Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:55 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom it may Concern:
I am writing this e-mail to voice my comments on the proposal to disclose
public information to the public at the same time that that information is
provided to Wall Street brokers.
One of the original selling points for the SEC was to use it to ensure that
investors were working in a level playing field. The SEC is used to stop
unfair trading practices such as using insider information to get a jump on
the market before bad or good news was made public. The current system of
releasing information to just the Wall Street brokers before releasing that
information to the public is a form of insider trading. We the single
investors are left out in the cold while the stock prices react to news that
we are not allowed to hear.
If the SEC is truly designed to protect the public, then let the public have
the same information that everyone else has. What benefit to the public can
be served by withholding information until the 'big boys' get done using it.
I am in favor of requiring companies to simoultaneously publicly publish all
information that they are providing to the Wall Street borkers.
Marcus Albro
Author: Jim Armogida@enron.com at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 11:31 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD. File # S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
There is no question that such a rule should be adopted and implemented.
Selective disclosure is always detrimental to a free public market, if
anyone acts on it. To think that analysts (who often affect the market
anyway more than they should) can be positioned to draw 'more enlightened'
conclusions on a given company than the market can generally simply gives
them, their company and their customers an edge that they never should
have--to the detriment of the uninformed. My vote is strongly in favor of
the rule.
Author: Ed Austin at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: FD:file No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear sirs:
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
I think This regulation is very unfair to the investor
Edwin Austin
1307 Coronel Ave
Vallejo CA.
Thanks for Hearing my comments.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
As a committed stockholder who trades regularly and does my DD I feel cheated
not to have the information analysts are given that influence their decisions
that I would not be privy to in a timely manner.
Sincerely,
Mason Batchelder
Author: Keith Buckingham at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
I would like to register my interest in ensuring that companies must
disclose information to the
public at large.
Keith Buckingham
NVidia Corporation
408 615 2534
Author: "anonymous" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 11:20 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: file# S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual citizen, I wish to register my support for fair disclosure.
B. D. Chain
Covington, La.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Don't allow companies to give important information to Wall Street analysts
without simultaneously giving the news to the public at large.
Michelle Charters
Author: "Elizabeth J Estrada" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:47 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
I was a broker at Prudential Securities (series 7, 63) and I never thought it
was proper to hold back any information from the public, even temporarily. As
a professional, I believe the time spent (1) studying the data; and (2)
gaining experience to gain perspective on the market(s), is the basic
requirement of being a good broker. Furthermore, as a broker I discovered
that most people simply do not have the time or patience to read through all
the data out there for them to make decisions, so they are more than happy to
pay even a premium for some peace of mind.
Therefore, none of the brokerages will go out of business with a sumultaneous
release of company information to the public and private sectors. Acampora,
a well-known analyst for Prudential, will always have a strong following
because of his strong business sense and his accomplished record. What should
happen is so very obvious to me: as a shareholder, I am an owner; how can
these people have privileged information they can sell to me when it is my
right to know it along with them?
As a tax accountant I make my own trading/investment decisions, and it is
disgusting how money manipulates what should be freedom of speech. It is
unbelievable that this has gone on for this long. Fair disclosure must happen
to make this industry be honest and forthright and fair; people will always
pay money for the advice of those who provide a service. Just give the
public a right to know whether the good advice is just that or a insider tip.
Author: Steve Finch at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am for fair disclosure. All people should be notified of corporate status
at the same time, not just large investors. Selective disclosure gives too
much advantage to those at the top at the cost of those at the bottom.
Steve Finch
Manhattan Associates, Inc.
770-955-5533 x1180
mailto:SFinch@manh.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
AS an individual investor, I want full disclosure to all parties.
Scott C Ford
Author: "Gray; Michael G." at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
The SEC should support this fair disclosure regulation. It is unfair to
individual investors, like me, not to receive corporate financial
information that the analyst's are privy to.
Michael G. Gray
140 Via Del Sol
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Author: "William Hall" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:51 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the SEC's objective of eliminating selective disclosure. The advantage
currently enjoyed by certain analysts and investors is clearly unfair to the
public at large.
