Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: Bruce Allard at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
In the interests of individual investors everywhere, please stop this
obscenity called selective disclosure. It is immoral, indecent and not fair.
- Bruce Allard
Author: "Jan Barak" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:16 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe that there should be as equal access to company information by the
general public as there is to "stock market analysts." It is unfair to have
companies release info to just the analysts who then "interpret" it for John
Q. Public. We are intelligent enough to do our own interpretations.
Janet S. Barak
Author: Duane Bartholomew at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 7:27 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
I favor the Proposed Regulation FD, which would require, among other
things, that companies no longer engage in the practice of discreetly
disclosing important information to Wall Street analysts without also
giving that information to the public at large. It is a commonsense rule
that should already have been implemented. I dislike selective disclosure
to an elite group of analysts, don't feel that such analysts contribute
significantly to my understanding or perception of the market, and believe
that publicly traded companies should make information relevant to owners
or potential owners of a particular companies stock available to all of the
public. The position of analysts against such rule is self-serving and
their comments are demeaning to me and others who conduct their own
analyses of a companies data and purchase stock through a discount broker
without the assistance of analysts opinion.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely yours,
Duane P. Bartholomew
518 Kaumakani St.
Honolulu, HI 96825
808-395-3317
----------------------------------------------------
Duane P. Bartholomew, Agronomist emeritus, Univ. of Hawaii
518 Kaumakani St., Honolulu, HI 96825 (E-Mail: duaneb@hawaii.edu)
Pineapple Web Page at
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 12:58 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor, it is frustrating to see stock prices effected by
announcements given in private to large holders of the stock or other
analysts. The government should not protect big money at the expense of the
individual investor. All investors should be treated equally and all
announcements should be made to all investors at the same time.
Please pass this proposed regulation.
Arthur G. Bingman,
Attorney-at-law
Author: Victor Bishop at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 12:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing to lend my voice in favor of ending the current system of
selective disclosure.
Let the people be heard!
Author: MIRIAM BLATT at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
TO: mblatt@Sun.COM at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hi,
I'm writing in support of the proposed regulation FD: File No S7-31-99
because eliminating selective disclosure adds fairness to the
investment marketplace.
Please expedite its introduction. Thanks,
Miriam Blatt
Menlo Park, California
Author: Maynard Brandsma at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:48 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
There should be no selective disclosure. All disclosure should be fully
public
and available to everyone. Thanks for considering my opinion.
Maynard G. Brandsma
Durango, CO
Author: "Ross Budden" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 6:53 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I fully support this proposal for uniform disclosure!
Ross Budden
1218 West Dravus
Seattle, Washington 98119
President
Sturdy~Weld Equipment & Design, Inc.
Author: "john burgess" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:42 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To: SEC
Make it fair for everyone!! Please do not let the big boys keep control
and dictate to the rest of us!! We are not ignorant idiots and do not want to
be treated as such!! This is still America, isn't it!! Let the freedom reign
over all, not just a few!!
Sincerely,
John Burgess
Author: Jim Edgington at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please force all companies to announce there decisions to the public at
large and stop selective disclosure.
Thank you,
Jim Edgington
Jim.Edgington@LabOne.Com
(913) 577-1335
Author: "John Fleming" <1fleming@bellsouth.net> at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 12:32 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am an individual investor and I would like to see information disclosed to
all...not just a select few. Therefore mark me as for the proposed rule
change noted above.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Tracy Fleming
Author: Colin Foster at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Mr. Katz,
I writing to advise you of my opposition to selective-discosclosure between
public corporations and financial analysts.
I am sure you are well aware of all the arguments why one would be opposed to
this practice so I am going to spare you a regurgitation of all those same
facts. I simply wanted to add my voice to the group who would like to see this
practice changed.
Sincerely,
Colin Foster
--
Cognizant Consulting Inc.
406-1055 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3A3
Author: Skate Dancer at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:59 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I forgot to put the header in the subject line.
----- Original Message -----
From: Skate Dancer
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 1:50 PM
Subject: Disclosure Information
To the SEC:
I believe that the general public should have the same equal access to
disclosure information from companies as the Wall Street analysts. That is not
to say that there is no role for the Street analysts or that their roles are to
dramatically change. They can still render their opinions based on the facts
that are presented to them. I feel that the general public should be given the
option of deciding whether or not they want to buy securities based on full
disclosure and their own logical conclusions or that of someone else.
Aisha Garner
Shareholder
Author: "Gary W. Gerfen" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 9:17 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
450 Fifth Street, N.W., Stop 6-9,
Washington, D.C. 20549.
