Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: "john anderson" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Securities Exchange Commission
As an investing Amercian I would like to make my opinion known about the
Regulation FD, Fair Disclosure. I strongly belive that companies that are
Publicly traded, should have one communications route, to the public. This makes
sense for many reasons, one being the definition of the word public, as well as
others that have stronger economic implications.
The investing public, those who manage thier own funds, are the bulk
shareholders of many small, and mid cap companies, which make up a majority of
the US economy. Selective disclosure limits the amount of available information
about a company, and thus gives one group of people advantages of investing over
annother. Unfortunetly this battle is with individual investors and professional
money managers. Many profesional money managers invest in large capitalization
companies, that have a stronghold on thier industry. If, regulations go
unchanged smaller companies will not be able to build the equity they need
through shareholders. Professional money managers will make decisions when the
vast public is unaware, profit greatly from investing in large capitalization
companies, and further widen the competition. If competition goes down, prices
of goods sold go up, and this further supports inflation.
This regulation will place every investor in America on a level playing field,
professional and individual. Many "profesional" money managers would loose their
edge, and uncover those who have insider information, instead of intuition, and
faith that a company will grow.
This is the basis of investing, and as more investors become educated about
companies, more growth and competition can be seen by all.
Please pass the Fair Disclosure Act and prevent "professional" money managers
from fleecing americas investors.
sincerly
john ryan anderson
Additionally, I am a 20 year old investor, and have been investing since 1996.
This is stated to show that younger investors are in the market, and will not
stand to be dominated by Corporate Financial Institutions that limit the earning
potential of the American Public.
Author: DB at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:08 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please level the playing field. This is the Information Age, and key information
shouldn't be
monopolized.
Don Braunagel
small investor
La Jolla, CA
Author: "Pete Breen" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please pass this regulation and help level the playing field and stop the
manipulative practices of Wall Street and its member firms.
Sincerely,
Peter J Breen
Individual Investor
Not affiliated with any financial organization
Author: charles cross at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
PLEASE ALLOW FULL DISCLOSURE TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS BROKERS/INSIDERS.
Debra Browder-Cross
Daccro Investment Co.
Author: Joseph Caba at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 7:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom it may concern,
As an American and participant in the equities market, I would like to
let you know that I think that it is only appropriate to have full
disclosure of important company information to All investors and not
just selected Wall Street Analyst. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Joseph Caba
Cabaco Marine International, Inc.
Author: "MICHAEL CAMPBELL" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 6:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation FD: No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
My wife and I are for full disclosure for everyone including the common
investor.
Author: Markoff Chaney at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Now that more of the participants in the public market
are actually "the public", I think that the only
prudent measure would be to entitle us to THE SAME
INFORMATION that large, often corporately-owned
analyst firms access to. How can we as people who wish
to take hold of our personal finances, serve out that
purpose best without such information? I think it
would be much like telling Carl Lewis that in order to
be in the Olympics he must first amputate one of his
legs. Those that play the game must ALL play by the
same rules!
Author: "Sheryl Clark" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:47 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: "Vicki Schizas" at Internet
Subject: "proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
The proposed change in the rule will only invite litigation and constant
esercise by the public of the Freedon of information Act to which all
parties will needlessly have to spend costly time and resources.
Such changes are poorly thought out by those whose ethics are questionable
and whose self-interest are obvious.
Author: "Chris Coffey" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The individual investors need disclosure on companies for the purpose of
evaluating companies. I believe that it will ultimately strengthen the market.
Thank you,
Chris Coffey
Author: "Bryan Coleman" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
The regulation for Fair Disclosure would help narrow the gap between
the Wall Street analysts and the people like me, the individual investor.
Our capital markets are best served by the participation of as many
people as possible. It is also important to those people (myself) - that
the functioning of these markets (which depend on information) - be fair.
Selective disclosure is a disservice to the broadest group of individual
investors. There should be no special privileges. I would also like to see
Company conference calls opened to the broader investor audience. Internet
technology makes it inexpensive and feasable to broadcast the calls.
Another option would be for companies to furnish transcripts for the
public. In the interest of fairness, I request that you adopt the proposed
rule requiring full disclosure and consider further, similar action.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan L. Coleman
nerd@newportnet.com
Author: "cj_conn" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:10 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of the proposed changes.
Christopher J. Connell
Author: "Karin Conover-Lewis" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 7:37 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please end selective disclosure. It is not in the best interests of private
investors to be kept "out of the loop," while Wall Street insiders are given
the advantage of hearing news not simultaneously disseminated to the public.
