Author: "Gordon T Achtermann" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 1:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: Gordon.Achtermann@alumni.duke.edu at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Dear Sir or Madame,
Please be informed that I strongly support reform of the current practice of
selective disclosure to analysts either in individual cases or as a group by
publicly traded corporations. This current practice amounts to nothing more
than legalized insider trading.
Furthermore, I utterly reject the claims made by The Ad Hoc Working Group on
Proposed Regulation FD and the Legal and Compliance Division of the Securities
Industry Association ("SIA" is the principal lobbying outfit for the
full-service brokerages.) Specifically, I reject their claim that,
"communications between [a company] and individual analysts or small groups of
analysts contribute to... greater accuracy of market prices, less volatility
and, in general, greater efficiency...." Recent events have PROVEN that it is
institutional investors who panic at every downturn and over-react to every
minutia of data thus increasing volatility, whereas the vast majority of
individual investors are the ones adding stability to equity markets.
Thank you for the opportunity to be heard.
Gordon Achtermann
Author: "Ken C. Aerni" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen
I'm a self directed investor and I want you to know that I'm totally
opposed to select disclosure. It's time our government brings
democracy to Wall Street.
Kenneth Aerni
Author: "Roger Albert" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:35 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
TO: Roger RR at Internet
Subject: fair disclosure of information by publicly traded companies
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Rules Commissioners.
I am writing to express my support for an SEC rule requiring
that
individual investors, i.e. the security buying public at
large,
be provided the same information and disclosure as is
currently
provided to select groups of analysts. Such a rule would
seem to
be in line with other current general protections and
disclosures.
The lack of such a rule would seem to allow at least as many
abuses
as protections.
Furthermore, I explicity reject several of the the SIA's
positions, including:
"it hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary
and valuable function in the U.S. capital markets"?
"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"?
The fact that not all consumers perform adquate research is
hardly license to grant favortism to select analysts and
protect
we informed consumers from ourselves.
I further reject that analysts make markets less volatile.
If as the SIA implies, millions of individual investors are
not doing their homework, then the volatility must arise
from
reaction to analyst pieces. The SIA's argumements are self-
inconsistent.
"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"
I utterly reject, and hope your institution will too, that
"Leveling the playing field" can be a bad thing.
I thank you in advance for any consideration given to this
citizen, and security holder's concerns.
Sincerely yours
Roger Albert
Author: "Mark" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:36 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Comment on FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please accept my comment when considering new rules governing Selective
Disclosure by companies to analysts.
I believe we all should have a level playing field where private
investors and small financial advisors/planners are privy to the same
information as large brokerage houses. For instance, whenever a conference
call is scheduled everyone should be made aware of it and invited to listen
in and be involved in the question and answer part of the call.
Whenever pre notification or estimates of a companies' earnings are made
available, everyone should be made aware of these figures and special
treatment not afforded to anyone.
Whenever a company plans changes in their business or have new products
or contracts in place or planned they should notify everyone and not be
selective whatsoever to any person or firm.
Finally, all persons should be made aware of any and all news pertaining to
a company instead of what appears to be happening today, some
brokers/analysts being made aware ahead of the crowd enabling them to buy or
sell stock previous to the announcement.
Thank you for considering my opinions and commentary.
Sincerely,
Mark Alexander
A.R.I. Corp
Financial Mrs.
Author: "Bell; Michael" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 1:25 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support fair disclosure of information by publicly traded
companies to the public at the same time it is disclosed to Wall Street
analysts.
Any disclosure to Wall Street analysts before disclosure to the public is
not fair and provides advantageous and essentially insider information to
analysts before it is generally released to the public. There is no benefit
in waiting to release corporate information to the public. Individual
investors can decide for themselves if they want to act on the information
immediately or wait until the analysts and the press decipher the
information and make an announcement. Today, many individuals are regularly
in the habit of making their own financial decisions and this is no
different.
The SEC does not have the right to determine whether individual investors
are smart enough to make investment decisicions for them selves.
Mike Bell
Morristown, NJ
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 12:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I feel this rule change is vital to the survival of the small investor. We are
intelligent enough to decipher company information for ourselves without the
analysts' spin. But we can not do this without access to the information in a
timely fashion. Please implement this change.
Diane S. Brown
Author: Chris Bybee at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: spontaneous disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe that analysts' interpretations are important to the marketplace.
In the cycle of disclosure, dissemination and interpretation I believe the
companies who report can just take that extra step to make things fair for
all investors. I think the idea of making a company accountable to people
who, with all due respect, are not as malleable to a manipulation of
perception as the general public, is in fact a good one. I agree with the
Motley Fool's idea that people have a right to know, learn and understand.
I also believe they are doing their best to enable people to be heard on
this side of the issue. Their idea is noble in its intent. They have a lot
of good ideas.
