Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:48 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing to encourage the adoption of the proposed ruling. After just
finishing the book, "Den Of Thieves," I can't believe that this isn't already
in the books. Unbelievable what mediocre brokers will do to protect their
jobs.
The rule, as I understand it, would require that companies no longer engage
in the practice of discreetly disclosing important information to Wall Street
analysts without also giving that information to the public at large.
People are smarter than the government gives them credit for. Losing money
fast in an options play is a quick lesson, as is trading on a "tip." Let them
use a full service broker if they need assistance, and pay the high
commissions and hard to find fees in their mutual funds. As for me, I belong
to an investment club, take time to research my investment decisions and take
full responsibility for the results.
Thank you for your time with this matter.
Sincerely,
Gail E. Smith
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the proposed change in rules that would require disclosure to the
public at the same time as analysts. This change would support the logic of
anti-insider trading laws. This special access for analysts puts them in a
position to give the information first to paying customers and thus help their
customers buy or sell in the market before the general public learns the same
news. This should be stopped.
Sincerely,
Darryl D. Spencer, Ph.D.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:32 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I favor the proposed rule change. As an individual investor, I support the
free flow of information to all who are interested.
Joy Stapp
Houston, Texas
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am taking advantage of this opportunity to provide brief comment on
Proposed Regulation FD. It is not sufficient to say simply that Wall Street
believes that individual investors are not competent to deal with the types of
information that is released from time to time to selected insiders. Many who
have serious interest in the markets now rely almost entirely on their
individual ability to reach credible, reasoned judgments about individual
investments. For those who do make such independant judgments the information
given only to analysts, generally for their benefit of their larger customers
alone, will be of real value. There seems to be significant volatility in the
markets now to disabuse anyone from believing seriously that Wall Street does
not contribute to the radical ups and downs we witness or that the volatility
could be dampened by continuing release of important inside information only to
selected Wall Street firms to the exclusion of the public. That argument might
have been valid just 5 years ago, but with the internets reach those days are
gone forever. I trust the proposed regulation will be favorably considered and
adopted.
Randolph E. Stefanson
428 South 8th St.
Moorhead, MN 56560
218-236-1941
Author: jim strong at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am very much in favor of a level playing field.
I don't want any so called "analyst" telling me what I should buy or sell,
especially after their firm has scooped up or sold large numbers of shares
of the same issues.
I am very capable of doing my own research and making my own decisions.
I highly support the proposed fair disclosure rule.
Jim Strong
Author: jan sutherland at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in support of the proposed rule requiring that companies no longer
engage in the practice of discreetly disclosing important information
to Wall Street analysts without also giving that information to the
public at large. Reasons cited as negatives by the SIA are really
protective of the analyst industry income. Providing information to the
public at large, ie, to reporters for example does nothing to expose the
populace to risk of sub intelligent analysis of this information. Nor
does it preclude the industry analysts from doing their job. The public
that pays the taxes that pay the regulators does not take kindly to this
kind of specious 'protection' by a governing body. As a private
investor, I have found not a few of the analyst reinterpretations of
company information to be untimely and in error.
Janis Sutherland
Author: "Steve Swanekamp" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: How about a level playing field
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing to you to express my dissatisfaction with the current practice of
discretely disclosing important information to Wall Street analysts before it is
released to the general public. I do my own research on the companies I choose
to invest in and I don't need or want my information filtered through some
analyst who really doesn't have my best interests at heart. I am also appalled
at the practice of discretely releasing information to institutional investment
firms before it is released to the general public. It is unfair to the
individual investor for these institutions to make key investment decisions
based on this information that is not yet available to the general public. So I
urge you to change these rules so that the market place is fair for everyone and
not just some "good old boy" network of insiders. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Dr. Stephen Swanekamp, Ph.D.
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC 20375
Author: "Craig Swanson" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:37 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
Individual investors are more informed than ever before.
My broker does not ferret out negative information on companies.
I am totally self-reliant for investing research. All of my research is
obtained via the web.
I am in favor of levelling the playing field.
Craig Swanson
Author: Ed Sward at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:19 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: news@fool.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support this proposed fair and complete disclosure regulation. Why do we
not have that practiced now?