While this will not completely level the playing field, it is a very good
start.
Thank you,
Karin Conover-Lewis
(klc dot lewis at gte dot net)
http://members.xoom.com/revkarin/
Enter address manually for email replies!
Author: "James H. Copenhaver" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:34 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an investor, I have always disliked the fact that Wall Street insiders
get information before I do. This allows a privileged few to jump out of a
stock they know is going to tank, well before the rest of us can. They can
take care of their institutional clients by cutting their losses early and
leave the rest of us holding the (empty) bag.
The need for full disclosure in the financial market is greater than the one
for political disclosure. The market may go down if the wrong person is
elected, but someone can make a serious personal financial error because they
don't have enough current facts to base a decision.
Personally, I distrust what most market analysts say on TV and radio because
of insider information. I would take full disclosure a few steps further and
require analysts on TV and radio to disclose how much they (or their company)
are being paid to promote stocks. That would give everyone else a good
measure to tell what the motives are behind a recommendation.
Thanks-
James H. Copenhaver
4616 Garden Hills Dr.
Stone Mt., GA 30083
copenhaver@mindspring.com
Author: "Bill" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor I support the adoption of this regulation in order to
eliminate any unfair advantage which analysts, and the companies they work for
may now enjoy.
Information is power, and that timely information is frequently denied to most
investors through the priovision of privledged information to analysts during
conference calls that are unavailable to most investors.
Although many Stock Brokers pretend that individual investors are incapable of
making good investment decisions without the services of a Brokerage, they are
wrong. I, myself use a discount broker, and find that I end up with more money
that I would if I was paying several times as much commission for each trade. No
broker cares as much as the individual investor about the most important money
in the world..your own money.
We do need a level playing field, and that is what
File No. S7-31-99 is all about; its adoption is imperative
to eliminate the current unfair advantage enjoyed by small
(in numbers) segment of individuals and companies.
I am gratified to see that a governmental agency cares about how the masses are
treated. Right on!!
Sincerely,
Bill Corrigan
250 Martin Ln.
Rainsville, Al. 35986-7042
Author: Dudley Crisp at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 7:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I very much believe that the present system of
selective disclosure is grossly unfair to investors
that are not in the "big guy" system. With the
present status of the web, companies could easily
publish any information at the same time they are
telling big investors. Even more fair would be a
requirement that they only publish information openly
Author: Melinda Fabrikant at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of this proposed legislation.
Melinda Fabrikant
Author: "Eric Gatzke" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 7:58 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe there should be full disclosure based on a set of strict guidelines.
It is not fair to the general public nor that companies stock holders, or
potential sotck buyers, to selectively give what is tantamount to inside
information to select individuals [Analysts] at brokerage firms.
Personally having a degree in Economics & Finance and owning two companies, I
probably have more insite than some of these 'green' Analysts.
So, DO NOT allow this to continue to benefit the few, the people who happen to
trade through those select brokerage houses. Make the trading environment a
level playing field.
Eric Gatzke
Chief Financial Officer
Anderson-Gatzke Worldwide Commercial Lending
and,
President & Owner
Hog Heaven [Internet site for Harleys & Other big bikes]
Author: "Mark R. Hanneman" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:16 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
What was the Microsoft case about?
A level playing field is basic to a working capitalistic society. For
publicly traded companies, all of the public should have equal access to
information.
Mark Hanneman
Author: James Haug at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:28 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs/Madams:
I am in favor of open disclosure.
I think financial information from publicly traded companies needs to be
shared with investors on a level playing field basis.
Currently it is unfair that companies may disclose material information to
selected securities analysts while the rest of the investment community
stands on the sidelines.
Furthermore, such practices may be accountable for wild swings in a stock's
price, as those in the know make their moves first, and the ignorant then
react.
This is unhealthy. I am surprised the SEC this is even an issue.
Best wishes,
James Haug
Sebastopol, California
Author: "Bob Hennig" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:59 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please level the playing field; require companies to talk to all of us
simultaneously. I suspect that the only advocates of the current system are
those advantaged by it.
This would be in keeping with many other beneficial rule changes in our country:
a.. Full disclosure by politicians and their campaigns
b.. Your own rules on insider trading
c.. Contracting and purchasing rules at all levels of gov't
d.. "Sunshine" laws in local and some state govts
Thanks for your consideration.