In an age where nocashflow.com grants stock and options, sometimes as
principal compensation, there is too much opportunity for selective
disclosure by the companies. I believe it is insane and morally wrong for
this self-regulating (and that is what it is with today's liquidity and
speed of information) by the companies' reps. Why is it that Joe-Bob CFO
could watch his stock price soar, when there may be no value. What about the
individual? What about the poor sot who just saw a guy magically win his own
island by investing with quickandeasy.com. If we cannot have accountability
with ads, that would have every internet trader shown as a millionaire and
every licensed full service broker as a greedy poisonous snake, then I think
it is unconscionable to give companies the right to take advantage of the
individual. Hell, I think it is unethical, no matter. The magnanimous idea
may sell more hats, T-shirts and internet ads, but at the end of the day,
the little guy has not exercised his options. Conventional wisdom says, the
individual needs the E street pundits, the subscriptions, the hats, the
Tshirts, instant online riches via left mouse-click ads. I say horse-shit.
Please just leave the individual with what is left of a fair chance to make
sensible investments without being used up. I think the SEC has done a good
job overall and I believe they will do the right thing here. The market can
be a rough place anyway, especially when any smokey joe is a self fulfilling
prophecy. That is a virus we don't have to transmit.
Author: David Carter at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 7:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Selective Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
We need full, open. and complete disclosure for everyone, not for a
favored few.
Ban selective disclosure.
David Carter
Tucson, Arizona
Author: "Hugh & Denise Cecil" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:55 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support universal/public disclosure. To select only a specific group of
individuals as benificiaries (and thus, monetary benificiaries) of
disclosure is without merit.
Hugh B. Cecil, M.D.
hcecil@bigsky.net
Author: "jcombs" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:36 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Dear Sirs:
I am completely opposed to the idea of restricting certain information to
certain analysts in the investing community, at the expense of other investors
and professionals.
It's bad enough now, that I have to second-guess the reasons for strong stock
movements the day before major announcements, and it's a common occurance.
It's bad enough now that institutions can profit unfairly from advance
information, at the expense of smaller investors and their advisors.
It's bad enough now that buy and sell recommendations are published by
institutional analysts who have a profit interest in the movement of a stock.
How can anyone think that restricting information will make for a healthier
market? Without information, how can investers be well enough informed to
evaluate the analysts?
It's hard enough to enforce fairness when the rules themselves are fair. How can
you expect to protect investors under unfair rules?
Judith Adele Combs, CPA
San Diego, California
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 12:47 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: davec@pcnow.net at Internet
Subject: Proposed regulation FD: file number S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I support the Proposed regulation FD: file number S7-31-99. Let's give all
investors, large and small, an equal opportunity to make informed decisions.
Allowing analysts and brokers access to company reports prior to their public
release, amounts to little more than insider trading. Brokerage firms pass
this information on to their largest clients, excluding the smaller investors
who end up "missing the boat" or "holding the bag". Let's level the playing
field and stop practices which help the rich get richer at the expense of the
small investor. Margaret C. Cook
Author: 3M at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 12:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am strongly in favor of the proposed regulation. There are individual
investors out here who have the intelligence to make decisions based on
information provided by companies before it is translated by Wall
Street. With the proliferation of internet access, it seems the
potential for improving the efficiency of the market via direct
communication by companies to the public is there for the taking. I
also believe any company that is tempted to put too much spin on such
communication to the public must seriously consider the armies of trial
lawers ready to bring class action lawsuits.
Steven G. Corcoran
Individual investor
Author: "Richard T. Cornfield" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:59 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I think it extremely important that there be full public disclosure of all
relevant information regarding the potential investment in public companies.
The idea of full disclosure is so prevalent in virtually all aspects of our
society that it is accepted as a given. In financial matters, which are of
such paramount importance to every member of society, how or why should we
consider anything less? To the extent that individual investors are willing
and able to take the time to sift through the information and learn how to
make the best use of it, we will begin to have a better informed,
intelligent and responsible society. Broader knowledge about financial
matters is something this society, in my opinion, will greatly benefit from.
Thank you,
--
Richard T. Cornfield
Skyline Pictures, Inc.
Author: Barry J Crane at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:32 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the subject proposed regulation in its entirety. We the
individual
investor, now a very significant part of the stock market need and
deserve
such investment information, now only within the purview of Wall Street
analysts and brokers, provided to us.
Such information is beneficial to the individual investor, not only to
make
informed buy/sell decisions, but to also evaluate the pronouncements and
recommendations of our brokers and their associated brokerage houses.
It is a truism that ,to the degree I give up accountability for my
decisions
to another, that is the degree to which I allow myself to be vulnerable
to
mischief. So please amend the regulations to let the sun shine in on the
individual investor. We need this in order to have a "full set of tools"
to
optimize our financial decision-making.