Ed Sward, PhD
Interlink Marketing Corp. dba SMG/interlink
972-985-0883 972-985-3252 (Fax)
Visa, MasterCard, Discover accepted
http://www.smglink.com
Author: "GARY SZILAGYI" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: analysts
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please note that I am a pharmacists--do you think that I'm smart enough to
handle your medicines but not intelligent enough to analyze information from
companies??
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed REgulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
In comment to the "experts" opinion that the public can not read a
prospectus and understand them is pure poppycock. The same information that
brokers get should be the information that an individual investor can get.
It is our money and we need to be able to get the correct data to know if we
want to invest in a company or not.
Brokers will always have a place for those who don't want the responsibility
of controling their money. I personally do a better job than a lot of so
called "experts."
Please leave all information public. It is our money.
Marilyn Taggart, yes, I am a Motley Fool supporter.
Author: Robert Tam at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hello--
Analysts are a bunch of morons. A blanket statement. Yes. Inaccurate?
Well, it's safe/scary to say that it's more valid than not. And analysts
contributing to the stability of the market? Then please kindly explain
the turmoil that we encountered the last couple of weeks. Oh, you're
saying that analysts can't control the market. I see. Then, how do they
make it more stable? And how do you measure the following statement as
quoted from SEC documents?
"We believe that communications between [a company] and individual
analysts or small groups of analysts contribute to the overall mix of
information in the marketplace, greater accuracy of market prices, less
volatility and, in general, greater efficiency...."
With the SEC so fixated on data, I would like to see some in support of
the quote given above. Of course, there are a slew of ways to pick apart
the statement as well, which I will simply not do for the sake of
avoiding another dissertation, but to benefit the second-graders out
there just learning to construct their first arguments, this would be an
excellent example of how NOT to write a paper.
Of course, as such learned people from the SEC, graduating from such
noble institutions such as Harvard, Yale or Princeton, you believe that
you're intellectually superior to the teeming masses of commoners and
can pull whatever stuff from their behinds and have everyone accept it.
Well, just in case you haven't been humbled by God yet, let's pour a
dose of sobering reality on the wool over your eyes. YOU'RE NOT SMARTER!
And frighteningly enough, you might even be down a couple notches on the
IQ totem pole. From a lot of people. You're richer? Yeah, so. It doesn't
make you any less dumb. Or ugly. But I'm digressing...
Bottom line: no one should be privy to special info. It certainly
doesn't benefit the stock market if the analysts gain access to hidden
secrets. Well, maybe except for the fund managers of the same financial
institution.
Thanks for hearing me out.
Regards,
Rob
Author: "Dan Trubow" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please make the playing field level for all and require that companies provide
information equally to all, and at the same time!
This law will make a very valuable contribution to openness between investors
and the companies they own, and cutout the middlemen who use the information for
their own profit first and foremost.
If I relied on using proprietary and non public information to earn a living, I
wouldn't support a rule that took away this obvious benefit to me. Yet, what
real benefit am I providing the public, what am I contributing to gross national
product? In all sincerity, I must admit - nothing!
If you enact the regulation, it can only serve to make our investing society
more productive, and allow investors to better understand the companies in which
they own minority shareholdings.
Daniel B. Trubow
Private Investor
Author: "John J. Ulmer" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hi, I'm an individual investor, and I'd like to voice my support of Proposed
Regulation FD (S7-31-99). I do pour over prospecti and periodic reports. I
take responsibility for my own investing. Why must the SIA lobbyists for the
established financial community make the claim that "it hardly needs saying that
analysts perform a necessary and valuable function in the US Capital Markets"?
Because too many of us have taken back control of our financial futures! I'm
sure it must be disconcerting for the full-service brokerages to hear us say
"no, thank you," but they will always have a few years of unemployment insurance
to help them squeeze by between being turned out penniless on the street and
finding new employment. The financially Wise must take hope! For example, I
just saw a "now hiring" sign at Walmart, and that would give them the
opportunity to experience the joy of actually adding value to society, instead
of continuing the disgusting parasitical half-life they are experiencing now.
