) 881-9298 voice
(801) 749-4361 fax

Author:  Elaine  at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  12:21 AM
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: file no. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
In response to the approaching vote in the matter of selective 
disclosure of information I feel the public should be made aware of any 
and all news that pertains to their investments at the same time the 
news is given to select Wall Street insiders.  I am shocked that such a 
bias still exists and expect the SEC to lift the vial of secrecy so all 
can benefit.
Elaine Deras

Author:  "Doug Esker"  at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  12:02 AM
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I would like to express my support for Regulation FD.  The selective 
disclosure of material information to brokerage houses prior to public 
release offends me.  The notion that analysts are entitled to this 
information before ordinary shareholders is un-American.  Please vote to end 
this two-tiered outrage.
Douglas R. Esker


Author:   at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  12:35 AM
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
August 8, 2000
I urge you to vote to allow individual investors to have the same information 
and at the same time it is provided to the "Brokerage Houses". Without equal 
access to current reports and information the individual investor will 
continue to be at a disadvantage to the "Brokerage Houses".
Kent B. Gaufin
Individual Investor

Author:  Bill Giles  at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  2:46 AM
CC: enforcement@sec.gov at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
The Honorable Authur Levitt
United States Securities and Exchange Commission 
450 Fifth Street,N.W.
Washington,D.C. 20549
Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Dear Chairman Levitt:
I am in the process of completing an investigation of some wrong doings by 
some companies in violation of SEC laws. It is clearly evident (to me) that 
the current status of disclosure to favored Wall Street analysts before 
disclosure to the general public is very unfair.
Individuals on the one hand are being told to invest their own retirement 
in IRA's and  be accountable for their own actions. The timing of 
disclosure is not going to make a large percentage of the population go out 
and buy faster, more careless,or foolishly.
Personally, I see the Wall Street analysts and associates such as members 
of the ICI (Investment Company Institute) as already having the upper hand 
over any individual investor. These organizations
are managing assets in the billions of dollars with main purpose of making 
an acceptable return on the funds(mutual funds for example). The assets and 
actions of  these investment companies/      associations are not being 
held accountable for the indirect actions they are exerting upon the 
companies they control voting stock over. These institutions can be 
influenced by greed and have the resources to maximize the control of the 
asset base they manage.(This is part of my findings.)
The filtering aspect that the Wall Street analysts and institutions have 
with this one day delay can be used to manipulate or slant the opinions of 
the stock. Many of the institutions are reporting favorably
about one another already while each owns parts of one another in different 
The joint associations such as (example only) Capstone and Vanguard Group 
leaves much to be self regulating ie.: when one institution is touting or 
giving favorable buy reports for one of the other institution that is in 
its joint group with no fair or just accountability. There exists so many 
associations, advisors, groups, institutions, partners, and many more 
inter-related a.k.a.'s already that it would help for as much information 
to be reviewed by the public. More public interest will increase public 
awareness and reduce the potential for preferential advantages of the Wall 
Street group.
In summary, the more information available for public viewing, the less the 
opportunities for potential abuse and wrong doing by the already leveraged 
institutions. My findings and complaint will be sent in the near future as 
an official request for bounty under SEC section 21A(e).
Bill Giles
cc:The Honorable Isaac C. Hunt, Jr., Commissioner
      The Honorable Laura Simone Unger, Commissioner 
      The Honorable Paul R. Carey , Commissioner

Author:  "Charles Curtis Glasgow"  at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  4:11 AM
Subject: Great Potential Here IF..
------------------------------- Message Contents 
    However you look at it the upcoming election of a President and Vice
President will mean new asperations for either Government or Private sector 
enterprises or possibly both.
      I think though that this would be like the U.N. telling the President of
the United States that while he and his administration may create the new space 
based weapon or technology He and his defense team will be required to provide 
the governments of Russia, China, Cuba, Iraq, Iran,Syria, Israel, Germany, 
France, Australia, Britain and France with the Blueprint(s) so that the 
respective governments won't be fearful of the U.S. knowhow and creativity 
causing a war to develop between friends and adversaries alike.. This of course 
affects the balance of power.  
    The requirement for the Private Companies to divuldge their inner most
secrets about themselves and other companies that they are competing with is 
just as increadulous as the senario in the first paragraph.
  I hope the Government realizes that they will put into place the undoing of
the economy in time for the Democrats to blame it on the Republicans...
   Thanks alot!!
Charles C. Glasgow III
Economic victim of the U.S. Government 
not that you would get anyone to believe that

Author:  Seth Goldman  at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  9:28 AM

 Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99

 I understand that the comment period is long since over on this
 regulation. However, I still feel it neccessary to try to submit a last 
 minute interjection into the record.