Thank You
James H. Knoblach
738 Sparksford Dr
Russellville, AR 72802
jknobl@csw.net
Author: "Robert Cranston" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:04 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD File no. S7-30-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I don't know the wording of the regulation so I can only comment on the hopeful
results which are to level the playing field and give the private investor the
same honest information as the wall street moguls. The dishonest information I
would hope is prosecutable. Thank you, Robert W. Cranston, bx
6366, Sitka, AK 99835
Author: "Brian Cunningham" at Internet
Date: 04/23/2000 10:07 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
it is time to end the monopoly of information that the large brokerage
houses have had for a century. it is now simply out of touch with the
current reality. their attitude that the great unwashed masses are too
ignorant to fend for themselves is insulting and degrading. please open up
the power of information and knowledge to the public at large, and allow us
to determine for ourselves what is important and not important. the role of
the old style analyst will not completely dissappear, but it may be altered
somewhat to reflect the current reality of what is required from them. that
is the definition of a free and open market. at least, i THOUGHT it was...
thank you
brian cunningham
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:00 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor I fully support the Proposed Regulation for Full
Disclosure.
All persons should have access to this information, not just the select
analysts that have been choosen by the company. In a fair and open market,
Full and Open Disclosure of information is the right thing to do.
Give all investors their "lifeblood", give them this information.
Mark A. Davis
Van Meter, IA
Author: "John Decker" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 12:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Lets level the playing field! The hoarding and control of information is cartel
behavior and should not be permitted. I encourage this regulation require
information release to all investors similarly.
John Decker
Principal
Author: Robert Dorris at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:00 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: SELECTIVE DISCLOSURE
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am a retired securities analyst and portfolio manager and hence now an
individual investor. For over 30 years I received breathless calls from brokers
and sell-side analysts with information obtained from company sources that had
not been released to the general public. In my view this was inside information
and should be subject to such rules and penalties. I learned from experience
that published brokerage reports were biased marketing instruments with
negligible investment value. I do not believe that companies should give
individual visiting analysts any information including estimated earnings
guidance that has not been released to the general public. Companies should be
required to publish advance information and provide public access to conference
calls and provide transcripts of such calls and presentations on demand. Thank
you. Robert Dorris, CFA.
Author: "Rober Elliott" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:08 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear sirs,
I am writting in response to a new "selective disclosure" rule change. While
analysts naturally want to keep insider information for themselves and their
customers, in my opionion it definitely should be illegal. The Coke (KO) was an
outstanding example. Simply calling the meeting resulted in a large sale off as
investors assumed the worst. Then when the big boys got the news from the
analysts the landslide picked up momentum. The stock (KO) was down a good 20%
before the public investors actually learned what was said. If this is not an
excellent example of illegal insider trading what is? Yes naturally anal-yst
would like to keep their insider trading legal, but it serves neither the public
nor the markets.
Thank you
Robert C. Elliott
Author: "Scott Featherman" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:39 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom it may concern:
I support this important regulation, please pass in favor.
Scott C. Featherman
scottcf@att.net
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD; File # S7-39-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am just an individual small investor who feels helpless against the giants
on Wall Street. I have no money to wine and dine congress or SEC officials,
but I favor a fair disclosure on Wall Street. I would like to have a fair
playing field for everyone! Please make the necessary changes to make all
play by the same rules!
David Finlayson, Sun City, AZ.
Author: "Charles Fox" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:19 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject:
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please stop the corporate handouts, in both directions, represented by
companies selectively revealing information to Wall St. and not to the
general public.
It is not Wall St's money we're talking about, nor the companies' but the
public's.
Charles Fox
cafox513@gte.net
Author: art96@webtv.net (Arthur Gay) at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 2:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: file no. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
yes
Author: Aubrey Grant at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
It is my humble opinion that your full disclosure proposal. Is the
only fair thing to do for a number of reasons:
1) Theoretically it would allow individual investors access to the same
information at the same time as 'analysts' allowing them to make informed
decisions at the same time as the "analysts"
2) It would greatly reduce the number of analysts who are able to dump
their market shares before the mkt. gets privy to it, thus reducing their
ability to profit off of the small investor.
3) It should allow greater competition between brokers, thus forcing
some to actually earn their high salaries. This, in turn, should lead to
more objective information given to the individual investor by these
analysts.
4) It should also keep the publicly traded companies in-line, make them
think harder before they make certain decisions, as market response would be
swifter.
5) Though there may be argument for more volatility, if that is what
true demand and supply economics calls for then so be it. there will
ultimately be an equilibrium.
6) People also seem to think that no one will turn to analysts for
advice. There are millions out there who will still use analysts because
they cant bother especially the richer investors who would rather hire
someone else. (wait aren't those the ones that make money for the street)
Got to run.
Aubrey J. Grant
Lehman - Smith + Mcleish
1150 18th Street NW
Suite 350
Washington DC, 20036
(T) 202.263.7408
(F) 202.263.7404
agrant@ls-m.com
Author: John Graybill at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 12:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs,
The Securities Industry Association speaks lies, for crooks! I quote
from their April 6, 2000:
"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."