Thanks,
John Ulmer
Author: "Ouida Jo Vincent M.D." at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: disclosing information to the public
------------------------------- Message Contents
i have come to realize that the only entity that has an active interest
in my financial well-being is me. (it certainly is not a brokerage
house) many public forums exist to dissect information once it becomes
available, but it is important that that information become available in
a timely fashion. i reject the notion that information disclosed first
to analysts is some how spin free by virtue of having been disclosed to
analysts first; if anything the torque has been increased. i have only
to look at brokerage houses that establish positions in a stock then
unload that stock on their clients. it is up to the individual investor
to find the stocks worth having and we can only do that through the
timely and even release of information. after visiting the sec website
i thought that total disclosure was the law of the land. i'm sad that
it's not.
ouida vincent
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:24 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern,
In my opinion, all information about any company should be made available to
the public at the time it is made available to the analysts. A 'staged'
release of information actually tends to proliferate errors on the part of
individual investors as they are then operating on little or incorrect
information.
The theory that information should be available only to those 'qualified' to
interpret said information is ridiculous. Any investment carries the
responsibility of due diligence. Without the availability of accurate and
timely information, an investor may believe he is completing due diligence
when in reality is operating on outdated or inaccurate information.
Analysts are human. They are capable of making mistakes. Just like doctors,
lawyers, carpenters or any other human being. I have the right to make the
choice whether or not to act on any particular analyst's opinion. It is my
responsibility to interpret information whether it comes from an analyst or
'the horse's mouth'.
To decree that timely information only be available to the analyst society is
tantamount to withholding information and manipulating the general public.
That, to me, is completely manipulative and probably, in the long run,
illegal. If you want us to play the game,..........we have a right to the
rules as well as any other information related to the game. My guess is that
many analysts are just as 'smart' as the rest of us.
Tom Voorheis
Author: "Ron Waldron" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:16 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Lets get serious about getting company financial information out to ALL of
the public, not just selected analysts and brokers.
I do my own investment research, managing a 10 stock portfolio worth roughly
$700K. I use a long term buy and hold approach and do not need some broker
to 'churn' my account for me. The SAI position on this is blatantly biased
against single investors such as me. If the analysts which they represent
are so expert at what they do why should they need exclusive or advanced
information to do it?
I am not in competition with the so-called professionals, except for my own
business. But if the companies in which I have ownership have public
information to dispense, I want to know it as soon as everyone else. I can
handle it.
To do otherwise is to do me and the rest of our 45% investing American
public a disservice. I know the SEC does not want to do that.
Sincerely,
Ron Waldron
Author: "Tony Walsh" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 5:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
My sense of fairness and equity is assaulted by the findings of the Ad
Hoc Working Group on Proposed
Regulation FD and the Legal and Compliance Division of the Securities
Industry Association ("SIA").
I believe, that in the spirit of full disclosure and equitable treatment
of the public, that publicly-traded companies
should disclose all information to the public, and NOT to a select group
of individuals. I fully support
Proposed Regulation FD, and submit that a combination of the Internet,
wire services, and the like would be a
reasonable mechanism to achieve full disclosure to the public.
Please support Proposed Regulation FD.
sincerely,
Tony Walsh
individual investor
--
Author: Bob Whitney at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:03 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: PRPOSED REGULATION
------------------------------- Message Contents
PROPOSED REGULATION FD: FILE NO. S7-31-99
I believe the general public deserves more direct information than they
now get. It always appears that insiders get info that the general
retail investor could use but is not privy to. This should be changed.
Robert L. Whitney
La Mirada, CA
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 4:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: s7 31 39
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please PASS this rule.
Give everyone the same opportunity to recieve information at the
same time. This is the USA.
Phil Williamson
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of the public having the same access to company information as
the Wall Street Analysts.
Col Ralph I. Williams (US Army Retd)
6609 Willow Tree Circle NW
Lawton, OK 73505-5629
Author: "Tom Wilson" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I've actually read most of this. I laughed out loud when I read:
"It hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary
and very valuable function in the U.S. capital market.
They, together with the media, are the principal way in
which important financially significant information (including
information contained in prospectuses and reports filed
with the Commission) effectively reaches most investors
and gets reflected in the marketplace. "
( II C. "Analyst's Perspective")
Well, in my opinion it hardly needs saying becasuse it IS NOT TRUE.
Analysts are not public servants. They do not provide a particularly
valuable service to anyone. If analysts are so smart, then why do most
mutual funds perform worse than the market? Don't they hire analysts?
The role of the individual investor is becoming increasingly important.
Individual investors are NOT the stupid sheep that analysts would have you
believe. It is my opinion that investment professionals, because of their
roles in the industry, are not particularly good sources of information. Why
anyone would consider providing them with special access to information is
completely beyond me. You want to see market volatility? Then turn the
market over to professional analysts! This rule is a terrible idea.