Thank you.
William R. Hall
Wayne, NJ
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:07 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a small investor and as the owner of a business which is based on access
to information, I strongly support the free flow of analytical information
which can help me make more informed investment choices and selections. I
vehemently oppose selective disclosure.
Thank you,
Nina C. Harrison, M.S.
Harrison Research, Inc
1226 Brooklawn Road
Atlanta, GA 30319
Author: Mitch Hendrickson at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:22 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear sirs:
I strongly support the proposed Regulation FD. As an individual investor, I
am personally at a disadvantage when my access to material information is
delayed or filtered. By the time I have access to the information, the
market has already been moved by those who are effectively "insiders" when
looked at from my perspective. It is also the morally correct thing to do -
the current system of selective disclosure is simply unfair.
Sincerely,
Mitch Hendrickson
Author: John Houser at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 11:29 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe I have the right to have access to companies' information as
soon as it is disclosed to any investor. Please change the rule that
currently allows companies to give important information to Wall Street
analysts without simultaneously giving the news to the public at large.
John Houser, M.D.
Author: "Patrick Killay" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:10 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sec Members:
I am writing to urge you to pass the proposed regulation that
would
require companies to reveal their news and important infomation to all
investor and not to just the few.
Thank You
--- Patrick Killay
--- p2killay@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: It's your Internet.
Author: Holly King at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:38 PM
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
Dear Mr. Katz,
I am one of those small-time investors who strongly urge you to support
full disclosure. It seems to me clear and obvious that open and free
flow of information is not only desireable but necessary, especially as
more and more individuals by choice or default take charge of their own
investing. Such changes as the one you propose are of course threatening
to entrenched interests who benefit from the status quo. I just hope
their "clout" isn't greater than that of all the ordinary investors who
would truly benefit from your proposal.
Sincerely,
Holly Beth King, Ph.D.
Freelance Writer
Individual Investor
Author: "Lafford; Rick [OCDUS]" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:08 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I firmly support a law prohibiting the practice of "selective disclosure"
currently practiced by many companies.
A publicly traded firm should be required to inform the general investing
public at the same time it informs the financial community. The information
shared should be identical and public in every way. The current practice of
selective disclosure has far too many potentially negative uses and often
prevents the public from fairly valuing a companies securities.
I realize that the financial community has a vested interest in maintaining
the status quo, allowing them to peddle information to the profit of their
respective firms, but I firmly support any effort designed to assure all
investors receive the same information in a timely manner.
Though it should not take a law to achieve what many would consider common
sense, if this is what it takes, then so be it.
Richard M. Lafford
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics
Process Engineering
100 Indigo Creek Drive
Rochester, NY 14626
*phone: (716) 453-3619
fax: (716) 453-4310
*: rlafford@ocdus.jnj.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:04 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation FD:S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective disclosure should be illegal. Those of us who invest based on
our own knowledge are unfairly subject o his discrimination.
Bob Lawther
MinMar Press
Author: "leppert" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:22 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
No organization or person should have preference with information. Full
disclosure is absolutely necessary to have a fair and democratic market.
Knowledge is power. Most investors are sophisticated enough to deal with
information, or if not satisfied they understand something, seek advice from
'experts'. By putting the knowledge (and power) in the hands of a few Wall
Street analysts, the rest of us investors are put in the role of serfs to
these oligarchs. That is not the American Way. No man/woman has more
rights or privileges under the law than another. Equal opportunity across
the board!
Florence B. Leppert, CLU
1081 Pelican Lake Lane
Las Vegas, NV 89123-0832
702-897-5556 phone/fax
Author: "Robert Victor Lukas" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:47 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Give all stockholders the same information at the same time, PLEASE.