This statement is false on its face. A famous example of how little
initiative taken by a typical "respected" analyst is the admission by
Dan Niles, of Robertson Stevens, that he doesn't even read the 10-Q's of
the companies he covers. He was forced to admit this when he simply
parroted the lies of Micron Technology management regarding "increasing"
sales, when in fact the 10-Q revealed that sales had actually
decreased. This was reported in the January 31, 1999 New York Times by
Gretchen Morgonsen. In fact, it was an individual investor, Thomas
Busillio, who posted on Silicon Investor's "Micron Only" thread, who
cracked the case.
John Graybill
Relevant link:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/sunday/013199invest-market-watch.html
The most glaring discrepancy is in Micron's sales of semiconductor
memory products. The news
release says these totaled $428.1 million in the quarter. The
10-Q says they totaled $409.5 million.
Which number is correct? A Micron spokeswoman, Julie Nash,
said: "There was a $19 million
reclassification of numbers that went from semiconductor
memory products sales into 'other.' These
were sales that were relative to providing semiconductor
revenues, but they were actually service
fees."
She said Micron, of Boise, Idaho, found the error and fixed it
in the 10-Q. But it did not publish a
corrected news release. "It was not material," she said.
So it's immaterial that 4.3 percent of the company's
semiconductor sales weren't semiconductor
sales at all.
None of this would matter if investors relied on 10-Qs rather
than news releases for investment
information. But that is not the case.
Dan Niles, an analyst at BancBoston Robertson Stephens, has a
strong "buy" rating on the stock.
The revenue number he has used in recommending the stock is
the $428.1 million from the news
release.
Niles did not know the number was incorrect until a reporter
told him on Friday. He said the new,
lower number would not change his positive view of the
company.
There is another interesting difference in Micron's two
reports. The 10-Q states that net sales of
semiconductor memory products increased 10 percent over the
previous quarter, a result of an 18
percent increase in the chips' average selling price being
partly offset by a 10 percent decline in
megabits shipped. The news release, however, is mum about the
decline in shipments.
It is a big deal to show a decline in megabits shipped. With
chip makers constantly improving the
memory capacity of their products -- also known as the yield
-- a drop in megabits shipped is not
good news.
Why did the news release not mention this? Ms. Nash again:
"The press release is a summary
document used to discuss what we believe is of interest to
shareholders and reflect company trends."
Whether this passes the smell test is something Arthur Levitt,
chairman of the SEC, may want to
ponder. Levitt is justifiably concerned that companies make
accurate disclosures to investors.
Who uncovered the Micron discrepancies? Sleuths on the
Internet -- specifically, three people who
post comments on the "Ask Michael Burke" and "Micron Only"
threads on Silicon Investor; and
Larry Woods, editor of the Tech Review newsletter in Stoney
Creek, Ontario.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: (no subject)
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern @ SEC
Regarding Proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Please note for the record that I am an individual investor and I strongly
support the proposed regulation regarding the fair disclosure of information
by publicly traded companies. I feel that this rule will go a long way toward
leveling the paying field such that individual investors like myself will
have equal access to information that analysts, institutions, and other
privileged insiders have long considered their private domain - and
frequently use to their financial benefit.
thanks,
Lloyd Hepburn, MD
Charleston, SC
Author: Richard Hubbell at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 1:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Propsed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Protect the individual investor from the insiders. I am certainly more
knowledgeable about my particular investments than my broker and his
analysts. What I need is the same information that they have in as timely a
fashion. They make contrary decisions on information which I have not had
access to yet. Incidentally I am a lot better educated and have a lot more
experience than the great majority of analysts. Unfortunately I don.t
contribute as much to the politicians.
Thank you,
Richard L. Hubbell
P. O. Box 759
28 Buckingham Rd.
East Dennis, MA 02641-0759
508 385-8876
dhubbs@mediaone.net
Author: Pussycat at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:52 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
If the market is to be efficient then *all* parties need to have equal
access to
company data in terms of depth and timeliness. Allowing select parties
to have
preferential access provides opportunities for arbitrage on their part
which is
not in the market's interest as a whole.
Jonathan Hughes.
Author: "Dressler; James" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:44 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File no. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I find it incredible that, as a private investor, I must try and convince
you that ignorance
of the market is not in my best interest. Come on guys - level the playing
field. Is it really true that a chicken pecking at the Wall Street Journal
can beat most "expert analysists"?
Author: "David Jaqua" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 3:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing to support more fully transparent dissemination of all
financial information which eminates from any company which comes unde
appropriate SEC jurisdiction.
This is right becasue it is the fair thing to do. Allowing only certain
individuals the ability to gather information which is not in some form
available to the general public flies in the face of fairness.