Re: Proposed Regulation FD - File No. S7-31-99
Dear Mr. Katz:
I write in support of proposed regulation "FD." The degree to which
individual investors
impact, and in our aggregate constitute, the market, has and will continue
to increase as
more people take control of their investments in individual stocks and
varied retirement
plans. In this regard we do not act on the advice or counsel of "analysts."
We are performing
analyses on our own behalf, and for this we require access to the raw
information of commerce.
In order to participate on a level playing field we require, and deserve,
access to the same
information at the same time as other market participants. The spectre of
this level playing
field terrifies and threatens the livelihood of for-hire analysts.
If one is the sole conduit of certain (non-mandated for release)
information then one will
disseminate it as a work product, for pay, and on a schedule and in a forum
that suits one's
own needs, not those of other market participants.
Mr. Katz, I strongly encourage you to resist the efforts of entrenched
interests to hold
back the forces of progress which have helped make the boom of the last
decade possible.
Sincerely,
Gary W. Gerfen
gerfen@icnt.net
Author: "Gray; Robert C" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 12:39 PM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe your proposed rule to force a public company to release all
relevant information to the public instead of just the selected "analysts"
is a good idea.
Companies now appear to release possibly damaging information to "their
preferred" analysts first in the hopes that these analysts will "tone down"
or "spin" the bad news into a more palatable story. This also offers the
analysts the time to warn their customers out of a particular stock before
the general public has the opportunity to actually see and interpret the
information on their own.
The same goes for good news. If the selected analyst receives the
information ahead of the general public he can position his customers to
profit from the potential rise of a stock when the individual long-term
investor gets the information and acts on it.
Please consider whether the present system is actually more or less likely
to cause volatility. I believe the analyst getting advanced notice only
allows them the advantage in cashing in on the volatile market.
Thank You,
Robert Gray
Robert Gray - Q&PI - NDI inspection
6-0005 pager 5-2281
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take
effect.
Reboot now? [ OK ]
ANONYMOUS
Author: steven gray at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:15 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC:
I am in favor in the regulation which gives disclosure of information to
all parties equally at the same time. Since many of us cannot afford to
pay the brokerage fees for information, it seems very unfair to
basically allow analysts to "pay" for selective disclosure of financial
information which puts many of us at a disadvantage. Many analysts add
nothing to research reports except a rehash of what was disclosed to
them. And then they charge the public for the information. Forcing
companies to disclose information to all shareholders equally would make
all parties more honest as well. Again, I will state that I am strongly
in favor of making all disclosure public to shareholders at the same
time and I am against any disclosure to " analysts" selectively that
does not allow us access at the same time to information that would
affect stock valuation.
Steven Gray
Salt Lake City, Utah
801-272-3503
Author: Bill Grimwood at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of the proposed rule regarding the fair disclosure of
information by publicly traded companies to the public. I feel individual
investors are intelligent enough to make their own decisions about the value
of securities and do not need Wall Street's analysts to hear and interpret
important information first.
Bill Grimwood
Individual Investor
Author: "edward haberek jr." at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 2:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I feel there should be full disclosure to the public. Thank you.
Edward Haberek
Author: Sandy Hamilton at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:47 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
If there really is such a thing as a level playing field, then the
rules must change. If these guys on Wall St. are so much smarter than
the rest of us, they should not worry about us getting information at
the same time they do.
This rules about insider trading always seemed to me to be about people
gaining an unfair advantage when it came to buying and selling of
securities. Well, this situation doesn't appear all that different to
me.
It's time to fix an antiquated notion and create truly open markets.
Thank you for your consideration,
Alexander Hamilton
Author: "Steve & Donna" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 12:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: FD S7-31-99 Proposed regulation
------------------------------- Message Contents
Make the playing field level for all investors, As an individual investor I
would like to see information disclosed to all ...not just the big guys.. . We
deserve the same information as the big boys get. Steven D. Helm
Author: "Herby; Tim" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:50 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing to let it be known that I strongly approve of the sharing of all
information about companies that I invest in. I want to be able to look up
ALL the facts. This does not mean I will no longer look at analysts for
insight into the market. However, I would like to be able to see what
information they have to back up their suggestions.
Tim Herby
Vividence Inc.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:31 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Support fair disclosure.
Kathy Hyle
Author: jischy at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I highly recommend that the proposed regulation for fair disclosure be
passed as a requirement that all companies give equal disclosure to the
public investor, not just to analysts and brokers.
Janet E. Ischy
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:32 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation F D: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sorry, I just wrote against any discrimination aganinst the majority of the
people and did not put in the file number. Please think about the majority
of the people and that is what it is all about.
Sincerely yours,
Joan J.Kennedy
JodyK2@hotmail.com
Author: "Kinsey; Scott" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:13 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I support the proposed new rules for the SEC in the area of Fair Disclosure.
