Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:42 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Regarding the fair disclosure of information by publicly traded companies to
the public I would simply like to give my quick take on the matter.
First, let me say that after only 2 years of experience in the stock market,
it's become very obvious the fortunes of the individual investor are very
closely tied to the "words of wisdom" and "guidance" of the few major players
in the market. It comes as no surprise that these same players are fighting
vigorously to protect the control that they've had for so long. The problem
is that once democracy and freedom hits the masses, it's hard to take
back......but that's exactly what they're attempting to do.
I find it hard to swallow that I as an individual in the United States of
America have to have my hand held and guided ( to the tune of high
commissions, etc. ) when trying to make investment decisions. Individuals
have the RIGHT to make their own mistakes and to also prosper by making
informed and smart decisions on their own. Where was the hand holding when
we elected Bill Clinton to office? ( sorry, that was off-topic )
The point is that it's become very obvious that analysts today already wield
too much power. The individual trader has recently been blamed for "momentum
trading" and "excessive speculation" in the market. Time and time again I've
heard the warnings about the bubble in the market...i.e. P/E ratios beyond
comprehension. However, it's not the individual investor that has continued
to raise price targets on some of these stocks to "200" or "300" or even
"1000".........my god, it's these same analysts that say we need to trust
them with this privy information. Yahoo gets a price target of
500.......nevermind they're not even gonna earn 50 cents this year. If
anything it's been that the individual trader has put TOO MUCH trust in the
analysts' viewpoints and words of wisdom.
Is it the analysts such as the one at Jeffries that just recently almost
halved his price targets for many of the ISP's that we're supposed to trust?
I think not. It's my view that the more information that gets out to as many
people as possible, the better we'll all be in the long run. People will
learn on their own who to trust and when. Perhaps some will learn they
should put their investment trust in more capable hands, and perhaps some
will learn that they're pretty good at doing it themselves. Afterall,
that's what it's all about.
I say information in publicly traded companies should be just
that.........PUBLIC. Let the investors decide for themselves who best
disseminates and analyzes that information. Please do not let the power of a
few decide the fate of many. The marketplace is changing for the better and
there is certainly still room for the brokers and analysts to play a
significant role. I'll be the first to say there's plenty of new traders in
the market that should let someone else manage their money for them. However,
that's not for anyone else to decide but them.
I hope you will make a wise and informed decision regarding this legislation
and consider what's in the best interest of ALL investors and citizens of
this democracy.
Best regards,
Bret Morris
BMo2U@aol.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:04 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I should like to make some brief comments on the SIA's filing comments
regarding Proposed Regulation FD: My comments are in red letters
"We believe that communications between [a company] and individual analysts co
ntribute to a re-balancing of information into the marketplace, which does
not necessarily create greater accuracy of market prices, and assures that
the resulting volatility and, in general, greater efficiency is then
specifically directed to benefit and favor those individual analysts and
their employers ....
"It hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary and very valuable
function in the U.S. capital market and that function is in demand by a
certain segment of the investing public, which segment should not be more
advantaged because of the early exclusivity of information. Should that
information be divulged universally, all segments of the public will be able
to glean and apply that which is most valuable to them in making their
investment decisions. Yes, they can elicit some facts, they can eliminate
management "spin," they can bring their expertise to the analysis, and they
can give the markets rapid guidance as to the significance of new
information, thereby mitigating individual knee-jerk reactions to specific
information. However; whenever one segment of the public is privileged with
early information; those facts, that unfair early analysis and the resulting
"spin" will often be used against the investing public at large.
"The proposal could result in issuers . . . . . . . insisting on sessions at
regular intervals open to a number of analysts, with listen-only access to
the media and the public. . . . . . . . . analysts . . . . . . . will be ?? r
eluctant ?? to ask questions in an open session that tip off their
competitors as to the direction of their thinking or information that they
think would be meaningful. If the questions cannot be asked in private, they
may not be asked at all. Is that good for the market?" Indeed, those
questions will still be asked, either by those "no longer privileged
analysts" or by some other participant in the open sessions that will
invariably result.
Further, I do not necessarily believe that it is true that analysts spend
much of their time ferreting out negative information about companies.
Oftentimes their comments appear to be derived from what eventually becomes
commonly available information. Indeed as that information is released
privily to one or a few analysts, one can rest assured that it is being used
to position the privileged parties ahead of the common market activity.
I urge you to make necessary changes such that all important and relevant
information pertaining to publically traded companies will become commonly
and simultaneously available to all market participants. This restructure
will indeed free the actions of all participants and assure a more orderly
and "fair" market activity.
Sincerely,
Blaine W. Nichols
487 W. Weaver Lane
Layton, Utah 84041
Author: "Jean & Lester" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:34 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The time has come to change this corrupt system of providing knowledge first to
those who have a conflict of interest. Information should be equally
distributed. The investing public wants to research and learn. We are not
stupid serfs. The present system allows the wealthy to buy and sell equities
first, before the public has an opportunity to know what is going on. Change
this unfair system.
