Author: at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 10:30 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: comments: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please pass these regulations to make the investing playing field level for
all investors!
Stay on top of this effort. Thanks.
Author: at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 5:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Excepting Certain Broker Dealers from Investment Adviser Act
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir:
I write to urge not to adopt the proposed rule excepting certain
broker-dealers from the Investment Adviser Act. From my reading of the
rule it would be bad for consumers and financial advisers alike.
It would be unfair to exempt certain broker-dealers from the Act. It
would give them an unfair competetive advantage over those of us who must
comply with the act. They would not have to disclose as much about
disciplinary actions, they would be subject to less stringent suitability
regulations (a cornerstone of consumer protection), and would not be
subject to the same competency standards. The proposed rule would also
mean that these broker dealers would be free to use testimonials in their
advertising which the rest of us are strictly prohibited from doing.
Excepted broker-dealers would also have unfair advantages compliance and
fiduciary liability.
Please make this a level playing field for large financial institutions
and individual financial planners alike. It is in the consumer's best
interests to do so.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jonathan C. Brandt
Jonathan C. Brandt, CFP, 401 East 10th Avenue, Suite 530, Eugene, OR
97401
Securities through:
KMS Financial Services, Inc.
2200 Sixth Avenue
Suite 1125
Seattle, WA 98121
206/441-2885
Author: "Bruce Churchill" at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 6:13 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of SEC rules and regulations which would prevent public
companies from selectively disclosing information.
Sincerely,
Bruce Churchill
Author: at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 3:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
EVERYONE should have public knowledge to public company information at the
same time, otherwise we are not all created equal (like the constitution
says).
John Dowling
Author: Ron Freund at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 1:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: opposed to new rule
------------------------------- Message Contents
as an investment advisor, I don't think the new proposed rule exempting wire
house brokers from RIA registration is good for the public.Please send this back
to the drawing board.
Author: at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 8:03 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Open Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
Alvin Gregg
Give the investing public a chance. True there are investors that will be
harmed becuase of the first thing they see. Hasn't that always been the
case,
" the foolhardy rushing in?" Most of us who invest in the market could use
some of the same information to make decisions about our money that the "big
guys'" make. Who do you trust to invest with, the investor who does the
reading or the broker you hope is right? they more information provided the
better consure you are. I can filter the information and save for my
retirement with my own investments for later. What else have I got. unless
the market bottoms out it will contnue to rise in the long run and that is
what a majority of the investors do. Thank you for your time.
--------------------
Author: at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 11:00 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Re[2]: information
------------------------------- Message Contents
Information should be available to all investors, not just analysts.
Elizabeth Harpham
Author: at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 5:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Proposed Fair Disclosure Rule
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support the SEC's proposed fair disclosure rule and hope that it
will be finalized promptly and without compromise. I am one of millions of
retirees who are trying to overcome inadequate retirement support by
investing in securities. It hurts to be disadvantaged by younger, already
very wealthy investors who obtain market information not availoable to me
simply because of their ability to invest far more money than I will ever
see. I worked hard and served my country well in war and in peace. No
second-class citizens in the securities marketplace, please.
Norman Holly
2421 East Gate Drive
Silver Spring, Maryland 20906
Author: at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 12:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Signed: Kenneth A. Kramer (912) 961-6188
>>
I believe that the individual investor is entitled to the same information
as the institutions.
Author: at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 10:45 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Reply for request for name
Paul B. Medley II
Having read some discussions on the proposed new regulations requiring
disclosure of information to the general public and not just selected
analysists, I can only guess what a political football this must be. Is
their PAC money or something involved?
I am an individual investor and have watching the "experts" make predictions
and give recommendations, which seldom if ever involve a "sell" and change
with the winds. It is my opinion that I would like the same information they
work with to make my own decisions. I believe this would prevent a lot of
things that presently go on in security trading.
