Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 3:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Propsed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Although we appreciate the quaintness and history in keeping anlysts ahead of
the game, the internet is allowing us to all be analysts now. Please keep in
focus the interests of the entire investing public.
Martin Kace
Area Inc.
Author: Matt Kennel at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 3:56 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support S7-31-99, giving equal access to public investors as
Wall Street Analysts.
When we own part of the company, we deserve to know as much as some
wing-tipped analyst who is part of the system.
The industry's arguments against this are preposterous. One such argument
claims that since dissemination of existing information is not uniform,
because some investors watch news tickers regularly and others only see it
on television or business weeklies, then insuring equal access is somehow
irrelevant. This argument could be used to justify companies not even
reporting their basic financial and business results in an open and timely
way.
The argument that this regulation will hurt giving out information at road
shows is similarly flimsy. If the company is going on road shows to drum
up investment and gives out information to its prospective institutional
investors, then there is no valid reason that this information shouldn't
be given to prospective and existing private investors in the market at
large. By contrast, Wall Street has a vested interest in being able to
get into a good story at a temporarily depressed price because the good
news presented at a roadshow has not been made public yet.
The industry's argument that more free diclosure rules will encourage less
information given out by the company makes the intrinsically self-serving
assumption that existing companies WANT to give private information to
analysts and not the public. This is unlikely to be the truth. Most
likely, many companies feel that they have to give special favors and
nonpublic information to industry analysts or face retaliation in ratings
and support from Wall Street. Rules requiring that all information be made
universally would give companies legal cover against the implied threat of
extortion.
Thanks to the SEC, the United States has the largest, best, most
efficient, and most honest capital markets in the world. This regulation
is an extension of the essential principle that factual truth,
democratically and widely disseminated is the most potent weapon fighting
for prosperity.
Sincerely,
Matthew Kennel, PhD
La Jolla, CA
--
Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science/UC San Diego
mkennel@ucsd.edu (858) 822-2012
Author: "shaukatali A KERAI" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 11:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "proposed regulation fd:file no S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of regulation to stop selective disclosure to analysts.
Ali Kerai
Investor
Author: "Paul Kindzia - Alexander Rose; Inc" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 4:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In an effort to voice a strong opinion without inundating you with arguments
that have not only been previously stated, but also better than I could ever
express, I am asking those with the power to make changes to level the playing
field and adopt new fair disclosure rules.
I ask that you not confuse my brevity with my conviction.
Regards,
Paul Kindzia, CPA
Alexander Rose, Inc.
(770)521-4470
paul@alexanderrose.com
Author: "Melissa Kohne" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File #S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
RE: Proposed Regulation FD: File #S7-31-99
I am in favor of fair disclosure of information by publicly traded
companies.
Thank you.
Melissa J. Kohne
Author: "ToddKuehn" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 11:19 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the proposed regulation.
Todd Kuehn.
Author: Kirsten Larson at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 8:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Let's keep the public informed!!! It's not fair to let analysts have an
unfair advantage!!
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 3:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
What makes you think analysts perform a necessary & valuable function in US
capital markets?
I think "Valuable" is maybe more like an "OK" service!
"Necessary" ????? To stir up controversary??
We the people of the United States are not STUPID!! Thank you!!
Please allow us to be informed!! Just like the analysts..
Naomi Leaverton
President of Women Who Want Millions (WWW.Millions) Investment Club
(WWW.Millions)
Member & Past President of Ladies Interested in Stock Trading (LIST)
Investment Club
e-mail nleaverton@aol.com
Author: noralewis at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 8:16 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: file No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
NO to proposed regulation.
Nora Lewis
Author: George Madrid at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 6:16 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to show my support for the proposed "Regulation FD"
which imposes new requirements on publicly traded companies to
disclose information to the public at large at the same time (or very
shortly after) it is disclosed to analysts and large (institutional)
investors.
My reasons for supporting this regulation are two-fold:
First, the existence and widespread use of the internet, the World
Wide Web, and even wireless communication devices has caused a great
(and some might say fundamental) change in the Market. The
importance of the analyst (and even the broker) has diminished in
this age where I can trade stocks from my cell-phone and research
them from my own bedroom. To continue to allow this sort of
selective disclosure merely prolongs the significance of the analysts
in an age where "average" investors are capable of finding
information and evaluating it on their own. The analyst will still
have his place for those investors who do not wish to research their
own information, but why hobble those of us willing to do it
ourselves.
Second, it is fundamentally wrong that a company (of which I may be
an owner) is willing (and legally able) to disclose information to an
organization which has no equity, while at the same time, hiding that
information from those most immediately affected by this information
- the company's stockholders.