 To start off with, the fact that there even seems to be debate over this 
 rule seems proposterous. This is a common sense rule if ever there was

 Why shouldn't the general public be privy to the same information
 analysts are? Why are there privileged positions? The argument made by 
 Wall Street is that analysts helps the entire market as a whole by
 filtering this information for us, the general public. The thing is, 
 IT DOESN'T MATTER whether or not this is true.

 Let's assume for the moment that analysts do, in fact, provide us, the 
 public, with better information and a less volatile market (of which I 
 am skeptical in any case). Why does this warrant selective disclosure? 
 "To guard against overreaction", say the analysts. But if the market
 does, in fact, "overreact" (a subjective term at any rate), shouldn't
 the market eventually correct itself anyway? Shouldn't the analysts, if 
 their opinion is that important and that respected, eventually be able 
 to give the public the "correct" report and spin on the information? If 
 you truly believe in the fairness of the market in the long term, what
 difference does it make who gets what information when? If companies are 
 so concerned about their reports, they can speak to analysts AFTER the
 information has been released. Even if volatility in the short term is 
 greater, in the long term it should be the same after those analysts
 have "correctly" analyzed the information. 

 The entire thing smacks of entirely unAmerican ideals. Just as "all men 
 are created equal", so should all investors be in the eyes of a public 
 company. Perhaps this could fly in Europe, but in the US, the public
 needs no protection from itself. It goes against the very ideals of free 
 market capitalism.  If you keep the existing rules in place, the
 SEC might as well be saying the following: 

 "All investors are created equal, but some are obviously smarter and
 more capable to interpret information than others, AND we know who those 
 people are. And you get no voice in their choosing, either."

 Information is power. You are allowing companies to give more power to 
 analysts than others, and it is not egalitarian. Let the analysts earn 
 their power like all others. If they do what they claim to do, then
 people will naturally listen to them, and artificial boosts to their
 importance will be unneccessary. Do not elect our leaders for us. We can 
 elect our own.
Seth Goldman
Cisco Systems

Author:  "Martin H. Kramer"  at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  12:07 AM
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Hello  --
I am a retired person managing my portfolio of a million dollars. 
Without question, I want to get information from companies at the same 
time that Wall Street firms do.  The only fair arrangement is a level 
playing field.  It is human nature to leak information to favored 
clients that is obtained prior to general public release.  To think this 
does not happen is naive.
Martin H. Kramer
2830 Saint Paul Street
Baltimore, MD  21218-4311

Author:   at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  12:41 AM
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
We are fedup with Wall Street analysts feeding usefull information first 
to the big-shots.
Michel Lacaille
Québec, Canada

Author:   at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  1:27 AM
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
I strongly urge that you vote for this regulation . Fair disclosure is very 
important to all individuals and no single person or bussiness should be 
entitled to any advance information.
Steven Mondrall

Author:   at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  12:33 PM
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Refering to Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99,
The idea that individual investors will suffer from "information 
overload" (Commissioner Laura S. Unger) is simply ludicrous. We 
are entering the beginnings of the Information Age, and allowing an 
industry where 85% of all products (mutual funds) perform poorer 
than the standard benchmark (S&P 500) certainly does not show me 
that the industry itself can deal with the "information overload". In 
any other industry, such performance would result in the complete 
dismissal of all employees, company closings, public outcry, etc., but 
the mutual funds industry has managed to keep its own boat 
afloat through simple FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) tactics. 
The American public is slowly being empowered by the Internet. The 
democratization of the capital markets will continue. Access to 
information will become easier. Just remember that the decision 
made on Thursday may come back to haunt the SEC if the SEC 
decides to side with the mutual funds industry and allow analysts 
and fund managers access to information before the public. I have 
seen this type of government interference in Germany, where I live 
now, where the government treats the public like children in some 
instances with a "we know better than you" attitude! The days are 
numbered for this type of behavior in Germany, and I believe the US 
should step forward and show the world that the US government 
trusts its own citizens to make informed judgements on its own. 
Anything less is patronizing, and to me personally, insulting!
David Pape
David Pape, technischer Uebersetzer (Deutsch -> Englisch) 
Tel: 02327 / 903108
Fax: 02327 / 903109
E-mail: davepape@cityweb.de

Author:  didier  at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  8:33 AM
Subject: proposed regulation FD: file No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Dear SEC,
As European investor,  I defenitely agree with the new rule as we want 
information on our investment as the same time as analysts.
Eficient markets need eficient information flows, so I pray God you will 
agree to the rule and finally allow us to invest eficiently.
Didier Pillonel

Author:  "Mark W. Wright"  at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  12:18 AM
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents 
Please do not allow any differential treatment of information 
dissemination.  It is an issue of fairness.
Mark W. Wright

Author:  "Myung-Sung Yoon"  at Internet
Date:    08/09/2000  11:16 AM
------------------------------- Message Contents 
To whom it may concern,
I feel that there should be a level playing field and brokerages should have the
same information as an individual investor.  Institutional investors should not 
have an advantage in any way shape or form.
Myung-Sung Yoon