Author: "Maggard; Ken" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective disclosure reeks of Denmark
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg.FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please stop selective disclosure.............Warm Regards, Joyce Mariani
Author: Mike McAllister at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Ma'am,
Information from companies should not be distributed selectively --
that's the definition of insider trading in my book. I am all for open
disclosure to everyone simultaneously -- why should big institutional
investors have an edge on the information? They shouldn't.
Mike McAllister
Investor, Citizen of the U.S.
Author: Maureen McCauley at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:42 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
In these days when employers no longer routinely
provide pension funds, and we continually hear that we
"baby boomers" will not be able to count on Social
Security, it is increasingly important as an
individual to be active in the Securities Markets.
To do this successfully takes knowledge, diligence,
patience, and a fair amount of fortitude. Providing
company reports to analysts first significantly
impedes my ability to gather that knowledge I need to
make appropriate investment decisions.
I am a small investor trying to create savings for my
retirement. I need to have as much information as a
full-time professional stock analyst so that I can
live on my savings and earnings for many years. Why
should I not have the same access to information as
Wall Street analysts do? Please level the playing
field. I am not asking to have more access than
anyone else, but the same. It's just plain FAIR.
Thank you,
Maureen McCauley
256 Circular Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94131
Author: "McLemore; Stuart" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:19 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I applaud and strongly agree with Mr. Levitt's effort to eliminate the
selective disclosure of material information.
As evidenced by the surge in numbers of individuals trading online at
discount brokerages, a large number of people have taken on the
responsibility for their own "destiny" when it comes to financial matters.
This is the type of individual spirit that has helped make our country the
great nation that it is.
As part-owners of the companies we choose to purchase, or potential
part-owners of companies that we wish to consider for ownership, we have the
right to the same timely information to which financial professionals have
access. Under our current market structure, no one has a right to such
information for their own or for their employer's benefit any more than the
individual that is making his/her own decisions about which securities to
purchase and when to purchase them.
Such material information should be disclosed in a fair and equitable manner
so that everyone has the ability to access the same data in the same time
frame. No one should have an unfair advantage when it comes to obtaining
this data.
Individuals who feel incompetent to interpret this information for
themselves or, for whatever other reason, wish to consult a financial
professional, would still be able to do so. Those who wish to make their
own decisions would have the benefit of having timely access to the data to
enable them to make prudent financial determinations. If anyone makes a
poor financial decision, it would not be for lack of available professional
advice which would still be in place under the proposal. Our market system
should allow us the freedom to make both wise and foolish decisions. With
better and more timely information, we all have a fair opportunity to make
better decisions in a timely fashion. The choice to consult a financial
professional is, and should be, up to us.
Financial professionals would still have a valued place in the scheme of
things. There is no threat to the competent and scrupulous broker/analyst.
Perhaps windfalls derived from insider information would evaporate, but my
feeling is that there is no place in our system for such unfair advantage.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and good luck in implementing Fair
Disclosure.
Sincerely,
Stuart McLemore
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:46 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor, I support the proposed rule. I favor public
dessimination of all information required by the SEC, and particularly favor
full disclosure rules. All the information should be made to the general public
and not just the brokers.
Thank you for your time,
Elayne Mendlovitz
Author: Mark Middleton at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a staff member of a $16 billion public pension fund and a private
investor, I want to express my strong support for FULL disclosure of
material facts which may affect share prices.
"Selective Disclosure" is wrong. In the new internet economy, the
disparity between disclosure to "analysts" and the public creates a
distortion (inefficiency) in the market which benefits special
wall street interests rather than the market as a whole. Simultaneous
public disclosure is not
difficult or burdensome and should be enforced. Thank you.
Mark L. Middleton
Author: Pat Mimeau at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 8:48 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am a small investor trying to create savings for my retirement. I need to
have as much information as the analyst because I plan on living on this money
for many years. Why should I not have the same access to information as they
do? Please level the playing field. I am not asking to have more access than
anyone, just the same.
Thank you,
Pat Mimeau
256 Circular Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94131
Author: "Sorin Muica" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 11:43 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor, I support this proposal. I think that this will
level the playing field and provide for fairer and more informed buying and
selling of securities. I would rather make my own decisions on company releases
and not have to rely on biased analysts for their interpretations. I think that
this makes sense and should have been the law a long time ago.