In short, Regulation FD is a good idea who's time has come.
Thank you for your time,
George A. Madrid
Cambridge, MA
Author: "Arthur D. Marks" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 1:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an investor, I am OPPOSED to this proposed regulation.
Thank you,
Arthur D. Marks
5691 Salem Farms Road
Oxford, North Carolina 27565-6420
Author: "Arthur D. Marks" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 1:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support any SEC regulation that will allow every investor information
access EQUALITY when making investment decisions.
Thank you.
Arthur D. Marks
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 11:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to add my voice to those asking for a change to the disclosure
rules giving the public the same information as the SEC gives to analysts and
insiders.
Thank You,
Andy Miklos
Flagler Beach, Fl. 32136
Author: "J.C. Moore" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 10:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Why can't the public have access to the same information as the big
brokerage companies?
J.C. Moore
Friends University
Author: "John Myers" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:54 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hi,
I am a voting Democrat, registered in Clackamas County, Oregon and wish to add
my comments on the proposed rule changes.
I learned of this issue while online at an investment information website,
Motley Fool. (www.fool.com). I believe the primary significance of the internet
revolution isn't technology, but the awesome abilities it has to disseminate
information. This is why I am in favor of the SEC's Full Disclosure proposal.
Individual investors are not babies. We are all adults here, with the same right
to the Government's economic information as the so-called high priests of
financial wisdom, the "Wall Street Analysts". I applaud the SEC's proposal to
begin treating us as adults, and urge the Commission to resist the lobbying
efforts of those Wall Street interests who believe they lose something if this
proposed change goes into effect.
Sincerely,
John R. Myers
Network Analyst, Microcomputer Technician
Clackamas Community College
19600 S. Molalla Ave
Oregon City, Oregon 97045
johnm@clackamas.cc.or.us
jrmyers@hevanet.com
Author: "Brian O'Dea" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 1:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern,
Please note that I am in support of Proposed Regulation FD.
Regards,
Brian O'Dea
Author: ojanen at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:03 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 //Joonas Ojanen
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom this may concern,
fair disclosure of information by publicly traded companies to the
public is not only fair, but as shareholders in these companies it is
our RIGHT!! What gives an analyst the right to interpret the facts for
me! I would like to think of myself as a diligent investor and as such
I can interpret the facts for myself. After all I own a share of some
of these publicly traded companies and therefore have the right to know
how they are being managed. The only way I can receive ACCURATE
information about my companies is through the source and NOT 2nd hand
sources (analysts). Besides they have their own agendas and their
agendas may not always serve my best interest.
I hope that the SEC will pass the fair disclosure rule, after all the
share holders have the right to first hand information into the
financial status of the companies they own.
--sincerely Joonas Ojanen
Author: "James Ollila" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 3:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please allow the small investors the same access to important financial
information as the Wall Street crowd. It is bad enough that the IPO offerings
are so unfair and it would be terrible to continue the current system of
selective disclosure for the inside group. Give everyone the same access to
information at the same time and allow a true free market to prevail.
One way of doing it would be to set a certain time each day that information
would be disseminated over the internet and the location of where the
information is to be located. In this way a fair system would be maintained for
all.
James Ollila
Retired teacher and
small investor
Author: "oghmagod" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 10:26 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am for Public Disclosure through Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99,
not the current selective disclosure which oppresses me in a capitalist
bureaucracy.
Thank you,
Curt Parr
Author: "Jim Peterson" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 10:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99, I urge you to require full
disclosure to the entire public, not just selected "analysts." Anything
short of full disclosure to all people is undemocratic, unfair, and an
abuse of power that should absolutely not be allowed to continue.
Thank you.
James E. Peterson
4974 S. Grouse Ct.
Evergreen, CO 80439
(an individual investor)
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 6:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
STOP selective disclosure. Please LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD with FAIR
DISCLOSURE.
I have a significant portfolio. I have a significant vote.
Mark Petterson
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 6:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support this new regulation. I wish you would level the playing field by
not adapting the new rule.
William Potter
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 6:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It gets real old reading a news release several days after a stock price has
already dropped. It is obvious that someone knew something before the
release to the general public. These guys want investors money but don't
want to let us really know what is going on. Let's have full disclosure to
everyone at the same time.
Dan
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 6:34 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It's time to level the playing field!
Richard Quarberg
Author: "Suzanne Rhinehart" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 2:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern,
As an individual investor, I strongly support a leveled playing field. It
violates all rules of fairness and common decency for a public business that has
grown through public investments to disclose information first or only to
certain preferred institutional investors or analysts. Such a practice allows
those investors and analysts to take actions that could greatly affect the stock
prices of other investors before those others ever have a chance even to learn
what happened.
