Author: "feared1" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:53 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: unfair buisness
------------------------------- Message Contents
Stop Selective Disclosure ...information is for the masses not the select few,
unless it is for national security( which it is not), everyone will profit from
this if it is stopped.
May you be blessed in all that you do.
Mr. Timothy L Mulkey III
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:06 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Selectived Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
Give the small investor equal opportunity. End selective disclosure.
Robert E. Myrstad
Myrstad@aol.com
Author: "Roger Nelson" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:32 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Selective disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
Comment: Proposed regulation FD: file no. s7-31-99
I am a retired, off-and-on small, conservative investor. With time on my hands,
I've recently done some research...of stocks, and as a result, the whole "game"
of investing. I wish to be an "investor", not a "gambler"...in a game where
THERE ARE NO RULES. Where CEOs and their cronies make 10's of millions (often
while their companies fail), where directors can alter stock options
on-the-fly, where one better understand the concept of "diluted shares",
"restricted offerings", etc. I don't wish to have insider information or to
ride a wave of market greed; I want to be able to confidently, and with some
pride, INVEST in good companies with good intentions.
I want good information; the same information available to everyone (not just to
the privileged few)...to even begin to feel I can resume investing.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 12:34 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Equitable Information Distribution
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please make any and all appropriate rules in order to ensure that individual
investors are given identical research and news as brokerages and other
investment firms are. Not doing so is tantamount to preferential, insider
knowledge. Under these circumstances, individuals cannot protect their
resources like the wealthy corporations can.
Thank you,
Nick F.
Author: "Calvin W. Oakason" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 3:28 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor I would like to see information disclosed to
all...not just the big guys..Give 10 Good reasons why the Big Guys
should get the information over everyone else
Author: Stephen L Oliker at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 5:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Level playing field
------------------------------- Message Contents
If companies are going to be required, by law or government regulation,
to release information, then nobody, not even Wall Street, is entitled to
have that information, exclusively.
Any other requirement is the theft of private information (the
corporation's) for the benefit of a priviliged few (Wall Street) and
becomes a conspiracy to defraud those not privilged (the general,
non-Wall Street, public).
Author: "James I Park" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 3:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File
------------------------------- Message Contents
This is a comment to the upcoming proposal to level the playing field for all
investors. I would like to present my support for the upcoming proposal. It is
absurd what SIA is saying, and I can't believe that this proposal did not come
up sooner. I feel that SIA, and there analysts are self serving, for I know
they serve me no good. What have they done for regular investors, except to
beat down good companies and then like vultures scoop up their shares when
prices plummet. Freedom of information gives all investors opportunity to make
their own judgement. Everyone knows the risk involved before entering the stock
market, and we don't need SIA telling us what information is good for us to
know, and what isn't.
sincerly,
james park
Author: "David Paulson" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir,
There's a proposal to allow the general public to get information at the
same time analysts get it from a company. This is only fair. Why should only
analysts get this info and perhaps put it to use to enable them to profit from
it before and perhaps at the expense of the general public.
yours truly,
David Paulson
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 2:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
My support is behind the proposed Selective Disclosure Rule as it lessens the
gap in available information that is accurate and reliable between individual
investors and industry analysts.
Therese Pieper
Nederland, Colorado
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:19 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation FD File # S-7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Lets keep the playing field even. Don't give in to the special interests as
you folks in Washington seem to always do. Why should Wall St brokers be
treated any differently than the average investor.
Patrick Prunty
Author: Michael Puisis at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed SEC regulations.
------------------------------- Message Contents
Given that many individual investors have individual SEP plans based in
stock investments, it is unfair that analysts have privliged information
that is not made available to all investors. This creates an unequal
market that places individual investors at risk of loss. If the stock
market is publicly traded then information distributed by these public
companies should be public information similar to SEC information. The
government should represent the public interest not merely the interests
of individual brokers and investment houses.
Author: "Elaine R. Radford" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 5:28 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject:
------------------------------- Message Contents
I,m against selective disclosure. all investors deserve equal share of
information.
gary and elaine becker
Author: "ben randall" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 4:44 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject:
------------------------------- Message Contents
The wall street pros have too many advantages over the general public.
Evening the field in every way possible will allow everyone to participate and
profit equally.The way it is now,the big moves are anticipated and executed
before the announcements are made public. Tre pros make it big at the public
expense!
Please level the playing field! You will increase the wealth of the
country greatly.
Ben Randall
BOBox 208
Smyrna,NC 28579
Author: Jan Renz at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: New SEC Proposal
------------------------------- Message Contents
This new proposal is good for the individual investor and the overall
market. My view is that it allows for a more free flow of ideas and
information.
Allowing a company to select who hears the upcoming public release of
pertinent information is unfair to the public as a whole.