Sorin Muica
Author: "Murray_001" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD:File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I'm in favor of the public getting the same information that the analysts
get, and at the same time, then if the private investor needs analysis of
the information, they will still have access to analyst's interpretation.
My concern with the present system is that some analysts seem to be on the
payroll of certain companies, perhaps the bank that brought the company
public or any number of special interests that may exist.
Shirley Murray
Author: "Myers-Stevenson; Irene" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:08 AM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Great Idea to combat selective disclosure!
- Prompt and timely material information should be publicly disclosed.
- Three proposals for access are excellent.
- This would guarantee free flow of information and ensure the story being
disseminated is the only! version.
- This will also, finally! give individual investors, large and small, a
fair chance in the decision-making process based on accurate and, again,
timely information.
Thank you for taking this initiative!
iams4az@hotmail.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support this rule, to help "level the playing field," and hope that you
will enact it over the objections of the special interests on Wall Street.
Thank-you,
Art Nitzschke
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support a more level playing field for all investors.
I particularly agree with the comments expressed by Jon Katz of Schwab:
"...selective disclosure is a substantial threat to the integrity of the US
financial markets, and the Commission is right to oppose this practice. One
of the major deterrents preventing Americans from participating in the
securities markets is their perception that they are not on a level
informational playing field with market insiders. Every time that a
security's price moves substantially, and only afterwards does the
information responsible for that move become public, investors lose
confidence in the fundamental fairness of our markets. When such a price move
is caused by insider trading, the Commission quite appropriately brings
enforcement proceedings. We believe the Commission's insider trading
enforcement program, while it can never entirely eliminate insider trading,
has done much to increase public confidence that market insiders who
systematically engage in this practice will be held accountable.
By contrast, the Commission currently lacks an effective enforcement tool to
deter intentional selective disclosure. "
Indeed.
--
(Rev.) Daniel Simer O Connell, D.Min.
Parish Minister, West Redding, CT
Author: "Sanjiv Patel" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:26 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I would like to thank you for considering a proposal where the playing field
will be level to individual investors and professionals alike. In today's
market of information, one can not afford to not have the same information
the the professionals do. The companies should have a moral responsibility
to investors at large to disclose the same information at the same time as
professional investors do.
Sanjiv Patel
Sterling Heights, MI
Author: "Bill Pfeil" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:14 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
With the Microsoft trial nearly over, I find myself thinking about
monopolies. Perhaps the worst kind of monopoly, or one that affects the
greatest number of people, is a monopoly on information. Monopolies of
this sort have gradually disappeared as modern methods of communication
replace the 'necessary' middleman. Think of books and newspapers, radio
and tv, and most recently the internet.
The current business model for many Streeters depends on a monopoly of
information. Inside information about companies, ipo's, mergers, trades,
rates, and commodities is their currency of power. How wrong they are to
be scared of the information revolution embodied by the internet and the
individual investor. Their scare tactics are as old as the printing
press. And groundless. Just as mass-printed bibles did not remove the
need for clergy, the information revolution will not destroy the
Securities Industry. Wall Street will adapt and survive. But they will
serve instead of rule.
From the Securities Industry Association April 6, 2000: "Leveling the
playing field for analysts, as among themselves and vis-a-vis the
general public, will undermine the great advantages of the current
system". Yes, but whose advantages? Clearly those of the Wall Street
insiders who have enjoyed a monopoly on information up until now. Let's
foster real competition and break up this monopoly.
William E. Pfeil
Reedsport, Oregon
Author: Jim Pinto at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:34 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please provide full disclosure to all consumers.
Jim Pinto
11 Megans Circle
Newtown, CT 06470
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the Fair Disclosure Rule currently proposed. I believe that
personal investors are completely capable of making their own decisions
without having information watered down and filtered to us by "expert"
analysts.