Jean and Lester Norberg
Author: "MIKE OSWEILER" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 3:43 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing to give my support to Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99. As
I understand it, this rule would require publicly traded companies to
simultaeneously divulge information to both investment firm analysts and the
public at large.
Thank you
Mike C. Osweiler
mosweiler@earthlink.net
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:55 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I urge you to implement this proposed regulation. Selective disclosure allows
analysts and institutional investors to act on insider information, while
harming individual investors. It is time we eliminate these corrupt and
unfair practices. Without clear, concise and enforced rules, these
institutions will continue to profit at the expense of individual investors
and market stability.
Best Regards,
Dawn Page
Author: Jack Pantelias at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:03 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe we need this rule to be approved.
Sincerely,
J Pantelias
Author: "Parker" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Mr. Levitt and SEC Members,
I wholeheartedly support the proposed regulation for fair disclosure. The
implementation of this regulation is a victory for ALL investors.
Becky Parker
Student/Investor
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:11 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
------------------------------- Message Contents
I, AS AN INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR, WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER MY STRONG
SUPPORT FOR
THE CONCEPT OF " LEVEL PLAYING FIELD" AND WOULD SUBMIT THAT MANY
INDIVIDUALS
(ALBEIT NOT THE MAJORITY) ARE QUITE CAPABLE OF ANALYSING FINANCIAL
DATA AND
FORMING THEIR OPINIONS. THE ANALYSTS ARE EMPLOYED BY THE BIG
BROKERAGE FIRMS
AND AS SUCH MUST HAVE THEIR FIRST LOYALTY TO THOSE FIRMS AND NOT TO
THE
INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL TRADER. I SIMPLY CAN NOT TRUST THEM. ROSS
PARSAI
Author: "Patterson; Kevin" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:37 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I, as an individual investor, believe that this regulation is essential to
having a level playing field where anyone who desires to can make their own determinations
as to a company's prospects as an investment. Analysts are of no help to me
whatsoever, and to allow company's to make disclosures that are important to every
investor (or potential investor) only to analysts means that importatnt information is
not getting to the people who need it most -- the shareholders. I disagree with the
notion that analysts do an adequate job of "ferreting" out negative information. (The
next time I hear an analyst give a "sell" rating will be the first!) And I'm insulted
by the notion that individual investors "poring over prospectuses and periodic
reports is highly theoretical and out of sync with the real world." I do and so do
other serious investors. If anything, we should be working to ensure that more people do
the same, rather than relying on "analysts".
Proposed Regulation FD should be the law.
Kevin Patterson
Author: "Pgratia" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:01 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
RE: Proposed Regulation FD
As an individual investor, I am interested in seeing an equal playing field for
all investors, not just the Wall Street elite. In that interest I strongly urge
the SEC to support a democratic system of information dissemination that gives
all of us access to news by companies traded publicly.
For years, my portfolio was "managed" by a Wall Street professional, who put my
money into stocks that were lucky to be making a three to five percent annual
gain. I blindly trusted that he was managing my money wisely and only woke up
one day when I was studying my balance sheet and noticed that I was invested
heavily in a stock whose annual gain was 1.5%. I called this broker, and asked
why we didn't simply put the money in a savings account. He wisely informed me
that we were building a portfolio. I asked him to remove it from the portfolio
at once. (Since I removed that stock from my portfolio, that stocks has
decreased approximately 8%.) This is only one example. For this service I was
paying a monthly maintenance charge of about one per cent of my balance, in
addition to an enormous fee should he decide to make any trades. He also had a
large portion of my portfolio invested in his own company's mutual fund, which
is, in fact, one of the poorest performers of all the funds, showing less than
10% gain in good years and more than 10& loss in other years, averaging about a
break-even point over the past six years that I owned it. When I actually woke
up and dug into the numbers, I was shocked. I became determined to become
proficient at understanding how to invest wisely and profitably.
I would like very much to think that I could turn this portfolio over to a
professional who would take care of it for me. This would leave me to tend to
my own profession. However, after talking to dozens of friends and associates
who also invest, I have learned that finding a broker who will actually work
hard for them, is more difficult than highly unlikely without having
substantially more money to invest than I have. I understand that if my
portfolio were worth millions of dollars, I would be more likely to find a
competent broker. As it is, I intend to manage my money by myself rather than
trusting it again to someone who may not shepherd it properly.
I simply had not really paid attention to these matters before thinking that I
was in good hands and therefore should leave the decision-making to a
professional. Since last October, when I took matters into my own hands, I have
increased my portfolio by 20 per cent. I didn't make a lot of changes at once.
I made changes gradually as I studied and learned how to find solid
high-performing companies. Had I changed the entire portfolio all at once in
October, I would have increased its value by about 40%. But I am conservative
and cautious.
I buy primarily Nasdaq stocks and I study the information myself and do
extensive research before choosing the stocks that I purchase. In fact, I
consider the condescending arguments in favor of maintaining their current
status by the Ad Hoc Working Group, to be highly insulting and erroneous.