This proposal has my vote! Thanks for listening.
janrenz@grove.net
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:59 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
I both use a regular broker and invest independently.
I feel fair and full disclosure to the public is vital to our continued
investment progress.
Joy K. Des Rosier
Author: "ROBERT ROTH" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:34 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am opposed to selective disclosure for anybody. Keep it open for all
Robert Roth
Author: Paul & Lucille Roy at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:50 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Selective Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am for the proposed SEC ruling banning selective disclosure of
investment information to "Special Interests" investors. Information
should be made available to ALL investors at the time of disclosure,
without special preference, regardless of the size of the investment.
--
Paul Roy
lroy@netway.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 2:08 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
Today James Cramer, hedge fund operator and financial journalist, wrote a
piece in thestreet.com entitled "Staying on Top of the Calls Is Key"
An excerpt: "How important are these calls? Try unbelievably so. You can't
trade this stuff without knowing the guidance, and the guidance comes in the
middle of the calls."
So if the important stuff comes "in the middle of the calls" is it right the
individual investors that don't choose to use analysts as intermediaries be
excluded from this vital info? Is it right that professionals that these
individual investors compete with get this huge advantage of being able to
receive, analyze, and trade on vital info well ahead of non-professional
investors?
I damn-sure don't think so!
Robert Rudd
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 12:32 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: PROPOSED REGULATION FD: FILE # 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
STRONGLY URGE ADOPTION OF RULE GIVING ALL INVESTORS KEY INFORMATION ON
PUBLIC COMPANIES ------ AND NOT GIVING ANY ADVANCED INFORMATION OR
PREFERENTIAL DISCLOSURE TO ANALYSTS OR LARGE FINANCIAL ENTITIES !
ROBERT C. RUNYON
Author: "Paul Ryan" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Selective disclouser
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am ; Paul M. Ryan
21 Channing road
Watertown, MA 02472
I very strongly oppses any selective disclousers. Ther exists enough self
motivated and selective comments today without adding another opportunity for
the Wall Steet Community to take advantage of the small investor. This will onl
remove the Small investor from the market and create another hurdle for companys
seeking legitamate funding.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: FD: File # 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am strictly a private investor. I resent that information available to
"insiders" (in the generic sense) gives certain persons and companies the
ability to know of developments which affect the value of my stocks, long
before the information is practically speaking available to me. Consider
today's anouncement of the Champion Paper possible merger. I believe the
proposed rule will help in some small measure to "level the playing field".
I therefore support its final adoption by the SEC.
Gunther H. Schiff.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:32 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Rule Changes
------------------------------- Message Contents
This is wrong. Do not let a select few obtain information that the general
public is entitled to. It is basically unethical to give certain people
information that affects the public thereby giving that privileged group an
investment advantage over the rest of the investment public!
Stop this change!!! This would make legal a form of insider trading.
Mary Schleicher
Hawthorn Woods, IL
Author: Christian Schreiber at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: joke -- the SIA
------------------------------- Message Contents
The SIA's comments are an insult to individual investors like myself and
moreover, I find them arrogant, ignorant, and self-serving. Their self
interest is transparent and the SEC should see through it just as I do.
The "public" is entitled to the same resources -- at the same time -- as
these investment firms. And to think we have gone this long with the SIA
conning us into thinking they provided information we couldn't arrive at
ourselves.
Maybe I'm a Polyanna here, but does this big, bad SIA really think they are
protecting us poor dumb souls?
I don't want their protection! Get in sync with the real "real world" and
end this nonsense.
chris schreiber
Author: Marvin Schultz at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD; File No.S7-31--99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of the new regulation re: selective information.
Marvin H. Schultz MD
Author: "Ed_shemeta" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 5:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support this regulation. As an individual investor, I feel that equal
access to company information is necessary for the market to function fairly.
Edward Shemeta
9405 S. 205th Pl.
Kent, WA 98031
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 7:26 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31099
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I am a small investor and I believe company information should be
available to all parties simultaneously.
George Shride
23864 W. McClintock Rd
Channahon, IL 60410
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:01 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: file no. 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC
as a CPA for over thirty years I think I am as able to understand financial
information l as the analysts on Wall Street. It is preferable to have the
information, even if not used than not to have access to it for those who
will use it.
Sincerely,
Jerome J. Shure CPA
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 2:24 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: (no subject)
------------------------------- Message Contents
All should be equal.
Barbara Simon
Author: skeeter at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:53 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: FD Rule
------------------------------- Message Contents
voting for " full disclosure" to all parties.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:53 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: (no subject)
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am more disclorure to all investors.