I feel that our economy is evolving to one where the individual investor is
taking a more active interest in their finances rather than handing it over
to an institutional investor. In order to fairly compete with the big
institutional investors, the individual investors need to have access to the
same information.
Thank you for your time.
-- Scott Kinsey
Simi Valley, CA
Author: "Macrae; Jonathan" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:19 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom This May Concern,
I heartily endorse the proposed regualtion FD. This proposed orderly and fair
dissemination of information is long overdue. The present system is set up
only for the benefit of Brokers and it is my belief that this creates
inefficiency and waste in the system. Please consider this memo a strong vote
for regulation FD
Sincerely, Jonathan Macrae
Author: "Peter J. Mas" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Rule: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
I support the SEC's proposed rulemaking for fair disclosure of material
information from issuers. This rule should provide for less insider
trading and less manipulation of the market value of a given stock. I
encourage your agency to approve this rule.
Respectfully,
Peter J. Mas
7 Sylvan Drive
Middletown, CT 06457
Author: "Jim McKinney" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 2:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am all in favor of the proposed regulation. It does not hurt the analysts
except where they do have an unfair advantage. Under the current system,
the big boys have an unfair advantage.
Transparency = Level Playing Field = Longer Term, Better Health of the
Markets
as it is not only fair, and what this country is all about, but establishes
even greater faith in the markets, and encourages longterm perspective as a
whole.
A good analysts will still be able to provide his or her valuable services
and expertise without what is effectively a monopoly on the data (even if it
is only in a time-frame sense). I thought it a good analogy when someone
compared the current situation to that period in Church History when only a
select and powerful few were able to read the Bible (because it was only in
Latin). With the translation of the Bible into modern languages, religion
itself was not hurt. People still looked to the current hierarchy for
guidance, but they were able to SUPPLEMENT their options by reading for
themselves. I beleive, in the long run, this helped the Church.
Jim McKinney
Atlanta, Georgia
(404) 373-8116
Author: "Malcolm McWeeney" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:14 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Full disclosure please, to all.
Malcolm C. McWeeney
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Investors deserve a fair market, period. Morally and legally and if not now
through this venue, we will get it eventually!
Please do the right thing!
Sincerely,
Shawn Meehan
From the Desk of:
Shawn Meehan
1977 Woodglen Ln. #3
Vacaville, CA 95687-6145
-----------------------------------------------------
Home Phone: 707-446-7107
Office (www.VitalStocks.com): 707-446-8225
email: shawnm9326@aol.com
Author: ann orlov at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 2:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support full disclosure -- there is no excuse for a few to
have more information than the rest. Isn't that a form of
insider trading which is already illegal.
Ann Orlov MDiv, STB
PO Box 455
Stowe, VT 05672
1-802-253-7857 phone
1-802-253-7828 fax
Author: "Steve Padgett" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 2:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am for leveling the playing field (banning selective disclosure).
Steve Padgett
Author: "Mike Phaup" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 12:26 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
No more selective disclosure. It is patently unfair to self directed investors.
Michael Phaup
Real Estate/Insurance
427 Rice Rd
Tyler, TX 75703
Author: "Randy Rhea" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
PLEASE STOP SELECTIVE DISCLOSURE
I agree with the Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt
who said, "The all-too-common practice of selectively disseminating material
information is a disservice to investors and undermines the fundamental
principle of fairness. This practice leads to potential conflicts of
interest for analysts and undermines investor confidence in our markets."
Please end this practice.
Thank you.
Marvin R. Rhea
Author: "o" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:35 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please allow general access of information to the public-at-large and put an
end to the selective disclosure of information to certain brokers/analysts.
Oscar Rizzo
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of ending selective disclosure of information from publicly
traded companies to brokers and analysts. I support the change in regulations.
Peter Roche
Author: "Art Scott" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:37 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Fw: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sorry, I forgot, I am
Arthur E. Scott
Adjunct Professor of Computer Science
Marist College
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Regards,
ArtS
----- Original Message -----
From: Art Scott
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 1:29 PM
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
I'm opposed to any idea that a small group of people should get and interpret
financial information for me. I can make my own decisions thank you very much.
I resent that our government would even consider giving a special group
information in advance of the general public.
Regards,
ArtS
Author: papu shah at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:36 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to register my vote as above.
- Gaurang Shah
ASTON Consulting
Author: "June Shank" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I'm in favor of full disclosure to all investors.
June E. Shank
Author: Leo Shebalin at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:28 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
No on selective disclosure.
Leo V. Shebalin
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 2:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs:
Economic justice is as important as political justice. Selective
disclosure is unjust.
Do we have a democracy or do we not? I am a retired history teacher and a
small investor - "fair play" is supposed to be central to our way of life.