Throughout the middle of March, I listened to pundit after pundit on CNBC
telling me to buy stock at a time that the market was actually crashing. If I
had listened to these analysts, I would still be seeing a tremendous loss in my
portfolio. If their ability to interpret information were indeed so far
superior to mine, why were they pumping a bear market?
I am probably a fairly typical individual investor. I do not have a degree in
economics or business. I don't always know how to interpret data but continue
to study and learn and would tend to rate myself both aggressive and
conservative. I buy primarily tech stocks but don't just throw my money at any
up and coming thing. I look for excellent revenues and forward projections and
study company growth patterns and management strength. I use the Wall Street
Journal and Investors Business Daily, as well as online sites including, but not
limited to The Motley Fool. From my study of technical analysis, I suspected
that the market was in trouble in early March and sold a substantial portion of
my portfolio. After waiting out the correction, I began to buy in again
cautiously.
I am really tired of watching stocks go up "for no reason" only to find out some
significant news, days later. The "buy on the rumor, sell on the news" adage is
so common in the market that anyone who takes their investing seriously has
learned it. And the reason it exists is that the persons who are privy to the
privileged information prior to it becoming public, not only analyze the
information, they buy the stock for their select customers accordingly. Then
when the price has already increased, they release the news along with buy
recommendations to the general public. This in turn creates a brief flurry at an
already elevated price, at which time, those who bought the stock based on the
private information, sell it at a profit, leaving individual investors like
myself, hanging in the breeze. This then encourages individual investors to
become swing traders and day traders. It is the only protection against the
shenanigans by the brokers and analysts.
I can certainly understand that Wall Street wants to protect their privileged
status. Of course, they aren't saying that outright. Instead they are insulting
my intelligence and pandering to a belief that the individual investor has to be
led by the hand. It is the same argument that is used historically every time
that those who are privileged are threatened with a loss of that privilege. It
is the same argument that was used to try to maintain that voting rights be
accorded to only a select group of adults, excluding women and then minorities.
It always runs along the lines of the argument that says that there are those
less capable of making intelligent decisions and are therefore in need of the
superior guidance of this elite group.
When I go to a car dealer to buy a car, it is up to me to have done my research
and make the best decision I can make regarding the allocation of my money. The
same is true when I buy a house. In an open market, I am encouraged to be an
informed buyer. Why should buying stocks be different?
I implore you to create a level playing field for all investors. The market has
profited greatly by the influx of individual investors like myself. It is time
to give us the respect we deserve.
Most sincerely,
Patricia Pomposello
149 Bacon Road
Roxbury CT 06783
Author: "Pgratia" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:01 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
RE: Proposed Regulation FD
As an individual investor, I am interested in seeing an equal playing field for
all investors, not just the Wall Street elite. In that interest I strongly urge
the SEC to support a democratic system of information dissemination that gives
all of us access to news by companies traded publicly.
For years, my portfolio was "managed" by a Wall Street professional, who put my
money into stocks that were lucky to be making a three to five percent annual
gain. I blindly trusted that he was managing my money wisely and only woke up
one day when I was studying my balance sheet and noticed that I was invested
heavily in a stock whose annual gain was 1.5%. I called this broker, and asked
why we didn't simply put the money in a savings account. He wisely informed me
that we were building a portfolio. I asked him to remove it from the portfolio
at once. (Since I removed that stock from my portfolio, that stocks has
decreased approximately 8%.) This is only one example. For this service I was
paying a monthly maintenance charge of about one per cent of my balance, in
addition to an enormous fee should he decide to make any trades. He also had a
large portion of my portfolio invested in his own company's mutual fund, which
is, in fact, one of the poorest performers of all the funds, showing less than
10% gain in good years and more than 10& loss in other years, averaging about a
break-even point over the past six years that I owned it. When I actually woke
up and dug into the numbers, I was shocked. I became determined to become
proficient at understanding how to invest wisely and profitably.
I would like very much to think that I could turn this portfolio over to a
professional who would take care of it for me. This would leave me to tend to
my own profession. However, after talking to dozens of friends and associates
who also invest, I have learned that finding a broker who will actually work
hard for them, is more difficult than highly unlikely without having
substantially more money to invest than I have. I understand that if my
portfolio were worth millions of dollars, I would be more likely to find a
competent broker. As it is, I intend to manage my money by myself rather than
trusting it again to someone who may not shepherd it properly.
I simply had not really paid attention to these matters before thinking that I
was in good hands and therefore should leave the decision-making to a
professional. Since last October, when I took matters into my own hands, I have
increased my portfolio by 20 per cent. I didn't make a lot of changes at once.
I made changes gradually as I studied and learned how to find solid
high-performing companies. Had I changed the entire portfolio all at once in
October, I would have increased its value by about 40%. But I am conservative
and cautious.
I buy primarily Nasdaq stocks and I study the information myself and do
extensive research before choosing the stocks that I purchase. In fact, I
consider the condescending arguments in favor of maintaining their current
status by the Ad Hoc Working Group, to be highly insulting and erroneous.