Bob Hennig
224904 Donelson Rd
Kennewick, WA 99337
Author: "Sydneyh" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 7:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor, I not only applaud the attempt to level the playing
field but I would also like to see some initiative that uses the individual
investor as part of a watchdog network that can blow the whistle on all those
seemingly unexplainable price movements on unusual volumes just days before news
is disseminated to the general public.
Sydney L. Herrera
Author: "Dave Hildermann" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
4:39 PM 04/24/2000
Comments: regarding "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
Proposed Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure)
Dear SEC;
It has been written; ...We, as citizens of these United States of America, have
certain inalienable Rights; the right to Freedom, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of Happiness.
Please include (with the above) the Right; to fair disclosure of information by
publicly traded companies,.. the right for ALL persons (public or private) to
receive timely investment information,.. the right to unbiased or slanted
mis-information as circulated by the chosen few,.. and the Freedom from coded
language such as; "hold, accumulate, buy, strong buy," etc., as perpetuated by
the "Wise." (listed below)
AKA: SIA
The Securities Industry Association of more than 740 securities firms (including
investment banks, broker-dealers, and mutual fund companies).
Sincerely;
D.F. Hildermann
Hoquiam WA
Author: "Bruce Hill" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe that the new rules of disclosing information should be
given to everybody at the same time. Why should the small investor
have to take a back seat to the large brokerage houses. These rules
are long overdo.
Regards
Bruce Hill
Author: David Hoerl at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am an individual investor and would like the same information as
the Wall Street brokers who get to listen in and sell or buy while
I'm sitting out in the rain not knowing what to do.
So please level the playing field.
Thank you.
David Hoerl
New Providence NJ
Author: "Jack" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am a private investor and I am writing to support the proposed regulation to
require fair disclosure.
LeRoy A. Jackson
Monterey, CA
Author: "John Janowski" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:47 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
My name is John F. Janowski, I am a online trader. Online traders are a
trading force, ! We must have equal access to company announcements! We need
the same resources institutional investors have. Currently access is not equal
for the individual investor!
I am in favor of the Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Thank You
John F Janowski
Author: "Dan Kuipers" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Even the playing field. Individual Investors in the 00's should have the
same timely access to information as the professional analysts.
Dan Kuipers
Author: John Lee at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 7:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Isn't it about time to level the playing field and give the small
investor a chance ?
John N Lee, 111
Author: "Richard Leff" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:36 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective disclosure has no role in the Twenty-first century. Universal
availability of information makes markets more efficient and safer. Do not
allow Wall Street firms to monopolize any information. The only people
protected by that practice are the Wall Street people, themselves.
Richard Leff
7575 South Spalding Lake Drive
Atlanta, Georgia 30350
drrsl@mindspring.com
Author: "Ben Lippard" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To the Commission:
I write in support of proposed regulation FD. In an era where new
technologies allow efficient dissemination of information, there can be no
justification for allowing selective disclosure of material information to a
favored group of analysts and large institutional investors. The same
principles that led the establishment of mandatory reporting and auditing for
publicly traded companies -- that basic material information about those
companies must be disclosed in a minimal, adequate form equally accessible to
all investors. The SEC's wise decision to place such information on the
internet confirms its commitment to this principle; the proposed regulation
FD implements it still further. There is simply no justification for
allowing selective disclosure, particularly in light of the large advantage
this gives institutions over indivdual investors to act on that information,
probably in ways that skirt insider trading rules.
I must, however, write in opposition to the proposed rule "clarifying" the
scope of insider trading liability under rule 10b-5-2. The proposed rule
10b-5-2 potentially creates a morass of future litigation and uncertainty,
particularly regarding the second class of liability, that associated with
personal relationships. Under the proposed rule, anyone who receives
material inside information would be exposed to potential 10b-5 liability
based on highly fact intensive questions regarding the history, pattern and
practice of confidential communications with their intimates. There can be
no predicting how a trier of fact would evaluate the particular
relationship, a fact that would result in inconsistent results and
unpredictable outcomes.
The concept of "reasonable expectations" of privacy is also remarkably
slippery and unpredictable, as a review of the Supreme Court's Fourth
Amendment jursiprudence indicates. The result of this rule would be an in
terrorem effect, where the specter of unpredictable liability would cast its
shadow over much innocent activity. Many unsophisticated persons could be
caught in the web of 10b-5 liability. While the Commission may desire this
effect to combat the perceived problem of insider trading, I would submit
that regulation through intimidation due to adjudicatory ambiquity is not
acceptable.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Benjamin S. Lippard, Esq.