Tom Wilson
Mjolner Group
Author: "Stephen F. Woodberry" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
TO: Steve Woodberry Work at Internet
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Ladies and Gentleman of the SEC:
As one of several million individual investor in the stock market, I
think it is unconscionable that a select group of "analysts" are allowed
preferential access to vital company information prior to disclosure to
the rest of the market. This results in an uneven playing field that
definitely gives an appearance of improper activity and the potential for
conflict of interest. Who prevents these analysts from making personal
or business related market decisions based on provided information?
I must say that I feel more than a little put out by Securities Industry
Association (SIA) comments like:
"We believe that communications between [a company] and individual
analysts or small groups of analysts contribute to the overall mix of
information in the marketplace, greater accuracy of market prices, less
volatility and, in general, greater efficiency...." I am sure your
office is aware of the volatility over the past several weeks. Why
didn't the "individual analysts or small groups of analysts" prevent
this? As an accomplished nuclear physicist with a significant
background in mathematics, I have little problem understanding the
numbers on a balance sheet or quarterly report.
Is it true that, the "alternative model of millions of individual
investors and potential investors poring over prospecti and periodic
reports is highly theoretical and out of sync with the real world"?
Why? Does your office believe that the American people are not smart
enough to make their own decisions based on the facts presented?
I have a hard time believing that analysts "perform a necessary and
valuable function in the U.S. capital markets." Every time I listened
to an "expert analyst," these results significantly under performed the
Indexes. After a few of these experiences, I decided to my own research
and have faired much better. I believe analysts who set "targets
prices" usually have their own self interest at heart.
I want to thank you for taking the time to let me voice my opinion, and
hope your office does the right thing. Do not continue to let companies
dribble out bits of information to select analysts.
Sincerely,
Stephen F. Woodberry
Author: "Gregory C. Young" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Free the information. Allowing this release of information will reduce the
coruption in the market and will let people who care judge information with
their own minds. Besides an investment point of view public companies should
report public information to whoever requests it. Thank you for considering my
opinion.
Greg Young
Author: "Gerryz" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I respectfully request that you adopt this regulation.
The practice of disclosing important information only to analysts in counter
productive to an open market policy. After all, the investor (shareholder) has
the right to know. I have read comments by those against this regulation
(analyst's lobby) that this would make the market more volatile. Really! Have
you seen what happens to a stock when an analyst downgrades a stock or upgrades
a stock. Many times for the benefit of their firm. The individual investor has
as much if not more right to be privy to this information. Remember, it is the
investor who will put up his money not the analyst. The analyst's can still
make their recommendations, but the individual investor can more accurately
assess the stock by virtue of having the same information available to him.
Although many people will still rely on the analyst opinion, at least we'll have
that option.
Sincerely,
Gerald Zuziak CPA
Author: Tal Abell at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:07 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The public comments of April 6, 2000, by The Ad Hoc Working Group on
Proposed Regulation FD and the Legal and Compliance Division of the
Securities Industry Association represents some of the most convoluted
logic I've ever read. Unfortunately, some of the most unscrupulous
managers and spin doctors (from which the SIA claims to protect us), are
employed within the analysts' firms, as clearly demonstrated by their own
public comments! When I invest, I make no bones about serving anyone but
myself; it is disingenuous, at best, for the SIA to claim otherwise for
themselves.
The growth in online trading with its attendant flow of information has
had a huge impact on the U.S. economy. This fact alone argues strongly
in favor of a "level playing field" for investment information. I do not
need the analysts "mitigating individual knee-jerk reactions to specific
information". Give me free access to the information and I'll take care
of my own knees.
I support adoption of the proposed regulation.
T.L. Abell
11002 Donora Lane
Cincinnati, OH 45240
tal.abell@mail.com
Author: Shawn Allen at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Get on with it and pass the rule for equal access to information.
No more sharing secrets with analysts when the information is not made
public.
Thanks!.
Shawn Allen, a retail investor and quite a good amature analyst too.
Author: Clark Anderson at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:58 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: PROPOSED REGULATION FD: FILE NO.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of open dialogue in all areas, and believe
that this regulation would help myself and the general
public.
Clark Anderson
Longmont Co.
clark03@sprynet.com
Author: "Vasant Apte" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:25 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir/Madam,
I as a shareholder and active participant in stock market, deserve the same
rights to information as the analysts.