Throughout the middle of March, I listened to pundit after pundit on CNBC
telling me to buy stock at a time that the market was actually crashing. If I
had listened to these analysts, I would still be seeing a tremendous loss in my
portfolio. If their ability to interpret information were indeed so far
superior to mine, why were they pumping a bear market?
I am probably a fairly typical individual investor. I do not have a degree in
economics or business. I don't always know how to interpret data but continue
to study and learn and would tend to rate myself both aggressive and
conservative. I buy primarily tech stocks but don't just throw my money at any
up and coming thing. I look for excellent revenues and forward projections and
study company growth patterns and management strength. I use the Wall Street
Journal and Investors Business Daily, as well as online sites including, but not
limited to The Motley Fool. From my study of technical analysis, I suspected
that the market was in trouble in early March and sold a substantial portion of
my portfolio. After waiting out the correction, I began to buy in again
cautiously.
I am really tired of watching stocks go up "for no reason" only to find out some
significant news, days later. The "buy on the rumor, sell on the news" adage is
so common in the market that anyone who takes their investing seriously has
learned it. And the reason it exists is that the persons who are privy to the
privileged information prior to it becoming public, not only analyze the
information, they buy the stock for their select customers accordingly. Then
when the price has already increased, they release the news along with buy
recommendations to the general public. This in turn creates a brief flurry at an
already elevated price, at which time, those who bought the stock based on the
private information, sell it at a profit, leaving individual investors like
myself, hanging in the breeze. This then encourages individual investors to
become swing traders and day traders. It is the only protection against the
shenanigans by the brokers and analysts.
I can certainly understand that Wall Street wants to protect their privileged
status. Of course, they aren't saying that outright. Instead they are insulting
my intelligence and pandering to a belief that the individual investor has to be
led by the hand. It is the same argument that is used historically every time
that those who are privileged are threatened with a loss of that privilege. It
is the same argument that was used to try to maintain that voting rights be
accorded to only a select group of adults, excluding women and then minorities.
It always runs along the lines of the argument that says that there are those
less capable of making intelligent decisions and are therefore in need of the
superior guidance of this elite group.
When I go to a car dealer to buy a car, it is up to me to have done my research
and make the best decision I can make regarding the allocation of my money. The
same is true when I buy a house. In an open market, I am encouraged to be an
informed buyer. Why should buying stocks be different?
I implore you to create a level playing field for all investors. The market has
profited greatly by the influx of individual investors like myself. It is time
to give us the respect we deserve.
Most sincerely,
Patricia Pomposello
149 Bacon Road
Roxbury CT 06783
Author: Rob Pounds at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Commissioners,
I support the SEC's objective of eliminating selective disclosure.
Is it any wonder in this age of information, that the people most threatened
by this free flow would seek to keep it shut off. The Securities Industry
Association (SIA) isn't motivated by how the markets treat me, they merely
want to be "the analysts who get to the market "firstest" with the "mostest"
that under the current system reap the...financial rewards."
Selective disclosure does not protect the markets as SIA claims, it is no
less than a subversion of the markets. This rule change will in no way
prevent SIA members from pursuing their "necessary and very valuable
function in the U.S. capital market", but it will afford me the same
opportunity.
Thank you for allowing individual investors to have a voice in this
discussion.
Regards,
Rob Pounds
Houston, TX
Author: Karl Putz at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
I am an individual investor who takes company news about the
companies that I invest in or think about investing in very seriously. I
believe that the proposed regulation FD is a step in the right direction.
Even during my short investing period I have witnessed how brokerages use
information control to their advantage. Frankly it sickens me. Those of
us who choose not to use a full time broker to invest find ourselves at a
distinct disadvantage where none should exist.
I also have specific disagreements with specific statements made
by the SIA. First of all, I can understand that brokers _used_ to perform
necessary and valuable functions in the marketplace. However with the new
generation of investors, in conjunction with the rise of the internet,
brokers play a smaller and smaller part of the investment world.
This points directly to my next problem with their statement, which is
that investors these days DO pore over prospectuses and periodc reports.
I also believe that the proposed rule would have a _postive_ effect on
overall market volaitilty. The reason being that short term volatlity s
produced mostly by daytraders and that long term volaitility is produced
by the brokerage houses. The first will not feel the effect of this rule.
The second will be affected such that with more direct information
available, investors will be able to make their own choices instead of
having to rely on brokers who upgrade and downgrade at seemingly
irrational times merely, it would appear to me, to generate revenue
through the buying and selling of stock by the investors that use them.
In summary, I support the new FD rule. I believe that brokerage
houses are resisting it because it will put another kink their armor.
This proposed rule will help further market stability and bring greater
investment opportunity to the masses.