No matter what information is available, the little investor (less than
millions or billions to invest) is at a disadvantage as the value of
companies is often controlled by the news released by the analysts, etc.,
after the prices have all ready been affected by action the early news
receivers have taken with their millions and billions to invest.
Give everyone the same information at the same time and see if some sense can
come of it. Perhaps the value of a stock can be meaningful and not based on
some unobtainable growth or questionable analysis by the experts.
Paul B. Medley II
Author: dmilliga at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 9:41 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe we should have a level playing field and that analysts should not be
allowed to
receive and review company releases prior to the general public. I believe that
it
gives
the analysts an unfair advantage.
> Dan Milligan
> Cabletron Systems - ATM Firmware
> Phone: 1-603-337-0714 Fax: 1-603-337-1773
> Pager: 1-888-451-9476
>
Author: at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 11:49 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
We definitely should have this rule. This will even out the playing field so
our hard-earned money will have equal chance with the rest of them.
Don Olympia
Author: at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 8:59 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To: Stephen Reising/US/Schneider@Americas
cc:
Subject: Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
I am for the rule that allows companies to give important information to the
public at large at the same time they give Wall Street analysts the information.
Without this rule it gives the analysts an unfair advantage of knowing what is
happening at companies before anyone else knows.
Author: at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 4:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: level field
------------------------------- Message Contents
We the public should be informed of the news that the wall street brokers
get.
Financial news should be disseminated to all equally without any
exclusiveness.
Elmer Rodriguez
Author: mscott@naxs.com (Melvin Scott) at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 10:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To allow a certain group of people privilege information which will be used to
influence their clients and not open it up to the clients is un-American.
Fairness
is a fundamental American heritage. The only advantage lost is to the big
"privileged" trading houses that parley the information to their advantage not
their
individual investors. We should have open access especially since WE are the
investors not someone making money off the news. Thank you for this opportunity.
Melvin E. Scott
> Melvin E. Scott
> 215 Bronze Leaf Drive
> Christiansburg, Va 24073
>
Author: Kenneth Sheffert at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 7:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please keep the disclosures open and fair.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Sheffert
Author: Daniel Smith at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 4:54 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Indiscrete disclosure of all pertinent information regarding a publicly
traded corporation is a must. The execs. shouldn't cater to the fund
managers--after all, individual investors comprise the vast majority of
invested capital.
James Daniel Smith
Author: "tempor" at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 11:54 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please accept my sincere apologies for the oversight of not signing my name
at the end of the my comments. I have reproduced the comments here with my
name.
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.
Sincerely,
R. Sundar
Individual Investor
Author: "Tilton" at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 8:04 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
>Individual investors should have equal access to all announcements by all
>companies. It is unfair for any individual, i.e., analyst, or financial
>institution to be privy to information of marketplace value.
>
>As an individual investor I am at a disadvantage when information that will
>affect stock prices is first given to select persons, brokerages, and other
>financial companies. I do not like this situation.
>
>By disallowing selective disclosure, millions of individual American
investors
>will have equally timely opportunities to make investment decisions.
>
>The idea that financially sensitive information must be analyzed and
rehashed by
>professionals so that it "safe" for public consumption is arrogant and
insulting
>to the American public.
>
My apologies for omitting my name.
Varien R. Tilton
Author: "Mark VanHoomissen" at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 4:34 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: selective disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
>
> Please stop selective disclosure. The public should have the same access
as
> major brokerage firms and mutual funds. The public can and should be
allowed
> to succeed and fail with the same information that investment juggernauts
> succeed and fail with.
>
> Mark Van Hoomissen
Athens, GA
>
>
>
Author: at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 4:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor, I would like to proclaim my support for this
regulation
Paul B. Wesemann
Author: at Internet
Date: 05/05/2000 5:07 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: "Proposed Regulation FD File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I beleive the public should have the right to information about public
secerities the very same second it becomes available to any person not
considered directly employed with the company in question. It is our legal
right to this information as shareholders in these companys, and we should
not have to wait and hear info second hand or delayed. Robert J will