Author: Dick Littlestone at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 6:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please require full disclosure of corporate information to the public as
well as to analysts.
Dick Littlestone
806 Alma Real Drive
Pacific Palisades CA 90272
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
No, no, a thousand times no. Securities analysts should not have any
knowledge which isn't available to the public at large.....for several
reasons. First, it violates a very basic principle of America, that in
public affairs secrecy and insider backscratching are fundamentally unfair;
second there is no evidence that security analysts as a profession are any
more skilled at using corporate information to make sound investment
decisions than the public at large....in fact, quite the contrary; and
finally, it is likely to have a chilling effect on the confidence the public
has in the securities markets, with potential disastrous impact on capital
markets.
No, no, a thousand times no!
Ralph D. Lockhart
Lake Oswego, Oregon
Author: lobstuh at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
In my opinion, your proposals go neither far enough nor deep enough. You
should not impose rules against selective disclosure on reporting companies
as much you should impose them upon the financial community. Bankers,
brokers, analysts, mutual fund managers, hedge fund managers, market makers
and NYSE specialists control the movement of the markets to their own
benefit. Somehow they have anointed themselves as the supreme arbiters with
the sole ability to interpret financial and other statements that may have a
material effect on equity valuations. And the investing public and the
regulators have accepted their supremacy, usually to the detriment of
individual investors. The arrogance of the financial community is
astounding. We need complete disclosure by these people, to the extent of
10-Ms (Monthly filings) or more.
In these days of ever-increasing information technology, complete
disclosure by the financial community should be the norm. The talking
heads on TV should disclose their own positions in any equity
discussed. Mutual funds should disclose their positions at least every
week, rather than every six months. Any financial institution making any
recommendation on any equity should disclose current and planned positions
in that equity.
It becomes a question of whether the marketplace is free and open
(certainly not the case now?) or closely held by those with vested
interests in increasing their own wealth through selective disclosure.
I'm sure that you have read the following articles, but in the event you
need ready access, I have included the links.
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/04/23/stibusnws02011.html
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_14/b3675001.htm
http://www.thestreet.com/funds/herbgreenberg/920756.html
http://www.thestreet.com/comment/wrong/917242.html
http://www.wallstreetjovial.com/full_story.cfm?i=121
Thank you in advance for your efforts.
Tim Mahar
Author: Paul March at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please let me add my outrage at the supercilious and condescending notion
that analysts should be privy to information about a company that the
public may not have. It becomes harder and harder to trust our public
institutions.
Paul March
Author: Geoffrey Mark at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 7:55 PM
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, one who relies on both my own counsel as well
as that of my full service broker to make investment decisions, I would
like to express my firm distress over any sort of selective disclosure.
I welcome regulation that removes selective disclosure and requires
public companies to disclose information fully and simultaneously to
investors like myself when disclosing it to brokerages and the like.
In short, I would like to see a level playing field in the investment
information arena. I have spent countless hours over several years
educating myself about equities, bonds and foreign exchanges. Like many
others who study this for both enjoyment and potential profit, I would
like to know that I am receiving prompt, factual information at the same
time as institutional and other large investors. In fact, I believe that
increased investment education and information flow can, over time, reduce
volatility.
Thank you for your time.
Geoffrey Mark
Note: These comments are my own personal opinions and not necessarily
those of my employer or any related person or entity.
--
Geoffrey Mark LW Animator
Digital Domain 310-314-2800
gmark@d2.com Ext. 2275
Author: "John Matava" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am strongly in favor of a rule which prevents selective disclosure of
information. Selective disclosure is a small step away from insider trading.
Frankly I am appalled that this is not already illegal.
John Matava
4401 2nd NW
Seattle, WA 98107
206-784-8435
Author: "John S. May" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen:
Please seriously consider implementing the new proposed FD rules. The
market for securities on any board or exchange is made by the general
public, not analysts or professionals who issue whisper numbers about
earnings projections that they have obtained ahead of the general
public. These same analysts are not totally unbiased in their analysis
because they either make a market for the security they are commenting
upon or have other interests in mind when they add their spin to a
company's exclusive release of information.
Never underestimate the intelligence of the public. There would be no
market without the small investor. The markets cannot and should not be
permitted to be made by analysts and their institutional customers who
they are trying to please.
John S. May, Esq.
May and Metzger, LLP
49 North Duke Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is time to have new fair disclosure laws, wherein, everyone should be told
of important company information simultaneously. The days in which Wall
Street analysts get the information before the general public should be done
away with and buried in the past.