I am disgusted by the self-serving arguments of large brokerages and analysts
that they are performing a vital service by keeping information secret. The
assertion is clear: individual investors like myself are not intelligent enough
to make our own decisions based on truth. Although quite capable of earning our
own money, we apparently lack the wisdom to invest it appropriately. Therefore,
for our own good and the increased stability of the market, the information must
be withheld from us, until all-knowing analysts or others can "interpret" it for
us and tell us what to do. I strongly question the assertion that selective
disclosure of information makes the market less volatile; recent history
suggests instead that it merely makes it easier for those on the inside to
continue taking unfair advantage of those on the outside.
I favor the SEC's proposed regulation to open up the information channels, which
will give more individual investors the same access to information that
preferred investors and analysts already have. It will always be true that some
individual investors will not make the effort to do their own research. Such
people invest at their own greater peril. But it is equally true that all
investors, whether large institutional players or individuals just beginning to
create their own nest eggs, deserve the same access to information, to use or
not use as they choose. Thank you for this and your other proposed regulations.
They are much needed steps in the right direction.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Rhinehart
Yuba City, CA
Author: "B Richmond" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 10:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I submit this posting in support of proposed Regulation FD.
Let us suppose for a moment that the following four statements,
generally the basis of the comments by the SIA opposing promulgation of
Regulation FD, are true in all respects.
1. Analysts perform a necessary and valuable function in the U.S.
capital markets.
2. 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.
3. Analysts make the markets less volatile.
4. Analysts spend much of their time ferreting out negative information
about companies.
I respectfully submit that any conclusion drawn from these four
statements that purports to establish that analysts need better
information or more timely information or more private information than
other participants in the market -- i.e., conscientious individual
investors spending their own money to become owners of companies -- is
unsupportable and quite probably incorrect.
In its comments to the SEC, the SIA notes "We believe in the maximum
flow of information from issuers, whether directly or through securities
analysts and the media, to the marketplace." I suspect there is
universal agreement on this overarching philosophical position. The SIA
then quotes the SEC's own materials, "... the federal securities laws do
not generally require an issuer to make public disclosure of all
important corporate developments when they occur. ... [I]n the absence
of a specific duty to disclose, the federal securities laws do not
require an issuer to publicly disclose all material events as soon as
they occur." It then goes on to note that the SEC proposes changing
this long standing policy to ".subject an issuer to a general obligation
to make public disclosure of any material fact that it discloses to any
person outside the issuer ."
Hear, hear!! I believe that is exactly what is proposed, the crux of
the debate. Can anyone, other than those with a vested economic
interest in maintaining the status quo, possibly make the case that
rules developed and promulgated 65 years ago -- in 1935, for Pete's
sake -- to regulate what has become a very different securities industry
should not be critically reevaluated and quite probably amended or
modified?
Everyone agrees that information is the basis on which objective,
critical decisions about investments should be made. What is the
advantage in restricting its availability? To have analysts, bankers,
brokers, and lawyers protect us from ourselves? Who can realistically
contend -- much less prove -- that making information more available
will lead to poorer investment decisions? Who can support the position
that corporate executives have an obligation to speak to representative
of some of its owners -- analysts employed by investment banks and
brokerage houses -- and not to the much broader group of its owners --
individual holders of equity stakes? The only potential problem, of
course, is if executives are -- as suggested by the SIA -- using private
sessions with analysts to spin the facts or shade the truth with a wink
or grin or nod or gesture to protect their companies or their personal
positions. If that's the case, exposure to a broader base of people
with a range of knowledge and perspectives would be revealing and
embarrassing.
I cannot recall a comment in support of this proposed regulation that
suggests that communication by company executives be curtailed. No one
wants to eliminate the role of analysts, who provide a potentially
valuable service to a large segment of the investment community. No one
wants to put analysts out of work or close down their companies. What a
growing number of conscientious, intelligent investors suggest is that
everyone should be given the access to the same information at the same
time. Broad access to accurate information, as proposed in regulation
FD, is the most equitable way to provide all investors, big and small,
individual and institutional, the opportunity to make informed
investment decisions -- decisions about how they spend their money -- in
the most timely manner.
*******************************************************
Trying very hard to be informed and, therefore, smarter.
Author: "John Rohlfing" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 10:25 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I'm opposed to the proposal to change the rules that currently allow companies
to give important information to Wall Street analysts without simultaneously
giving the news to the public at large.