Selective disclosure should be eliminated.
Yours truly,
Barry N. Sisk
Author: "Paige Smith" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:14 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
In regards to selective disclosure, I believe that this policy at one
time had a place in society but that was a long time ago. In the modern
day of technological advances, information is easily and readily
available. Before anybody should make any decision that will affect
their life, the person should spend the time and effort to weigh all
options and fairly evaluate all information that they have collected.
To allow selective disclosure to continue is wrong. Please allow people
the freedom that this country is known for, to make their own decisions
like mature, responsible adults who are accountable for their own
actions. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Jacqui Smith
3875 Hopyard Road, Suite 160
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Author: "tempor" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 10:55 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I realized that I had not signed my earlier mail, and since it is possible
that the SEC may have some requirements in the matter of signed opinions, I
am forwarding the same message, with my electronic signature. Thanks for
lending an ear!
R. Sundar
I believe that the SIA has put forth some arguments to dissuade SEC from
going ahead with the "FD" requirement. Though they have every right to fend
for the survival of their members, they appear to have appropriated the
right to pronounce on what the common individual investor may or may not
need, to make the right decisions! The following items are specific
responses to their rather insolent stand.
1) The SIA claims that "analysts perform a necessary and valuable function
in the U.S. capital markets"! Analysts are employed by security firms, and
not legislated or mandated by SEC! They are not there to serve any
altruistic purpose, either. They have to perform in such a manner as to
increase the returns for the concerned securities firm, otherwise they may
have to find some other employment. The market can well perform without
these "analysts". In fact, I strongly feel that the market will perform
much better and more rational without them, based on the distorted ratio of
buy-to-sell analysts' recommendations alone!
2) SIA claims that analysts "need better information than the participants
in the market"! They have unfortunately taken the stand that the security
firms are somehow more equal than the individual investor in the world of
investing. Though this is a free country, and a financial analyst or any
other legitimate professional has a right to trade his or her ware, to claim
that such a professional needs pre-emptive access to information that will
eventually be public just so they can make a living sounds so ridiculous,
that it is surprising that they even raise such an issue in the first place.
Once again, financial analysts are not in the business of saving lives or
protect national security, to demand privileged access to information.
3) The SIA has taken a preposterous stand that "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 SIA should sooner or later understand that prospectus and periodic
reports (such as 10-K and 10-Q) are meant for the individual investor to
"pore over"! This exercise is very much part of the "due diligence" exercise
of an individual investor, who is solely responsible for his or her own
investment decisions and entailing risks. The logical conclusion to what the
SIA says is that prospectus and periodic reports need not be made available
to the common shareholders and public at large, since they are not qualified
to "pore over" such documents! It does look like that it is the SIA that is
out of sync with the real world, after all!
4) The SIA is opening a can of worms when it asserts that "analysts make the
markets less volatile". Any one with reasonable intelligence following the
last few years of the financial markets would know that just the opposite
has been happening! The financial news media is replete with analysts'
recommendation changes on a daily basis, and many of these recommendations
have caused dramatic changes. This is a real "catch-22" situation for the
analysts. If the recommendations do not have any impact on the market, then
such recommendation is worthless to their employers. In fact, the higher
their impact on the market, the more revered they are (example being the
recent slide in the market attributed to one famous analyst, who is probably
proud and certainly has not disputed the media). And here is the SIA
claiming that their existence should somehow be protected because they do
the opposite!
5) The SIA's assertion that "analysts spend much of their time ferreting out
negative information about companies" may not stand up to even modest
inquiry, based on the "buy-to-sell" bias of recommendations alone. If the
analysts were truly unbiased, their recommendations should be similar to
market movement, if we are ever to believe in any kind of efficiency of the
market. It is up to the SEC to decide whether the market in inefficient, or
whether it is the analysts, since they are surely not in sync.
R. Sundar
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 2:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Full disclosure to ALL NOW!
Mark C. Tafoya
Author: "kenneththom" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:12 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
All information should be shared with entire public. As a potential or
current share holder I want access to all information directly not through a
second party
Thank You,
Kenneth Thom
Author: "John Turgai" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 1:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please stop selective disclosure.
Sincerely, a concerned investor,
John Turgai
Author: "Guenter Viktor" at Internet
Date: 04/25/2000 11:08 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to express my opinion regarding subject regulation, and urge
you to pass it.
I can not see any reason why companies are able to selectively disclose
important information -- such as upcoming earnings figures -- in conference
calls or meetings that are open only to selected securities analysts and/or
institutional investors, and which exclude members of the public and the
media.
As a shareholder, or potential share holder, I should have access to all
information about a company as soon as it is available.
Sincerely,
Guenter Viktor
10015 E Mountain View Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0425b06.htm