Gary McBroom
Author: "Kathy Nelson" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir:
I am merely an individual who has been a small time investor for 20 years. I
hope that you will encourage fair reporting by companies, so that selective
dissemination of information does not hurt the "little man" like me.
I appreciate your consideration of my opinion.
Bill Nelson
365 Mill Stream Trail
Muscle Shoals, Al 35661
Author: "LiamN" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 11:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir:
Please get rid of this atrocious act of corporate favoritism and welfare that is
being provided to the few. This is a democratic country where everyone should
have equal access to the people that they vote in public synonymous with we as
shareholders of any corporations that we invested asked that we get the same
access to information as Wall Streets elitist fews. To think that they are more
intelligent than us and to result in most funds trailing an index funds is proof
that they have not been performing to the best of investor interests.
Sincerely yours,
Liam Nguyen
Author: "Ryan Pape" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to show my support in favor of elimination "selective
discolsure." As an individual investor, I see NO reason why I should be
entitltled to any less "public" information than anyone else.
Ryan Pape
Austin, Tx.
Author: "Chris" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe that release of company information should not be selectively
released to analysts who will in turn give their own brokerages and their
special clients preferred treatment by releasing information to them before
the rest of investors have a chance to react to changing market conditions.
Please vote in favor of this proposed regulation. Thank you for your
consideration of my opinion.
Chris Pechal
Investor since 1972
Author: "Kathy M. Ray" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective disclosure should be a criminal offense.
Selective disclosure is like having selective disclosure in a sealed bidding
contract.
Check everybody else's bid and then make your own.
How is that different than ...
The company disclosing to selective individuals or organizations that it is
going down the toilet or has made a gold strike, etc??
Should the SEC exist to protect the stock brokers, the insititutional investor
or the citizen investor??
Get your priorities right.
Prohibit and criminalize selective disclosure.
Selective disclusure is just institutionalized insider trading.
Kathy Ray
242 Deer Run
Port Angeles, WA
Author: "Tom H. Roberts" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 7:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I stand in favor of the proposed rule.
Author: "Virginia A. Rosen" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:59 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD-File NO S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary
Securities & Exchange Comm.
Wash. DC 20549
Dear Mr. Katz:
The small investor needs a level playing field in order to participate
fully like the select priviledged few. Please support
Proposed Regulation FD.
Thank you.
Virginia A. Rosen
Burton Brook Farm Antiquarians Lakeville, Ct. 06039
Author: keith schmidt <4keith@home.com> at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
This proposal just continues to reinforce the concept that the average
citizen is not able to control his life or decisions. I STRONGLY OBJECT
TO THAT CONCEPT AND THE PROPOSED RULE.
The days when the FEW had all of the information are over. Years ago, I
needed a broker whom I could trust because I had no access to his
information. Today, with the internet, I can get 50 broker's opinions,
1000 analyst's opinions, and 10,000 opinions of other citizens. I can
contact a company directly; I can ask the company's competitors about
their view; I can get any number of statistical databases to provide
detail. Why regulate who can know what?
If the truth is not to be feared, than why not disseminate the truth as
far and wide as is possible?
Respectfully,
Keith Schmidt
Oceanside, CA
Author: "J Schneider" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:37 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Comment on Proposed Regulation FD -- File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
RE: Proposed Regulation FD -- File No. S7-31-99
Dear Commisioners:
As an individual investor, I am strongly in favor of proposed Regulation FD. In
our society, we generally believe in full disclosure whenever it does not
interfere with the rights of others, or whenever the good to be gained for the
public as a whole outweighs inconvenience to a limited group. The current
status (not prohibiting selective disclosure) places individual investors - and
other professionals not privy to the information dislosed - at a decided
disadvantage when making invesment decisions. Depending on the circumstances,
it may permit a few individuals or groups to profit unfairly due to an unequal
disclosure of information.
Requiring full disclosure seems to me to be quite consistent with the
Commission's rules on insider trading, advance disclosure of major insider
sales, and so on. I strongly urge the Commission to adopt this rule.
Thank you for your consideration of my remarks.
James R. Schneider
Author: RAJ O SHETH at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: rajosheth@yahoo.com at Internet
CC: rajosheth@juno.com at Internet
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir:
I strongly urge you to change rues which will require
companies to simultaneously disclose all information both to analyst and
public at the same time. Currently, I feel analysts has unfair advantage
of the information which they use for their selective clients. As a
shareholder of a company, who risks my capital, I must have a right to
know all pertinent information in a timely manner. Please change the
rules and ignore the arguments of analysts' who are only interested in
protecting their jobs and their clients. Stop this unfair advantage.
