Date: 12/17/1999 11:56 AM Subject: Proposed Regulation FD Dear Sirs I've just finished reading the article in the Motley Fool WebPage regarding Proposed Regulation FD and the promise of Full Disclosure on Wall Street. I am voting for More Open disclosure, however with some caveats. As a hard core moderate and somewhat sensible person it would seem good sense to maintain some level of Open disclosure abilities as well as maintain a level of managment on the effects of full disclosure. We all know that competition is good for the consumer in that the costs of products and services declines while the level of innovation and perhaps value increases. Creating More Open disclosure capabilities would serve to provide a wider distribution of the most current information and thus reduce the virtual monopoly like hold Wall Street holds over the world markets. However, we all know that you don't hand a loaded gun to a child and providing potentially destructive information to individuals that are not trained or expert in the handling of that information is reckless at best. Having the SEC completely eliminate the selective disclosure restraints without some form of monitoring would not be in the best interest of the economy, the individual investor OR Wall Street and would set the stage for investor panic and emotional upheaval. I believe the best course of action is to allow Open Disclosure of information to ALL investors, HOWEVER NO Investor (or broker) can act on that information without some type of controls in place. Much the same as we now control Program Trading etc. This type of automated control could act as a valve that could be applied to stem the occasional financial panic, while providing a mechanism to "loosen" the reigns if needed. We should seek NOT to control the Information people have access to but only their ability to do significant harm to themselves and others by creating panic. Sincerely Mike Palmisciano Financial Accounts Manager Information Builders, Inc. NYC