What I do after I get the information is my decision.
This country has always favored freedom and openess. In that spirit and
acknowledging the inteliigence of ordinary investors, I would request you to
make into law the propsal of equal access to company information.
Thank You
Vasant Apte
Ordinary Individual Investor
Author: Derek Au at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern,
Regarding Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
I am an individual investor who recently decide to "try my luck" as well
as analytical skills and apply them towards making investment decisions
in the stock market. In the short amount of time that I have been trying
this it has become excruciatingly clear that Accurate (unbiased),
Complete and TIMELY information about the companies under consideration
can make a large difference in investment decisions. To this end I would
like to state that I fully support the Proposed Regulation referenced
above.
I have read excerpts from articles addressing both the pros and cons or
the regulation and will admit that the overall near term effect on the
stock market is not clear. However, I do think that eventually this
regulation will actually be healthy for the market as a whole.
The underlying current in the investment community is that there is a
small group of individuals (analysts) which are privy to information
that is not available to the public at large. Either they get
information that is not generally released or they get the information
sooner than everyone else. This leads to an atmosphere or manipulation
and conspiracy. Now whether this situation actually exists or not is not
the point, but, this underlying current does cause investors to listen
to rumor and speculation which ultimately may drive investment
decisions. Investment decisions based on rumor and speculation will
ultimately lead to higher volatility and more speculative stock prices.
With a regulation that levels the playing field in terms of information
exchange, I think that investors will be less likely to make decisions
on rumor since they will have the facts in hand and at the same time as
everyone else.
While it is true that wall street analysts, in general, have more of the
knowledge, background and experience needed to "read between the lines"
of a release from a corporate entity, I believe that a large portion of
the individual investment community are also capable of performing these
analyses. Besides, if the information is supposed to be public knowledge
then why shouldn't it be distributed equally? I for one have a hard time
stomaching the fact that analysts and individuals who are "connected" to
the business community have an inherent advantage over me in terms of
information. I can hardly believe that this advantage would not be used
to their best interests and possibly at my expense.
Best Regards,
Derek C. Au
VP/CFO Technovare Systems Inc., a privately held California corporation.
Author: "Edmund L. Auchter" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As individuals, I and my wife, who own securities as individuals and in
some cases jointly resent the securities position that we are not able
or willing to make our own investment decisions. We welcome and
appreciate the advice of those who make obtaining and assessing the
relevent market and corporate information their life's work; but in the
end we must make our own decisions. We therefore feel no organization,
person, or group has a right to withhold information from us,
particularly actively and in order to allow misrepresentation to gain a
competitive advantage over their own "clients". This would be the
literal definition of "insider trading" regardless of whether it was the
"legal" definition. It would also be form of professional misconduct, to
the extent that securities professionals are truly "professionals".
The attempt to amintain a level playing field for all investors should
be maintained.
Edmund and Anne Auchter
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: RE: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
This memo is to request you add my name to the list of supporters for the
proposed regulation FD.
I am active in the stock market and feel that I deserve to be permitted fair
disclosure of all information released for publicly traded companies. I can
evaluate this information and make my own decisions.
Jerry Avallone-Milpitas CA 95035
Author: zaid awni at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am an individual investor that strongly in favor of "leveling the
fields" and allowing me to have access to the same information
analyst receive.
zaid awni
Author: "Christopher B" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
No more selective disclosure on such an important issue as MY MONEY!
Christopher Babula
Author: "Don Bakos" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:26 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
If it is the SIA's opinion that I need protection from my own ignorance or lack
of expertise, communications of SIA members should be heard by the public. I
(the public)would then have the opportunity to witness the intelligent questions
of SIA members and earnest responses of the firms they are querying, and thus
appreciated by me (the lay, passive, "ride along" individual investor). It just
may be that what SIA is professing is the truth, and their expertise would be
there for us "passengers" to understand and respect in awe.
But the performance of 80% of "professional" mutual fund managers tells me that
they are either short on talent, self interested, or corrupt.
Open the dialogue. The only harm would be the handedness and truth, and that is
your function to assure in the first place.
Respectfully,
Don Bakos
Don Bakos
Daum Commercial
Real Estate Services
Newport Beach
949-724-1900
dbakos@home.com
Author: "William Barbieri" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support and hope you pass the proposed regulation FD. The fact that
it is still legal for publicly traded companies to discriminate against their
shareholders by providing information to certain analysts ahead of the rest of
the market is a travesty, and creates an unnecessary inefficiency in what
otherwise in one of the greatest efficient markets in the real world, the U.S.
stock markets.