Sincerely,
J. A. Rohlfing
1113 Barneswood Dr.
Downers Grove, IL 60515-1411
Author: Marty at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 1:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Rugulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hi; I'm an individual investor, and I firmly believe that analysts
should not be given preferential access to corporate information. As I
read the comments of those in favor of selective access, the analysts
would have you believe they are independent journalists looking to
ferret out corporate secrets for the benefit of the public at large.
Nothing can be farther than the truth. They are looking for information
they can make a buck on in advance of anyone else knowing that
information. They sell that information to their customers and deny the
public access to their reports unless they are customers.
FreeEdgar is the authoritive place I go to for accurate corporate
information. All information should be disclosed on FreeEdgar.
I firmly oppose selective disclosure. Unless I can get in on that
scam. Can you get me certified as an "analyst"?
Martin S. Rudoy
Box 570604
Tarzana, CA
91357-0604
(818) 345-5257
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 6:28 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of the proposed regulation that would allow individual
investors access to information disclosed by companies to be simultaneous
with its disclosure to Wall Street analysts. This type of regulation is a
principle key for the advancement of capitalism.
Thank you,
Paula M. Ryan, individual investor
Author: "William A. Sarber" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 10:44 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I'm very much in favor of this proposed regulation. Everyone, share owners,
prospective share owners and the general public should be given access to the
same information at the same time.
William A. Sarber
Author: "Dan Schafer" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 12:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Regarding the Fair Disclosure act. I believe that the public should have the
same access to information as wall street analyst.
1. The educated people who know how to use it will.
2. The people who don't understand it will still rely on the analyst.
3. I believe the analyst are over reacting to this issue, because unless
someone heavily advertises where the information is available, the
average person probably will not spend the time to look for it.
So to benefit the people who will take advantage of this information, I believe
the Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 should be passed.
Sincerely,
Dan Schafer
Cad Cam Manager
Cameron Tool Corp
phone: 517-487-3671
fax: 517-487-0731
dans@camerontool.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 6:55 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is important to end the selective disclosure of important financial
information to the privileged few on Wall Street. As a private investor, I
should be aware of ALL information regarding the companies I choose to invest
in.
William R Schonle
Author: "Gary Schumacher" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 2:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Greetings:
I am for full disclosure (to the public). Thank You
Gary Schumacher
P.S.
I would also like to see Stock 'Short' information made available to the public,
more than just the current 1 time a month.
Author: 100523.2161@compuserve.com at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 2:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor I was shocked to find that the SEC has provided
advance information to my 'competitors' on the floor of the stock exchange and
judging from some of the events I have observed which were later explained when
the public was allowed to have all the information, the 'professionals' have
used this information against me! Please stop this selective disclosure. Thanks
Vicky Scott
Ex-Controller Logan Printing Co.
Rod and Vicky Scott
___________________________________________________
The ALL NEW CS2000 from CompuServe
Better! Faster! More Powerful!
250 FREE hours! Sign-on Now!
http://www.compuserve.com/trycsrv/cs2000/webmail/
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 4:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
If I own one share of a company, then I am entitled to know ALL that is
publically available, including what is given to the analysts. These
analysts may not even own the stock, so in essence, why would they be
afforded more rights than I as a shareholder?
The data should be given to Wall Street and the public at the same time.
This evens the playing field between professionals and the little guy.
Sincerely,
Gregg Shriber
GShriber@aol.com
Author: "Glenn Sonne - Network Manager" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 2:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The public is FULLY entitled to public disclosure, not just the investment
community OR the SEC.
I am very much opposed to this proposed regulation. We can certainly handle
the truth!
Glenn Sonne
Network Manager and Investor
gsonne@newcomwireless.com
Author: "TI Stokes" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 8:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think it is only fair for full simultaneous disclosure to the general public
when anything is disclosed to anybody.
It is not right to allow a select group of "good old boys" to profit from inside
information.
Majority stock holders are under a magnifying glass to control their use of
inside information. What's the difference? Letting their buddies profit from
the inside information is OK?
Just for the record, I am a relatively new investor. However, I own and operate
a multi-million dollar business (privately held by myself and one partner). I
am a professionally licensed engineer, and I guarantee I can out calculate, out
estimate, and out analyze any "financial expert" on God's green earth.
Why should someone have one up on me?
Let's let the racketeering and protections end. America is about free and open
competition.
Sincerely,
T.I. Stokes
Author: "Nancy Swaim" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 11:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: PROPOSED REGULATION FD, FILE #S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please be as democratic as gravity on this subject. Let us have the same force.
Thank you.
Author: noel thomas at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 11:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD:File No.S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
The public has been cheated of the right to equal opportunity in the
stock market.