The SIA Working Group is wrong in its presentation and conclusions. A
workable law is possible, and should be promptly implemented.
David J Jaqua
Stowe, Vermont
Author: jtronics at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation FD, File no. S-7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is far past time to correct the problems with selective release.
Please "level the field" so the average person can benefit. You will be
remembered at election time, either way. Thank you for your
consideration.
Respectfully,
Leroy M. Jennings
Author: "~steve.jensen" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:28 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe open dissemination of company information would enhance the
ability of all people to invest as best they can.
Sue Jensen
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 12:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to see companies disclose information to every one not just the
analysts. The more people in the stream of information, the more distorted the
information becomes (i.e. the game Telephone).
Author: Harry Jones at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I hardly think the SIA's position on investing is
to
the benefit of individual investors.
I have been told by SEC officials that the SEC has
no
jurisdiction over anything that has anything to do
with
brokers and analysts ripping off investors -
that's a quote.
It would seem that the government, in general, and
the SEC,
in particular, are a real part of the problem.
As an investor, I am responsible for what happens
to me.
NOT THE GOVERNMENT!
That same government that lies to us all by saying
it is trying
to help us, the investors, and really is only
interested in destroying
any and all personal wealth in this country.
Well, that's not true.
Only the personal wealth of individuals not
involved in the government
or the investment industry,
The SEC is a tool of the brokers and investment
analysts.
That makes the SEC as crooked as they are.
best regards
Harry Jones
hjones@getx.com
Author: Marekat Joseph at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:04 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the above regulation.
Marekat C. Joseph
6913 Ave. De Santiago
Anaheim, CA 92807
Author: "Brit Kamrow" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:13 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
giving me equal access to information about companies that i own stock in
would be the obvious, and correct thing to do.
Author: Christopher Kiesel at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:42 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am in favor of the enactment of Proposed Regulation
FD: File No. S7-31-99.
As an investment professional I am somewhat annoyed
with the SIA's stance that selective disclosure is
good for the public and the markets. It is quite
obvious that selective disclosure benefits large
instituitonal investors at the expense of individual
investors and smaller institutional investors who are
locked out of conference calls and other forums where
material information is made avaiable. The current
system is a sort of regulatory subsidy which allows
Wall Street firms to justify high commissions in
exchange for analyst research.
The brokerage industry does not deserve preferential
access to material corporate information. In fact the
current system penalizes individual investors through
direct costs in the form of trading with less
information and through indirect costs since mutual
funds they own pay high brokerage commissions to have
access to sell side analyst reports.
Thank you for the chance to comment.
Christopher Kiesel
Author: "chiefcooter" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject:
------------------------------- Message Contents
Proposed Regulation FD: File no. S7-31-99 I would hope that the governing
board at the securities and exchange commission would vote to have full
disclosure to everyone! It is our money that we are investing, which I might
add is hard earned money. Why should we all not have a equal playing field?
Bob Lacy
P.O. Box 97
404 Grant Street
Van Meter, Iowa 50261
My E-mail address is; chiefcooter@uswest.net
Thank you for your time! Bob Lacy
Author: Olga Latham at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD"
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is the individual investor that also has a need for pertinent
facts of companies so that they too can make intelligent investments
in our markets today. Has anyone noticed that the individual has
quite a bit of money invested in today's' market?
Olga Latham
Author: patrick Lehigh at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:37 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject:
------------------------------- Message Contents
To who It may.........
I find it offensive that by your own words I am not smart enough to handle my
own deacons. If this is a "free Country" with free speech this would be a moot
point.
I assure you I am smart enough to handle my own money.
Thank you for your time.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 3:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation fd:file no. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. Why doesn't Wall
Street get with it. Every bit of information that is made available to the
analysts should be made available to the public. That's what free and open
makets are all about.
Patricia McDonald
1542 Del Mar Rd.
Oceanside, CA 92057
Author: Jan Meisler at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:30 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing to comment on the SEC's Proposed Regulation FD. I am an
individual investor that has many times felt that I have been "behind the
curve" on making investment decisions. By choice, I do not use a
"full-service" brokerage. This choice, however, should not hold me to a
disadvantage. Should an analyst or brokerage firm be given information that is
not shared with the public? As an individual investor, this appears like
insider trading. It is true that these analysts are not insiders. However,
they know much more information than the general public. This information is
shared with their clients only, thereby disadvantaging the general investor.
Should those people that can afford a full service broker be given special
treatment, while those that are trying to invest with their hard earned cash be
behind on making decisions?
It is true that not every investor has the time to research all companies. And
therefore, many investors will be behind the curve. However, presenting the
opportunity to all investors will help level the playing field. My being
behind the curve will then be a result of my lack of time/effort, rather than a
result of selective disclosure.
I was reading through some other comments that have been made about this
proposed regulation. One set of comments stood out to me from the Securities
Industry Association. They indicate 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."