David Pyles
Author: Lynne Saunders at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 10:08 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
TO: Lynne Saunders at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is disgraceful that the SEC continues to allow Wall Street analysts access to
important company disclosures, while other investors around the company
are precluded from receiving this information. I am an avid stock market
investor, I make my own investment decisions based upon company
research I conduct. I believe that my Constitutitional rights should allow me
to
receive the same information that has so far been deemed for Wall Street
analyst eyes only.
I fully support a change in the rules to allow by the SEC to allow
companies' important information to be given to the public at large
simultaneously with its release to Wall Street analysts.
Regards,
Lynne Saunders
--
Lynne Saunders
VP Marketing
YourSafety.com (formerly SafetyCop.com)
2542 S. Bascom Ave
Suite 225
Campbell, CA 95008
Ph: 408.371.5571
Fax: 419.858.4884
Email: lsaunders@yoursafety.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-mail contains confidential
information belonging to the sender, which may be
legally privileged information. This information is
intended only for the use of the individual or entity
addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient,
or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any
action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or
attached files is strictly prohibited.
Author: Stan Schup at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 11:17 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is called-- Fair Disclosure --make it so. Let us have fair
disclosure.
Stan Schup Jr.
Author: Beverley Seader at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am for a change in regulations that will increase the information
available to the individual invester. It seems unfair to me that Wall
Street analysts can get more information than the general public.
Beverley Seader
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:48 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an inidividual investor, there is NO reason why I should not have
information accessability at the same time of everyone else. It needs to be a
level playing field whenever possible. We already lack some of the channels
of communications that analysts and others have, so why allow for others.
Gale Shirk
36053 S.Golf Course Drive
Tucson AZ 85739
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:03 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I find it hard to believe that the SEC would even consider not giving the
same information to all investors, either professional or recreational.
There aren't many reasonable arguments to protect the professional secrecy
they currently enjoy, so please open up the information to all investors.
Thank you.
Brandon Sick, MD
Hartsville Family Healthcare
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:56 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective disclosure is only good for one purpose and that is to give those
in favor a step up over the rest of us who suffer the consequences of
"insider trading." I oppose selective disclosure. I'm shocked to find out
such a thing exists. Madeline D. Sitzes, Attorney at Law, Houston, Texas
Author: fjslaten@webtv.net (floyd slaten; jr) at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 12:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am a small individual investor. As such, I am already at a
disadvantage to the "big boys". So, I am very much in favor of the
above proposal requiring fair (public) disclosure of material
information by securities issuers.
In this age of instant communication via the internet, the old method of
selective disclosure has no place. It serves only to maintain unfair
advantages for the larger "preferred" investors. In this day and age, I
don't think its right for me to have to wait until the insiders have
digested information and decided how they want to move the market in
stocks I may hold in my portfolio and when and whether they even want
me to know why.
This proposal has a direct impact on my interests. I say go ahead, pass
your rule because its good for the individual investor. And, its time.
Thank you,
Floyd J. Slaten, Jr.
Author: Cheryl Sjern at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 11:12 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC:
I am in favor of the fair disclosure regulation. Wall Street analysts
should not receive preferential treatment in regards to company
information. Please adopt S7-31-99
Thank you,
Cheryl Stjern
Author: "Margot S. Tate" at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 1:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am strongly in favor of system under which companies disclose
information important to the individual investor be improved, and this
SEC regulation is a good start. Thank you for addressing this issue.
Margot S. Tate
Manager, Software Manufacturing
Soliton Associates Inc.
Author: Todd Van Horne at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 9:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Selective disclosure is NOT in the interest of capitalism. Please support full
and fair disclosure.
Thank you,
Todd Van Horne
Portland, OR
Author: Linda Ware at Internet
Date: 04/27/2000 11:37 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I am opposed to the new regulations that would allow non parallel
information release about companies to analysts vs the public. In this
day and age of open information transfer it is not acceptable to
withhold any information or to create "classes" of information holders.
Please keep the current rules in place so that the playing field is the
same for us all.
Linda Ware
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0427b05.htm