Fool On,
Karl Putz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:02 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam:
As an active individual trader and investor, I am writing to express my view
on the proposed rule. I strongly believe that selective disclosure serves
the limited financial interests of wall street "insiders" at the expense of
individuals without such access and should be eliminated at least so far as
material information is concerned. While analysts (especially the very few
who are not on the "sell side") may perform valuable functions of
interpreting data with skill (if not without bias), what reason is there that
the public should not have access to the facts on which the analysts base
their findings? If the individual investor feels after reading the relevant
information that it is too confusing or that it would be beneficial to wait
for an analyst's or broker's comment before acting on it, why not leave that
up to that individual? Further, given the level of apparent concern voiced
in the recent hearings by the SIA about the individual investors' well-being,
would it not be appropriate to regulate or legislate to the effect that
members of the SIA may not take positions contrary to their research reports
(i.e. may not sell securities on which they have a "buy" recommendation),
etc? Then the public's interest would be even better protected, assuring
that the analysts' reports serve their altruistic function by committing the
issuing firms to put their money in the same position as their collective
mouths. Until these interests are aligned, I submit the public has an equal
right to know all material corporate information that could reasonably affect
share price. Thank you for your consideration of these important issues
regarding full and fair public disclosure.
Sincerely,
Kenneth A. Quittman
Active Independent Securities
Investor
Author: "rjhelen" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:21 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC Regulators:
I, for one, am in favor of Regulation FD.
Events of the past few weeks have certainly shown us just exactly how small
groups of analysts have "made the market less volatile". Horse puckey.
Who do you think slam dunked things? A few ignorant investors out in St. Louis?
Again horse puckey.
Who sets the wave in motion? It's not the hundred share investor -- trust me on
this.
Why don't you loosen up the rules and require companies -- whose stock holders
are indeed the dreaded and "ignorant" investors you want to shield from all this
company news -- to release their info. to the public? If it's too much of a
burden for us "ignorant" investors to digest, well, then, we'll just have to ask
the analysts to clarify. What will have been lost? The Web makes it easy. Put it
up there, let us look too.
Your protectiveness of my poor, ignorant PhD's brain is highly suspect. After
all, I'm not used to sorting huge quantities of information and forming my own
conclusions... no sir... Not a bit.
Is it still an old boys' club? There are millions of us, there are a couple
thousand of them.
Thanks for considering Regulation FD. Now why don't you make it a reality?
Thanks.
Jack Remick
http://www.wkndnovel.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:00 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I do not agree that wall Street analysis are needed to tell me what is
happening in a Company. Maintaining the current system is not in the best
interest of the individual investor. Keeping this information will only
serve the analysis themselves in an attempt to keep individual investors in
the dark and dependant on their take on any company or market occurance.Thank
you, Amelia Richard, individual investor
Author: "Thomas J. Risch" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:35 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to strongly urge you to make all U.S. corporations disseminate
information to all interested parties on an equal basis. Contrary to the
beliefs of the large brokerage houses, I am perfectly able to make my own
investment decisions and even read prospectuses.
Thank-you,
Thomas J. Risch
Author: "Irene Robinson" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Individual investors need information to make well-informed decisions. Those
who don't want to spend their time poring over financials and other
documents can rely on analysts, but I'd rather have my own unbiased view
before listening to analyst "recommendations". (By the way, part of the
market volatility is caused by these same analysts appearing on every
financial talk show they can get on and recommending their favorite stocks.
If investors had access to the same information, at the same time they did,
there would probably be LESS volatility.)
This regulation should be passed.
Irene Rose Robinson
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:51 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir:
I believe that individual investors should have the right to discover company
information at the same time as analysts from the large brokerage firms. The
playing field should be level.
I minored in economics, can read a balance sheet and research well. I do not
need an analyst's spin on a situation. Actually, I find my work far superior
to the analyst's and have made quite a bit of money due to their wrong calls.
Even so, a level playing field for all is the most fair thing to do.
Jay Rothman
jjr0861@hotmail.com
Author: kirks at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:51 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Disclosure to Security Analysts
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom it May Concern
Information provided by corporations regarding their financial performance
should be disseminated to all investors at the same time.
As an investor, I have watched quick stock price movements and been left in
the dark as to what was driving prices only to find out later, in some
cases, that information (positive or negative) has been passed to favored
Wall Street clients by security analysts. This information is not available
to me and therefore, I, and investors like me, suffer real or opportunity
costs by getting late information.
Why would an arm of the Federal Government have an interest in maintaining
this situation? It is clearly a relic of the past that should be swept
away. Efficiencies have ground away comfy protection for many occupations
to the benefit of most; Wall Street occupations should not be exempt.
Kirk P. Schubert
43 Tomac Ave.
Old Greenwich, CT 06870
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 4:28 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support this regulation.
You can look at the former "Learning Company" and now "Mattel" and see that
analysts have been unable to provide the kind of information that investors
need to make good decisions on a stock.
George A. Seabolt
Author: "Charles Shereda" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:30 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
I am strongly in favor of Regulation FD. I have read the SIA filing that
opposes it, and find most of the filing's arguments against Regulation FD to be specious at
best. I firmly believe that a large part of recent market volatility (historically
significant at the individual issue level, especially in Nasdaq issues) can be blamed primarily
on a drought of company information for the 'little guy' investor, and therefore his
reliance on analyst recommendations. Security manipulation through these recommendations
has been a natural effect of this overreliance, to the point of massive overvaluation of
certain in-favor stocks using traditional measures such as the PV of cash flows model.