Javier Soto.-
Author: "spencer" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 6:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Disclosure position as an investor
------------------------------- Message Contents
The issue of disclosure of information about a companies financial position
should be available from the smallest stockholder to the largest institutional
investor. I am not a day trader nor would I be considered an active trader, but
the information that I use to determine my investment choices should be
available to all interested parties equally. My wife and I attempt to make the
best long-range investment decisions that we can. We do not blindly follow the
talking heads nor the guests that are sometimes "shilling" on their programs for
their own best interest. We have more of a stake in a company that we are
invested in than a brokerage company that doesn't even own a share of that
particular stock. Why would I do my research and invest my own money? The answer
is that I want to be responsible for my success or failure and learn from my
investing mistakes. There is not anyone else that is as motivated as me for me
to succeed. It is critical that all investors, regardless of the size of their
portfolio be given the same opportunity to have access to investment
information so that they can make informed decisions. The large investment
companies only want to have another reason for the typical investor to go
through them for information and trades because they have information that
would be withheld from the small investor.
Sincerely,
Robert Spencer
Author: Steven at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 4:59 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Fair is Fair...............
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear FTC,
I want the same information that the big companies get.
All information should go out to all parties at the same time.
Fair is fair and if someone has an advantage over me
I am going to suffer in the financial markets while they
gain just because I did not have the same information.
Thank You,
Steven
Cape Coral, Fl
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:59 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: EKDorff@aol.com at Internet
CC: wa_white@juno.com at Internet
CC: lalepin@interjacent.com at Internet
Subject: To The SEC
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs and Ladies,
I think it imperative that you change the current information rule to give
the individual investor the same investment information that you know give
only to a select few institutional investors Only approximately ten percent
of all investors leave the market having made any money on their investments
due to the inequity of the current system. In addition, more and more
individual investors are attempting to do their own investing rather than
rely on so-called "profesional brokers."
Thank you for your time.
Most sincerely,
Jim Sullivan
Ventura, California
MA, MBA, Series 7 Broker License
Author: "Dave Sutherland" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Selective Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs:
How could anyone in their right mind, given the emphasis
on today's free market economy, even consider that withholding
information from the public at large could benefit comsumers?
With the advent of internet trading brokerages, funds have
been pouring into stocks at an incredible rate. Alan Greenspan
deplores the "unabated enthusiasm" of individuals' investing
blindly in hot stocks without having a basic risk assessment
knowledge. Although there is information available to these
investors, making full disclosure of all available company info
with regard to company performance should be mandatory to
all investors, not just the favored few on Wall Street who have
manipulated stock prices for years on inside information.
Dave Sutherland
duds@bellouth.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 7:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File # ST-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
There is no reason why the average invester should be excluded from
information that anilyst are privvy to.
Virgil P. Thompson II
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:01 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File No. S-7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I feel all information which does not directly relate to the national
security should be disclosed to all the citizens of the United States. No
one should be kept in the dark especially when it can affect them adversely.
My finances are very important to my well being and non-disclosure would
certainly affect me adversely.
Richalene G. Tierney
Conner Realty Company
1564 Arch Road
Eaton Rapids, MI 48827
Author: "martha torres" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 12:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of Proposed Regulation FD:File No. 57-31-99
Thank-you,
Laura Torres
Author: Ika Turner at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 12:42 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing to express my support of Proposed Regulation FD. If companies have
been using analysts as a means of technically meeting SEC disclosure
regulations, while still hiding information that the company "would rather not
disclose or would prefer to disclose" from investors, the question is whether
this practice is something that the SEC wants to promote?
Analyst know that a level playing field would affect the premium they charge
for possessing information the investor does not have access to (not their
analysis, but the raw data from a company). However, is it truly fair to keep
information from the investor in order for analyst to continue enjoying
"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."
As a proponent for the investor, I believe it would only be right for the SEC to
do what is best for the investor, and go forward with Proposed Regulation FD.
Sincerely,
Ika Turner
An independent investor
ufturner@swbell.net
Author: "Gordon G. Tyler" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 5:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Fair Diclouser For All
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am for fair disclosure for all persons. Proposed Regulation FD: File No.
S7-31-99
Gordon G. Tyler
41572 Bedford Dr.
Canton, MI. 48187-3702
ggt@provide.net
Author: Lee Urmy at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Full discloser
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC;
I think that companies should provide full disclosure to everyone not just
to brokers and friends. Brokers have many ways of making money with the
various services they provide. But I strongly feel as an investor in any
company that I should be able to get the same information that a Broker gets
from the company. It should be a level playing field. Brokers and
Brokerages can hedge and protect themselves much easier that the individual
can. It should not be privileged information.
That my two cents worth.
Lee Urmy, MWE
leeu234@yahoo.com
Author: "Wolter van Doorninck" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:17 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: File No. s7-31-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
Level the playing field.