Thanks.
-Raj Sheth
rajosheth@juno.com
7718 Canode Drive
Amarillo, TX 79121-1008
Phone: (806) 353-5662
Author: "Jim Spell" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
A Level playing field is the American way..Investing is no longer the priviledge
of a few,but a growing venture of the citizens in this great country as witness
by the explosion of the independent investor, on-line and discount brokers.
This is the Twenty-First Century...give us open and free dissemination of
information...The average citizen looks to you for protection.. Thank
You...James A. Spell Longwood Fl. 32750
Author: Noppanunt Utamaphethai at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
it is *UNFAIR* to individual investors if selective disclosure is
implemented. i believe we are entitled to receive company's information
as we are the company's share holders or potential investors. please
*DON'T* do it.
Noppanunt Utamaphethai
Carnegie Mellon University
Author: "Larry Vacek" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:28 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To: Securities and Exchange Commission,
04/24/2000
I would like to say to the people in the SEC
that I hope the proposed regulation will get passed into law. As a
registered voter and also an investor of securities I am 110% in agreement
with this regulation and I hope and that big money lobbying will not have a
role in the decision making of this regulation. In this great country of
ours the economy is changing with the electronic age. More and more people
are making their own decision to invest in what they prefer. We need your
help to make this endeavor a successful one for the people of this great
country by eliminating the selective disclosure system. I can't help but
remember while I'm writing this what President Reagan said while he was in
office about a kinder and gentler nation. I thank you very much for your
time.
Respectfully Yours
Lawrence Vacek
11911 Berryville Rd
Rives Junction, MI. 49277
ldv@modempool.com
Author: "Frank Vigil" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:08 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe level playing field for disclosure of information is critical.
Frank Vigil
Author: "James F. Ward" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am opposed to anything less then full public access to all company
disclosures. People trading stock on insider information is wrong and
trading on limited or "priviliged" information is also wrong.
James F. Ward
3713 Galloway Lane
Carrollton, Texas 75007
Author: Phil Weaver at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:48 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
If the privileged few can't properly use and control the information
they they receive from a publically traded company, you need the rule.
If they can't use the info fairly, you need the rule. If they cause
panic or unwarrented concern by their comments, which may or may not
support a hidden agenda or prejudice, you need the rule. A publically
traded company should release information to all at the same time . . .
We can handle it, its our money!!!!! In short, you need the rule.
Author: "Tom Welsh" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I wish to add my voice in favor of this proposed change.
Sincerely,
Tom Welsh
Portland, OR
503.233.3068
Author: captain and mrs nemo at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:08 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The rebuttal by the SIA to this proposed regulation is ridiculous. They
are saying that the public having information is a bad thing, and will
make markets more volatile and put the investing public at greater risk.
This clearly is false. Providing equal information to all investors
simultaneously will not hurt ordinary investors, and is really the only
fair thing to do. Analysts have a bias because they are motivated to
help their firms make money, and their buy/sell recommendations often
reflect this. To rely on them for unbiased data is suicide. Public
companies should provide public information to the public, ALL OF THE
PUBLIC, at the same time. No preferential treatment should be
tolerated. This proposed regulation is good, honest, and fair to
everyone.
Terry Whitaker
("small" investor)
Author: "Ron Williams" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD; File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I fully support leveling the playing field so that ALL of us folks have the same
information Wall Street analysists get from corporations.
Colonel Ronald E. Williams, USAF-RET
Author: "Jerry Wright" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The purpose of this email is to express my unconditional support for the
proposed regulation described in File No. S7-31-99. I sincerely hope the SEC
will see its way to implementing this rule as it is currently defined, without
allowing it to be diluted by compromise or capitulation. A fair and equal
distribution of information to all concerned parties will serve to level the
playing field between small investors, such as myself, and large brokerages, who
now have the upper hand.
Sincerely,
Jerry M. Wright
Author: "Ralph M. Zecca Sr." at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is totally unfair, immoral and propably unconstitutional for the government
to grant such an advantage to the big investors by withholding information.
This is very close to being "Insider Trading" which is illegal. I strongly urge
you not to let this happen.
Respectfully......Ralph M. Zecca Sr.
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0424b06.htm