Sincerely
William Barbieri
individual investor
Author: CarolBobFromNV@webtv.net (Bob & Carol Benjamin) at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:47 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: file No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am a retired person who performs his own investment research... Being
deprived of pertinent investor informatin could prove costly and have an
adverse effect on my retirement status... Please consider the needs of
individual investors in your deliberations...
Thank You,
Bob Benjamin
Author: "Daphne A Bladen" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Madams and Sirs,
In their public comments dated April 6 of this year, the SIA appears to be
maintaining that the general and public release of "financially significant"
information by companies, by circumventing the usual practice of releasing
certain information into the hands of a select group, in this case Wall Street
analysts, would be detrimental to the stock market and to the investing public
at large. Among their comments, they mention that the access to information
gleaned from "changes in choice of words or tone of voice" allows analysts to
"ferret out" information from the companies.
It is my contention that it is against the character and intent of the United
States economy to release information into the hands of a select group, who may
then choose to interpret this information before deciding on its release to the
general public. Furthermore, it disturbs me greatly that the people who, in
their professional capacity, should be most adept at analysing the information
released, are claiming an advantage based on "changes in choice of words or tone
of voice". If this is indeed so, then I should think their jobs would be better
filled by people whose profession it is to study human behavior, not businesses.
This is in no way to disparage the great number of thoughtful, intelligent
analysts who, by reason of their education and experience, will always serve a
much-needed function as interpreters of the reams of data released daily by
corporations, and who, by the same reason, will be more well-equipped to
understand the ramifications of that information than most individual investors.
However, I can see no reason to claim that it will be to their detriment or to
the detriment of the economy to allow that information to be released to the
public at large. Nor can I see how it is to the benefit of the individual
investor to have reliable corporate information withheld. Although I would be
the first to admit that an hour spent, say, in Bill Gates' company would
undoubtedly provide me with insight about Microsoft that could not be gained,
possibly, though any other means, I have a hard time viewing the highly
subjective "information" that may be gained from a change in voice or expression
as reliable information. Perhaps the management just had a bad morning.
In reply to the fear that the public release of information may lead to
knee-jerk reactions, there is certainly the possibility of that, just as there
are knee-jerk, and sometimes unwarranted, reactions to the statements of the
analysts. In the case of a piece of information that is so overwhelming that it
could, in fact, cause a widespread reaction, it seems to me that this is
precisely the kind of information that should not be kept from the public. If
we, the investors, do not have the right to timely release of significant
information, who, may I ask, does?
I thank you for your time. Sincerely,
Daphne A. Bladen
Author: "Van Blakeman" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:36 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The comments by "The Ad Hoc Working Group..." are extraordinarily arrogant
and self-serving. What they say might be synonymous to a consortium of banks
suggesting that their customers should not be allowed to know anything about
their payees because they cannot balance their checkbooks. What?
Please level this playing field.
Thank you, Van Blakeman, private Buy and Hold investor
Author: Ben Blevins at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject:
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC:
As a small investor, the opinion of an analyst should not
be our only source of information about a company's
financial status. The information that is being held only
among the elite should be shared with all. This edge the
market analysts have is inside information.
It is un-American and must be stopped.
Ben Blevins
Investor and Student
In response to:
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:17 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 subject regulation which would
promote fair disclosure of information by publicly traded companies to the
public.
Individual investors should have the same timely access to information
released by publicly traded companies as do analysts. Based upon the
investment web-sites to which I subscribe, individual investors such as
myself do pore over prospectuses and periodic reports to assess our
portfolios and opportunities.
Thank You,
Don Bolvin
10255 Greenbrier Road #317
Minnetonka, MN 55305
Author: Neal Brazel at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hi,
Just to add my vote:
Freedom of information is a cornerstone of U.S civil policy but this
does not seem to apply to financial markets as they stand.
The proposed regulatiuon would go a long way to addressing this
disparity.
Please go ahead,
You have the support of the U.S. Citizenry,
Regards,
Neal Brazel
(Just another Individual Investor playing on a rigged field)
Author: "Dan'L Bridges" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 6:48 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
In comment to this rule:
I am an attorney and what the media enjoys referring to as an "individual
investor." I make all of my own investment decisions and place orders on line. I
am not a day trader; I buy and hold.