The SIA filing indicates that analysts are necessary to uncover negative
information about companies that individuals could not uncover. If this were really the case, I
would expect to see nearly as many 'sell' and 'strong sell' recommendations as I see
'buy' and 'strong buy', but of course this is not even close to the reality of the matter.
The filing also states that analysts and the financial press reduce market
volatility. This is absolutely preposterous. Currently analysts and the financial press are
heavily involved in the markets, issuing record numbers of recommendations, yet market
volatility is the highest it's been since the go-go market of the late 1960s (which
preceded an extended bear market), and may still grow worse as more new issues are brought
to market and supply of securities slowly begins to exceed demand. Moreover, were
security purchasing decisions more often based on individual investment principles and
direct company disclosures rather than the currently predominant 'follow the analysts'
money' strategy, share prices would fluctuate far less, not more.
Analysts are by no means objective parties in this matter; each analyst's firm
routinely stakes their own material gain on their recommendations. Why, then, should we
entrust them with the power to move markets, when this is for their own financial gain?
Regards,
---------------
Charles Shereda
Belmont, California
Individual investor
Author: "Sinacori; William A" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have read the comments of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Proposed Regulation
FD and the Legal and Compliance Division of the Securities
Industry Association ("SIA") in regard to the Proposed Regulation. The
excerpted portions of the comments appear below, following my signature. To
make it short, I find the excerpted assertions by the SIA fallacious, false,
and ridiculous. It appears from the comments that the SIA believes that
certain analysts should have access to negative
information prior to other shareholders (like me) to create the same kind of
unlevel playing field which has destroyed investor confidence in foreign
markets such as Japan and elsewhere. The very principles of free markets are
at risk in that the markets would not be FREE markets if this proposed
regulation is not implemented. In essence, they will remain tethered to a
hegemony of Wall-Street insiders, much as they do today.
A number of questions come to my mind as I read the excerpted paragraphs
from the comments (which appear below my signature). I believe the answer to
each of these is a resound "No!"
First, is it true that "it hardly needs saying that analysts perform a
necessary and valuable function in the U.S. capital markets"? Is it true that
to perform that necessary and valuable function they need better information
than the participants in the market? Hardly, as it can only lead them to
profit from their better information at the loss of the participants in the
market. This violates one of the basic principles of the Security and
Exchange Act. It also does not state a basic underlying premise that the
American public and the subset of individual investors are too stupid to know
what to do with financial data without analysts help. That premise is wholly
untenable as it is both false and malicious.
Second, is it true that, the "alternative model of millions of individual
investors and potential investors poring over prospectuses and periodic
reports is highly theoretical and out of sync with the real world"? Not at
all. In fact, thousands upon thousands of investors already do that
everyday. Go to internet investing sites such as E*Trade, Ameritrade,
Schwab.com, TheMotleyFool, Yahoo! Finance, etc., etc. What the SIA proposes
is to deny intelligent, taxpaying and investing Americans the ability to
access important data on an equal footing so that the SIA's constituent
members can profit at the expense, and to the detriment, of existing and
prospective individual shareholders. In
Third, is it true that analysts make the markets less volatile? The analysts
have been at work through every period of volatility in the history of the
American financial markets, including October 1987, July 1998, October 1998,
and March 2000. I would like to see any evidence that the analysts have done
anything at all to make the markets less volatile during such time periods,
or at any time. The short answer is that they do not. In fact, I would
suggest that the analysts make the markets more volatile through the
dissemination of misdirecting and confusing information. For example, the
large institutional financial firms by which many analysts are employed make
money from commissions on trades of shares of securities. When there is more
trading, there is more profits. Thus, the greater the volatility in the
markets, the greater the commissions--and ergo, profits--they make,
regardless of whether investors experience a gain or loss on their
securities. How else can one explain the analysts' downgrading and upgrading
of companies' securities periodically when their fundamentals have not
changed from a long-term perspective. The answer is of course that a
long-term buy and hold strategy does not involve trading and therefore does
not cause commissions and profits to the analysts' employers.
Fourth, is it true that analysts spend much of their time ferreting out
negative information about companies? The best way to ferret out ANY
information of any kind about anything is to open up the information to the
broadest number of people possible for a full and frank discussion. Then
individuals can make their own decisions based on the information that they
learn. This is called free choice and is one of the most fundamental tenets
of democracy and free markets. For the SIA to oppose equal access to the
information so that such discussion can take place and individuals can make
decisions on their own, is inapposite to free capital markets.
An individual investor's investments should be treated the same as anybody
else's. In a democratic country with free capital markets, with supposed
equality of position, investment and otherwise, to release relevant
investing information to the privileged few is absolutely unacceptable. The
idea that only an analyst asking questions in private can ferret out
information from corporate executives who are, by definition, required to
serve the public investor while pursuing their private corporate agenda is,
on its face, absurd.