The time for equality is now!!!!!
Noel & Sylvia Thomas
Author: noel thomas at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 11:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD:File No.S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
The public has been cheated of the right to equal opportunity in the
stock market.
The time for equality is now!!!!!
Noel & Sylvia Thomas
Author: "Mark Timko" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 9:09 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
I am a private investor and completely in favor of the proposed legislation.
It is a complete sham that companies are allowed to provide inside information
to a select number of analysts and withhold that information from the general
public. Analysts seem to defend this practice in the name of "protecting" the
private investor from misinterpreting the information when all they are really
doing is protecting a key advantage that analysts use to profit off the market
at the expense of the uninformed private investor.
Ask yourself this simple question. Why are all the private investors for this
legislation and all the analysts against it? If analysts were giving us such
a beneficial service through selective disclosure, then where are all the
comments from these grateful private investors supporting the continuation
of this practice?
Those who have power over the masses will fight to keep that power at all
costs.
- Mark Timko
Author: Allan Trucano at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 11:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hi Folks,
As an individual investor, I feel that I can make better decisions by
having better information from the companies in whom I invest.
Requiring companies to fully disclose information would be very refreshing.
The only thing that I ask is that they use simple terms and sentence
structure.
Thank you for your time.
-------------------
Al Trucano
PO Box 442
Debary, FL 32713
Phone 904-775-8323
Author: "Felipe Vidal" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 11:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC,
Please accept these comments for the record. I support full and
immediate disclosure of all information to the public at the same time
analyst receive it. My primary reasoning is this: Most analysts work for
investment banks, brokerage firms, or mutual fund companies. Many
investment firms make markets in or have direct/indirect investments in
the companies that they analyze. It can be reasonably construed that
occasionally it may be in the best interest of an analyst to modify the
information or opinion they have of a company to effect gains/losses in
that company's equity value that would be profitable for the analyst or
his employer.
Felipe Vidal
Plantation, FL
Author: "John S. Waldrip" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 9:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am opposed to the selective disclosure practice currently in place and want to
express my desire for full disclosure.
John S. Waldrip
319 West Olive Avenue
Monrovia, CA 91016
(626) 357-2711
Author: "Dan Chang" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 8:44 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File# S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am supporting the SEC's 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.
The proposed regulation will not preclude the analysts from performing their
analysis and doing researches on the companies they followed.
Dan Chang
Seattle, Washington
Author: "Brian Wherley" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 9:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I cannot emphasize more strongly that the time has come to eliminate selective
disclosure. I work hard to make and grow my savings and investing my own money
has given me real control over my financial future. Lets make the process of
investing in the stock market truly fair for everyone.
Respectfully,
Brian Wherley
Author: "tankcmdr1" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 2:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the SEC's proposal to require public companies to simultaneously
release important information to the public when it is providing such
information to Wall Street Analysts. I am an on-line investor and I rely on the
timeliness of data from public companies. Twice in the last 12 months I
contacted companies that selectively released data and criticized them for not
releasing the same data thru public news channels/web sites. One of those
companies was Xerox. I sold my position after receiving their response, which
esentially said that they did not have enough time the day before to post the
news release on their web site. Arthur E. Wilkin, Jr. (814)944-6540
Author: Academic Computing at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 3:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please pass this, it is fair and right!
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-)
Brenda L. Wilkins
Microcomputer Specialist - Mac
Academic Computing
East Stroudsburg University
200 Prospect St
E Stroudsburg, PA 18301
bwilkins@esu.edu
(570) 422-3662
Smile! It's only life . . . and you are not getting out alive!
Author: "Matthew S. Woodworth" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 3:54 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern,
Please level the playing field. I own these companies. I need somebody to
force them to treat me, not the analysts like the owner/boss.
Thank you,
Matthew S. Woodworth
Author: Andy Wright at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 11:23 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think it's time to Stop Selective Disclosure
yours,
Andy Wright, San Francisco CA
Author: "Gary Wu" at Internet
Date: 04/26/2000 4:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor, I am delighted to see the SEC taking action to
promote a level playing field. Individual investors are at a disadvantage
when companies can disclose information to a 'select' group of favorite
analysts. Especially considering that the benificiary of these insider
information -- the Mutual fund companies has returned so little value
at a huge cost to the average investor(I offer the word of Vanguard
founder Mr. Bogle to supoort my views:
http://www.vanguard.com/educ/lib/bogle/ixbogle.html).
I believe the current system as it stands is not only bad for individual
investors, but it is bad for the markets as a whole. I firmly support the
proposed Regulation FD
Gary Wu
Plano, TX