It might be true that many investors currently do not read through prospectuses
and periodic reports. However, that is an option that the individual investor
takes on himself. Allow the investor to have the opportunity to look at these
reports at the same time as the analyst. If I, as an investor, do not have the
time to do it on my own, I can leave it up to an analyst to do it for me. But
if I do have the time and can make the effort, then allow me that opportunity.
After commenting about how an analyst can contact many companies and work hard
to get information from them, even sometimes by changes in how the company
speaks to the analyst, the Securities Industry Association writes: "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." As I
understand it, this would indicate that the "financial rewards" should go to
the analysts who get to the market "firstest with the mostest". An individual
investor should not be given the opportunity to work hard to find information
out on their own. That would undermine the current system (as they say). The
current system that allows the analysts to control who gets what information
and when that information is distributed. This information that would help an
individual investor make an informed decision. Rather, the "advantages of the
current system" are that the select few should be able to "jump the gun" and
invest before the general public and the individual investor can get the same
information.
Finally, the Securities Industry Association comments: "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." I think that this would be a very good opportunity for the general
public to learn what is happening at a particular company. Additionally, I
think it would only help to educate the general public further. By listening
(even without being able to comment), an individual investor would learn how a
"professional" analyst thinks. The individual investor would learn the types
of questions that are asked by the "professionals". In the end this could only
help in the education of the general public for the investing skills. Isn't a
more informed and more educated public a way to prevent volatility in the
market place, not create it?
Once again, I fully support the Proposed Regulation FD.
Jan Meisler
Baltimore, MD
Author: Mark Meyer at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 2:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I wholeheartedly support Regulation FD, in spite of the arguments against it
put forward by the Securities Industry Association. For me the whole point
is the free flow of information. There are millions of individual investors
who are at a disadvantage if they do not have the information upon which
they can act while a certain set of "privileged" individuals can. If
analysts do indeed provide a necessary service to the stock market and its
investors, there is no reason that they need to have information before the
common investor. If an investor wishes to wait until analysts have digested
information on a company and issued their conclusions before acting, that
should be his choice. If an investor wishes to act immediately on the
information instead, that should also be his choice.
It's a simple question of fairness. Please enact Regulation FD.
--
Mark Meyer
mmeyer@raytheon.com
Voice (972)575-4595 Fax (972)575-0147
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:15 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a private investor, I strongly support the above proposed regulation. My
personal experience has lead me to believe that the free advice of an analyst
is to be ignored unless one chooses to be swept up in the volatile tide of
ignorant followers.
Kirk A. Miller MD
Author: "Brian Miller" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:47 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sec,
My wife and myself work full time outside of the market,yet trade ourselves
online.We base many of our investment decisions on
updated news releases.We definitely support Proposed Regulation FD as this would
help to level out the playing field.
Sincerely,
Brian & Anna Miller
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:58 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7- 31 - 99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
The appearance of impropriety always has and always will do much to undermine
public confidence in financial markets. Over the course of the last several
year as more average persons than ever invest in the companies of their
choice, those same persons have learned, through the use of their computers,
brokers and other media to perform their own research and take control of
their financial futures. Yet, the brightest and most diligent investor can
never learn what the analysts are told privately. All too often, a stock
declines or moves up for several days with no fundamental reason until we
learn that a meeting was held days earlier with a company that provided a
favorite analyst with information not known to the investing public. There
is no fundamental reason why such a situation should occur unless one argues
that the investing public is so dense that they need the help of an analyst
to decipher what a company says. I don't believe that to be the case and for
those who rely on such analysts, they are free to listen to what the analyst
thinks of the information after it has been made public. In short, I feel
strongly, as an investor that this practice is inherently unfair to the
public and undermines the idea of transparency in the marketplace. One only
need read stock message boards to get a sense of the increasing distrust by
the public of the Wall Street Machine.
Cassandra Mullen
Author: "Ellen O'Leary" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 12:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
TO: Ellen_O'Leary@hmco.com at Internet
Subject: Fair Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
If there was ever a time when the practice of companies disclosing
important info to Wall St analysts but not to the public at large needed
changing that time is now. There is a revolution afoot in the investing
game and the brokerage industry knows it. As a result, the industry
wants to continue the equivalent of "barefoot and pregnant" on the
individual investor by fighting against a level playing field. Let the
chips fall where they may and let fair disclosure be across the board
not just for the favored few.