I support the proposed regulation and encourage you to pass it.
Respectfully yours,
William A. Sinacori
(713) 664-8966
7300 Brompton #5226
Houston, TX 77025
Excerpted paragraphs from 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 ("SIA").
"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....
"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. The alternative model of millions of individual investors and potential investors poring over prospectuses and periodic reports is highly theoretical and out of sync with the
real world. But it does need to be said that analysts cannot do their work nearly as well as they do now if they are forced to do their work, at least when it comes to interaction with
issuers, collectively -- in a pack. Yes, they can elicit some facts, they can eliminate management "spin," they can bring their expertise to the analysis, and they can give the markets rapid guidance as to the significance of new information, thereby mitigating individual knee-jerk reactions to specific information.
"But it is also the few analysts operating independently of, and in competition with, each other that can relentlessly pursue an independent line of inquiry and ferret out
negative information that management would rather not disclose or would prefer to disclose at a time of its choosing and with its own spin. They can glean information from changes in the level of confidence (sometimes evidenced in subtle ways such as changes in choice of words or tone of voice) over a series of telephone conversations or face-to-face meetings. They can test their hypotheses by comparing information about different issuers in the same industry or sector. This kind of work results in more continuous disclosure, fewer surprises and less volatility. The marketplace itself provides incentives for such diligence, for it is the analysts who get to the
market "firstest" with the "mostest" that under the current system reap the reputational and financial rewards.
Leveling the playing field for analysts, as among themselves and vis-a-vis the general public, will undermine the great advantages of the current system.
"The proposal could result in issuers declining to engage in dialogues with individual analysts or small groups of analysts and instead insisting on sessions at regular intervals open to a number of analysts, with listen-only access to the media and the public. These are likely to take on the orchestrated character of a Presidential news conference in which members of the audience are authorized to ask one question, and perhaps a short follow-up question, but not a series of questions in dogged pursuit of the facts. Undoubtedly, the questions from the different participants will not be coordinated or follow in any logical order or comprehensive way. Due
to fierce competition among analysts to obtain the best information, they will be reluctant to ask questions in an open session that tip off their competitors as to the direction of
their thinking or information that they think would be meaningful. If the questions cannot be asked in private, they may not be asked at all. Is that good for the market?"
*****************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
is unauthorized.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice
contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in
the governing KPMG client engagement letter.
Author: Your Name at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:47 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I wholeheartedly support the proposal to allow all investors equal
opportunity to obtain company information, equally and at the same time.
To do less is simply not the American way of doing things. There is only
one class of investors, regardless of what some self-serving analysts and
their organizations say.
If analysts as a group were totally candid, then when they do find
deleterious information on a company that will potentially affect the
stock price, they would issue strong SELL recommendations. As you know
this is seldom if ever done.
Thank you for allowing me to be heard.
Paul H Story
10228 Burham Rd NW
Albuquerque, NM 87114
505/890-9719
Author: "Dr. Stuart Strickland" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:12 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have just read the Securities Industry Association's filing regarding
the above-referenced Proposed Regulation. A more arrogant and
self-serving document has seldom crossed my desk. It is clearly not in
the SIA's interest that I, as an individual investor, have access to
timely and relevant information about my investment choices. I hope
that the SEC will see this filing for what it is and adopt the proposed
ruling in the interest of insuring the most complete and even
distribution of information.
Sincerely,
Stuart Strickland
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:48 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have been an independent investor for almost 5 years. It has been a
rewarding learning experience. I went "online" about the same time I began
studying about investing and found "The Motley Fool" to be one of my most
valuable resources. I have recently read with interest the article about
leveling the playing field by having information available to all investors
(without analysts being privy to information that investors are not). I was
amazed that this was not already the case. It also makes one question whether
there are special interests that are being protected. Investors, whether
independent or not, should have the freedom to act on whatever news a company
has to offer. Thank you for listening. Marcia Stults (SCStults@aol.com)
Author: TOM TARPEY at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:10 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The primary responsibility of the (SEC) is to regulate buying and selling
of Securities impartially, fairly, and in the public interest. Therefore,
openness and full disclosure of important investment information in
necessary and correct in all cases. Fair disclosure requires that
information from publicly traded companies be made available not only to
Wall Street Analysts, but also to the investing public at large. It is
in the best interest of the investing public that "Proposed Regulation
FD" be the law of this land immediately. Complete and full disclosure of
important investing information to the general investing public is always
in the public interest. There should be no elite group of Wall Street
Analysts that has a monopoly on important investment information to the
detriment of the investing public.
Tom Tarpey,
Independent Investor
Author: "Brad Turner" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:30 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
My comments regarding this proposed regulation will be brief. As an individual
investor who desires greater control over my own investment interests, I believe
I should be allowed to read and process information for myself instead of
depending on "professional" analysts and their spin. Information is power in
this business, and I ask you to empower me to have this information. I have
read the reasons for rejecting this rule change and it should be obvious to a
fair and thinking person that the primary and "REAL" reason the analysts and
Wall Street powers oppose this change is the protection of their unilateral hold
on power.