I am appalled that a select view are given information that directly impacts my
investments as is presently allowed. Those few "professional" analysts argue
that I, a mere individual investor, cannot adequately comprehend such
information. That is absurd. I suspect that in regard to the companies I hold I
can understand that information as well as they can.
In short, the most direct effect of allowing limited, and what would otherwise
be considered wholly "insider" information to be disseminated to a limited few,
is that the "professional" analysts take the inside information thus provided
and in turn provide that information for a fee to their clients.
The motivation for objection by professional analysts to open disclosure is not
that the market will become more volatile by the disclosure of such information
nor that we, the individual investors, cannot understand it. Rather, it is
because with full disclosure they no longer have the commodity of information
known by only a few. It is that commodity of information that they use to make a
profit, either directly through selling research reports or indirectly by
keeping commission paying investors paying those commissions for access to such
reports and thereby insider information.
It is simply no defense that the information ultimately trickles, or is
filtered, the public. Again, no person would deny that it is not simply
information that is paramount, it is timely information that is key. I concede
that such information is ultimately leaked to the public but only after the
professionals have profited from it, both directly and vicariously through their
clients and their retention of fee paying clients. Time is a commodity every bit
as much as information and indeed money directly.
The core of this country is the concept of equal opportunity. We do not
guarantee equal results or benefits, but at least all have the opportunity to
achieve any result. Limited disclosure of information substantially degrades
that opportunity. No person would deny that in investing, information is
opportunity. When information is limited, opportunity is limited. When
information is denied for a time, opportunity is again no less limited. And
indeed, once sufficient time passes, no amount of post hoc disclosure can cure
the loss. The present mode of limited disclosure of clearly material information
is contrary to every concept of fairness our citizens hold dear, and which our
government, and the SEC, have a duty to protect.
I urge that you adopt rules to mandate full disclosure and to stop this form of
legalized insider trading.
Dan'L W. Bridges
2601 North Alder Street
Tacoma, WA 98407-0127
(253) 759-9500
Author: Joseph Brindisi at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:35 PM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I urge you to insure that fair disclosure exists in the stock market rather
than selective disclosure for institutional investors.
Joseph Brindisi
Email: jbrind@altera.com
Author: "David J. Brummond" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC:
I am individual investor who on numerous occasions has been denied equal access
to critical information about IPO's and other important developments related to
a company's performance and strategic direction. I strongly urge that you
promulgate rules prohibiting limited disclosure of critical financial
information by company management.
Thank you.
David J. Brummond
Author: Thomas Buccelli at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I wish to express my support for this new regulation which
would require companies to be more open with information to
the general public. Limiting information to a few analysts
limits the flow of information and allows certain parties
to have greater knowledge in trading, prior to the general
public. Analysts may comment that they keep the market from
stable, but is it stable in their favor? Even if the calls
were available on a listen-only basis, at least the "public"
would be on a more level playing field.
Thomas Buccelli
Author: ME at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. s731-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please approve the above regulation. Thank you.
Eugene Buczynski
Individual Investor
Author: Christopher Busbea at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:03 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Unlike the analysts who make their money telling "us" what to buy, I
think that this rule should be passed. I have had my share of business
courses, read my share of financial information, and used the
information that I have gleaned from all of these myriad sources to make
the best decision on my investments that I possibly could. If I could
have access to some of the information that has been witheld from me and
other individual investors, maybe I could do a little better. Who
knows? I would like to give it a shot. I may not have the MBA that
some of these analysts have, but who's to say that I can't garnish a
little bit of info that could help me out in the long run? Please pass
this rule.
Christopher Busbea
Author: Paul Bussey at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulationFD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a purchasing professional, I am bound to the standard that all bidders
be afforded the SAME information. I can suffer legal consequences for
behavior that is otherwise. Why shouldn't the securities industry have to
live with the same ethics that I naturally do? I can't selectively disclose
information to bidders, why should companies be allowed to selectively
disclose important information to analyst, who selectivly disclose that
information to their closest clients ( Those with the most money) I have
much more at risk than the wealthy client, as risk is a function of wealth.
Fair disclosure is a must. Paul F. Bussey
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support the adoption of the above proposed regulation.
Jean Camy
Danville, CA
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0420b04w.htm
