Author: John/Linda Blanco at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 6:41 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Commissioners,
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
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen-
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
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
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
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
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
close."
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
chip@synchronicity.com
Author: Elaine at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 12:21 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
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.
Sincerely,
Elaine Deras
Author: "Doug Esker" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 12:02 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
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
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
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".
Sincerely.
Kent B. Gaufin
Individual Investor
Author: Bill Giles at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 2:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: enforcement@sec.gov at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The Honorable Authur Levitt
Chairman
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
ways.
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).
Sincerely
Bill Giles
Houston,TX
bgiles2@ix.netcom.com
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
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
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!!
Sincerely,
Charles C. Glasgow III
Economic victim of the U.S. Government
charles_glasgow@mindspring.com
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
one.
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
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
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
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
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
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
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
Chicago
upsw1@aol.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 12:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
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
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
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.
Thanks
Didier Pillonel
Euroipo.com
Author: "Mark W. Wright" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 12:18 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
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
markw.wright@att.net
Author: "Myung-Sung Yoon" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 11:16 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject:
------------------------------- 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