Ellen O'Leary
An Individual Investor
15 Kearney St.
Malden, MA 02148
(781) 322-2156
Author: Toby Owen at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:02 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
After reading some of the SIA's comments to the proposed rule, I am aghast
that analysts would be so arrogant as to assume that individual investors
would not be willing to invest the time in investigating companies they wish
to purchase. The statement that analysts contribute to Less volitility in
the market is actually 180 degrees off. I believe much of the current
volitility in the Nasdaq is due primarily to analyst nay-sayers preaching
that a "market correction" was inevitable, that technology stocks are
overvalued, and that the "correction" is not yet complete. I believe these
comments are driving the market down still further, even as we speak. To
propose that analysts are privy to information that the general public, and
more to the point, the individual investor, should have no access to, is
simply a vain effort of self-promotion. If individuals had equal and timely
access to this financial information, then we could make our own analysis,
and these poor people would no longer be able to charge ridiculous fees for
doing our homework for us. Investing requires due diligence by each
investor, and to preach otherwise, that we could or should rely solely on
the advise of others, is ludicruous and self serving. The time has come for
investors to take responsibility for their own investment choices, and I
believe that the tremendous rise in self-serve online investing vehicles
testifies to this fact.
Toby Owen
Network Administrator
American Fence Co.
phone: (602)734-0500x7029
direct: (602)734-0501
fax: (602)734-0573
mobile: (602)284-0171
Toby.Owen@americanfence.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 4:04 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation FD: file No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe the general public should have access to all of the same
information made available to banks and brokerage firms.
Glen Pappas
PO Box 101
Butler NJ 07405
Author: "DrWonderful" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: selective disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
DEAR S.E.C.,
PLEASE STOP SELECTIVE DISCLOSURE!
SINCERELY,
DR. JAMES D. GUEST
Phoenix, Az.
Author: "Michael Reynolds" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:16 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: selective disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC,
I am a private investor who finds the selective disclosure agenda extremely
biased and unfair. I will state two examples explaining my discourse that
have occurred only recently.
1) I am an investor in a small tech company for more than a year now, and
have maintained an open dialogue with them via email regarding their
business model and plans. They stated, via email to another investor, that
products began shipping on a contract that had been much delayed, and the
shipments would continue throughout the coming year. I emailed the company,
asking for information regarding amounts of the product shipped, amounts of
the product ordered, and status on the original contract, and revenues
generated.
The company replied that units where shipped in March, but no other
information would be available to investors until the annual 10K. The
company's fiscal quarter ended with March, and now, investors in the
company, owners of this public company, are not allowed to know any
specifics with regards to revenues for these transactions for a full 90
days, the filing time requirement for the 10K.
This represents over one full quarter of the year that investors need to
wait to have relevant information. I deem this unacceptable.
2) Conversations via the phone with the VP of a company met with no
disclosure as to progress with any new developments regarding new technology
promoted his company. I asked a broker to call the company to speak with
the VP, to see if he may offer any more enlightenment on future business.
The subsequent phone call by the broker, yielded an accommodating VP, who
explained exactly what sources would be the main revenues for the company
for the next two years.
As an individual investor, I was not privy to this information, but the
broker was given the information immediately and easily. This is unfair
disclosure practice.
I hope in the near future, individual investors such as myself can have the
opportunity to fair, reasonable, and timely information regarding their
investments, as that is clearly not the case at present.
Sincerely,
Michael Reynolds
mrkahuna@msn.com
Author: Roberto Ribas at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:39 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I teach theoretical mathematics. I feel I can handle complex financial
information at least as well but probably much better than "analysts",
and a system that gives information first to a privileged few is
completely unfair. If their analysis is so great, then in the insuing
volatility and inefficiency they could make tons of money. Obviously,
they have more interest in protecting priority access to information,
than any analytical expertise they allegedly possess.
Roberto Ribas
Author: "Rogers; Paul" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 12:16 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of the new rule. All investors should have access to all
information issued by public companies at the same time!!!!!!!!
Paul D. Rogers
Process Engineer
Bechtel Corp.
Email: pdrogers@bechtel.com
Author: fuelcoupe at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 7:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Selective Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to see the argument FOR Selective Disclosure. What can
they say? "We NEED the insider information in order to stay in
business!" As a taxpayer, consumer and investor, I demand that all
companies make full, public disclosure. We, the working class, bare
the majority of the tax burden and in this country, and deserve honesty
from companies from whom we purchase and in whom we invest. No more
'good ole boy club'! This is a no-brainer!
James H. Rohrer
3234 Casa Grande Drive
San Ramon, CA 94583
Author: Andr=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?= Seibel at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:20 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the proposed regulation (File No. S7-31-99) that would force
companies to stop giving inside information to analysts ahead of individual
investors. It's a pretty commonsense rule in my opinion, one that many
investors might logically assume must already be the law of the land, but
unfortunately isn't.
Andre Seibel
Author: "Andrew Skarlupka" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:14 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I understand why analysts are opposed to giving equal access of information
to the public, however, it is time that a select few are no longer
privileged with information prior to the rest of us.
I feel that I should have equal access to the same information without
having
it filtered through some analyst first.
Author: Sammie and Jerry Skatvold at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 9:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: ProposedFD:File No.37-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Individual investors have the right to the same information at the same
time as Wall Street money people.