My vote is to level the playing field - Make the information public!!!
Respectfully,
Bradley W. Turner
Author: "Stephen L. Wade" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
April 21, 2000
Implementation of this rule is necessary. Our American capitalist system is
predicated upon the free and open dissemination of information. To allow
the "priesthood" of analysts to continue to filter that information (after
they have had the opportunity to milk it for their own profit in collusion
with the companies providing it) before disclosing it to the unlearned
populace is decidedly un-American and must end. I urge you to pass this
measure.
Stephen L. Wade, MBA
3202 NW 14th ST #6
Gainesville, FL 3265
352-335-4984
swade50@mail.usa.com
Author: Diane Warfield at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:24 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: news@fool.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To make it short and sweet -- if the information is there, the investing
public needs to see it, too. Wall Street folks are not the only
intelligent life form in the galaxy. Aside from that, if the information
would affect an investor's decision in any way, the investor needs to know
that information. Haven't you all heard about the Sunshine Laws? Where
have you been. dw
=========================================================
Diane Warfield, Accounting Coordinator
Manager, Contracts and Grants Accounting Section
College of Engineering
University of Florida 545 Weil Hall P.O.
Box 116550 Gainesville, Florida 32611-6550
Telephone: (352) 392-6626 FAX: (352)
392-7063
E-Mail: dwarf@eng.ufl.edu
Author: Diane Warfield at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 2:24 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: news@fool.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To make it short and sweet -- if the information is there, the investing
public needs to see it, too. Wall Street folks are not the only
intelligent life form in the galaxy. Aside from that, if the information
would affect an investor's decision in any way, the investor needs to know
that information. Haven't you all heard about the Sunshine Laws? Where
have you been. dw
=========================================================
Diane Warfield, Accounting Coordinator
Manager, Contracts and Grants Accounting Section
College of Engineering
University of Florida 545 Weil Hall P.O.
Box 116550 Gainesville, Florida 32611-6550
Telephone: (352) 392-6626 FAX: (352)
392-7063
E-Mail: dwarf@eng.ufl.edu
Author: "Ed Webber" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:02 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC: In favor of an end to selective disclosure.
IMHO, analysts employed by brokerage houses and fund management companies
rely on privileged information for help in bilking individual investors.
They may claim to provide an invaluable service to the individuals by making
interpretations of complex information, but I believe that they commonly
make use of such information to serve themselves at the expense of
individuals. To the extent that the public needs such interpretations, I
believe that, given modern communications methods, a non-participating
journalistic interpretation industry could and would quickly develop to
serve those needs. Please give favorable consideration to rules disallowing
selective disclosure to anyone with vested interest.
On another subject, I would like to disagree with your stance in the matter
of "TokyoJoe" to the extent that I understand it. I have not been a member
of his stock club or associated in any way. I would like to point out that
he does nothing that is not commonly done by Goldman, Sachs or Robertson,
Stephens, and is considerably more forthright with visitors to his website
than the analyst/touts I see on CNBC touting stocks that they wish to sell
to me for profit.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
--
Ed Webber
Whenever things sound easy, it turns out there's one part you didn't hear.
~Jane Bryant Quinn
--
Author: "Rwillis" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 4:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It should be ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL for a company to disclose important to any
individual analysist or group of analysists without disclosing that same
information to the general public.
Not doing so opens the possibility of insider trading which should not be legal.
The public has a RIGHT TO KNOW important information about the companies in
which they invest.
One of the best ways to kill the faith that the public has in the stock
market is to make sure that they cannot get the same information that
professional analysts get.
Russell Willis
Willis's Walkabouts
12 Carrington Street
Millner NT 0810
Phone: (08) 8985 2134
Fax: (08) 8985 2355
Email: walkabout@ais.net.au
Author: "DYeagin" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 1:35 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: fair
------------------------------- Message Contents
I find it very unfair that the individual investor doesn't hv the same fair
chance to information as wall st anaylst..To think that the american public
doesn't hv enuf common sense to digest this infomation is a crock of bull.
By the time we get the info ..its second hand info..I hope you take a look
at what your doing and make the playing field equal to all investors.
Donnie Yeagin
8104 Beauregard
Leander Tx 78641
512 258-6845
Author: "Brent Yorzinski" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 3:18 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is hard to believe this already isn't the law. I don't see how anyone could
honestly argue that this rule should not take effect.
Author: Greg & Pat Zuber at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:41 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to assert my belief that Proposed Regulation FD: File
No. S7-31-99 should be changed to allow individual investors equal
access to all information relevant to the value of companies that stock
analysts receive in an equally timely manner. Forcing individual
investors to receive this information later than and through
professional analysts allows an unfair advantage to institutional
investors and maintains a system of dependency that is monopolistic.
Thank you for your consideration,
Gregory Zuber
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0421b02s.htm