Wolter van Doorninck
Epb&b Inc.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 5:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Brokerage analysts getting first news
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is time to level the playing field and take away the monopoly that
analysts representing brokerages and institutions have always had. The
individual investor should have the same timely access to company information
as the people representing large monied interests. Muriel H. Wagner 2918
Lawnton Avenue Bristol, PA 19007
Author: will wallace at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 3:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: to whom it may concern:
------------------------------- Message Contents
To continue with this antiquated thinking is absurd, now that those in
control have publicly acknowledged that is goes on they had better fix
it.
The recent huge growth in the market is due to huge influxes of
liquidity ,because of the publics confidence in the market and continued
economic sucess.
If the public starts to loose confidence in the information they
receive, because they are not privy to the information, or starts to
feel less confident in knowing that there research is useless because
the good ole boy network isn't going to let the regulars know the most
recent info on a co. then I for one will not trade !!!
This is comparable to our pathetic polititions passing a law that you
can't sue your HMO but you still have to pay them for the medical care
that they are supposed to provide.
The Year 2000 means things are changing, those in charge can decide, who
it will be better for??? Your fat cat buddies who already have a
decent living, or the Public who originally are hoping you guy's will
look out for there best interest.
Thanks from; william wallace/
Ft.lauderdale, Fl.(ret. investor)
Author: "Jeffrey Wallin" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 12:47 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the rule change, which will help put individual investors on a level
playing ground with institutional investors.
Jeffrey D. Wallin
American Academy for Liberal Education
1700 K Street, N.W., #901
Washington, D.C. 20006
Author: David Walters at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 7:11 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: (no subject)
------------------------------- Message Contents
RE: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
As a former state Blue-sky regulator, and, now, a small business
corporate attorney, I appreciate your proposed rule and think it's
timing couldn't be better. Not only will it level the playing field for
the "small investor," but it will level the playing field for the small
business. "Insider," and/or "privileged" status works BOTH ways....
Not only does it unfairly favor certain "investors," but it favors
certain businesses needing capital. One, may, indeed, wonder how much
money is invested in certain businesses NOT on the basis of sound
economic and/or business fundamentals, but on the basis of
privileged/insider information. THIS unfairly favors businesses which
are unfairly "plugged into" insider information networks at the expense
of, perhaps, otherwise equally sound businesses.
David W. Walters, Esq.
33 Twain Harte Lane
San Rafael, California 94901
Author: Robin & Larry Wheeler at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hello.
Whenever an issuer of financial information intentionally yields
material information in a selective disclosure (where only certain
professionals are invited) the public investor has "their field of fair
play" assests muted and/or erased. Individuals who do not have access
to privately disclosed information in selective circles (ie not Public
domain such as the press, TV, etc.) are effectively investing in a
domain in which "those in the know" are able to manipulate short term
market results.
I am in favor of regulations that protect private investors (who lack
employment in the financial sector) from market movements caused by
disclosure to employees of financial institutions of material
information that causes changes in stock prices and resultantly in
swings of short term markets. When this information is disclosed prior
to press disclosure, those in the know are able to quickly take
advantage of price movements in the markets for unfair gains.
regards,
Larry Wheeler
Retired Engineering Manager
Author: Marjorie White at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:28 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an investor, I believe I should have the same access to information
being released by the companies I invest in as Wall Street analysts.
This is one way I can protect my money that is not currently available to
me. If I know what a company is announcing at the same time as analysts, I
can make informed decisions on my portfolio.
Why is my need to know less important than the analysts' need to know? My
money is as important to me, perhaps more important to me, as their
clients' money is to them.
Thanks.
Marjorie White
Author: "Jim Winn" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 5:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD": File No @ 7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
This proposed rule is a no-brainer. We have every right to information as
does the "monopoly" on Wall Street.
James G. Winn
Lawrence, KS 66049
785 842 7111
jim#winngrp.com
Author: "Larry E. Wise" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 8:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Larry Wise-Investment Club Treasurer and Independent Investo
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is very disheartening to find a piece a information and start to
reasearch a company only to find it has already gapped up and has little
upside potential left. I am ardently in favor of leveling the playing
field between all people involved in the stock market. It would be much
better for this action to be taken by all involved rather than have the
federal government start regulating by legislation.
Author: "adrianne woodward" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 2:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: disclosing company information
------------------------------- Message Contents
i am totally against giving financial advisors information before revealing it
to the public. things have changed, this is no longer a rich man's game. it's
fair play for all. adrianne p woodward
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation F.D. File No. S. 7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
We oppose the current system of selective disclosure and feel that we should
have the same opportunity to be playing on a level playing field. Carol
Wright
Author: "Zelkha; Claudette" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:28 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Disclosure of Information
------------------------------- Message Contents
Since our money and not the analyst's is at stake, we should at least get
the same information they get.