JHS International
Jerry Skatvold- President
Author: springermichael at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:10 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Give individual investors the same information at the same time it is provided
to brokerage analysts.
Author: "Jim Stephens" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support such regulation.
I can manage my financial portfolio at least as well as the best financial
advisor if, and only if, I have the same information.
No advisor is more interested in my money that he is in his money. No one should
be given pertinent information on a stock or company that is not available to
shareholders of that company.
Sincerely,
James A Stephens, Jr
Author: "Curtis Stewart" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:47 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to offer my comment as an individual investor. I want as much
information as possiable to make my own decision as when to buy and sell my
stocks. The way it is now, all information comes to me filtered through stock
analysts. WIth the tools available to me and also available to all interested
investors, I can determine if and when a company is telling the truth or blowing
smoke.
Please, give me the freedom to make my own decisions.
SIncerely
Curtis Stewart
Author: Brian Tabone at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 7:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Selective Discloser
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whomever it may concern:
It has come to my attention that the SEC has
before its consideration, new regulations that would
force companies to no longer selectively disclose
investor related information (Proposed Regulation FD).
I am for such regulation, and believe that it is only
fair, and in the best interest of the individual
investor to have full and timely access to all
investor related information. Selective discloser
favors only institutional investors, and puts the
sophisticated individual investor at a disadvantage.
I do not feel that there is any risk
to market stability, by disclosing information equally
among investors of all classes. Any investor willing
to take the time to educate themselves to the fullest,
is likely to make wiser decisions than if they were
not privy to all the information available.
Withholding information from investors is never in the
interest of either the market, or the investor.
Author: Scott Taylor at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:42 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
In regards to the recent comments by The Ad Hoc Working Group on Proposed
Regulation FD and the Legal and Compliance Division of the Securities
Industry Association ("SIA"), I feel that some commentary is
necessary. Basically, the comments by this group indicate that they feel
that individual investors are not capable of understanding items such as a
prospectus and balance sheet. According to them, high-priced analysts are
"needed" to protect me. This is an act of self-preservation on the part of
said analysts. As an individual investor, I don't ask that you give me any
'advantages' like what professional analysts are asking for. All I ask is
a level playing field. Give me the same information, at the same time, and
let me make my own decisions.
Thank you.
Scott Taylor
Account Manager
Internet Pictures Corporation
www.ipix.com
1-800-336-7113 ext #344
1-865-482-3000 ext #344
Author: "Thant; Myo M SHLOIL" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:39 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor (not a trader, day or otherwise), Securities
Industry Association's representation to you as I have read it has no
merits.
All my years of investing have been made complicated by the fact that, I not
only have to conduct due diligence on a companies information, but also
trying to see through the "spin" of analysts, who are supposed to be looking
out for the investors' interest.
Please stop listening to SIA's meritless representations, which are all
together driven by self interest.
Thank you
Myo Thant
Author: "Weaver; Park" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:16 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re:Proposed Rule FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen: I am thoroughly in favor of this rule. All company information
should be available to all. Financial analyst are merely another species of
salespersons; they are not doctors or priests. The public should not be
denied immediate and equal access to any and all company information.
Park Weaver
Author: Donald Webster at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam;
I support this rule that requires disclosure of information to the
public that is also disclosed to brokers. I feel that the public should
have access to all publically available information
at the same time as brokers, otherwise brokers have access to something
akin to 'insider
information'.
Sincerely, Donald L. Webster
Author: "george williams" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 8:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: SEC rule change
------------------------------- Message Contents
We should all have access to companies news briefs at the same time.
No favorites.
Regards,
George Williams
Author: Matt Wilson at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 11:18 AM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The increase in the amount of direct, discount investing tools should be
a tipoff that individual investors now have the opportunity and
willingness to direct their financial future without the benefit of
"expert" opinions. The free flow of information allows the individual
investor to make decisions that benefit (or don't) him. We don't need
to have it filtered for us. We are willing to make our decisions and
stick by them, especially if we have the best information available.
Filtering information is un-American. - Matt Wilson
Author: "Rosalyn Wolfe" at Internet
Date: 04/24/2000 10:58 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am very much in favor of the rule that would allow individual
investors access to reports and information now available only to
analysts and brokerage firms. I could site a recent example of JP Morgan
manipulating information that made their balance sheet appear more
profitable than it really was. There was nothing illegal, but the
information was critical and as an individual investor, I had no way to
access this information. This is patently UNFAIR!
I had been invested in the market with a major brokerage firm for 25
years. I recently left them because I realized I had been taken
advantage of. In some respects I have no one to blame for that but
myself. I relied on their advice which I had been led to believe was it
my financial interest. What a mistake that was. Recently I have set
about the educate myself. Better late than never.
Sincerely yours,
Rosalyn Wolfe
2605 Harmony
Amarillo, Texas 79106
