Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: David <" dagroskin"@mediaone.net> at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 5:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File NO S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Once in a life time stop thinking of people stupider then you are. We
can take care of ourselves, and do not need to be held by hand while
making OUR OWN decisions.
David Agroskin,
Author: "Anderson; Brian" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 6:48 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I wish to express my strongest support in favor of the proposed regulation
FD. As an individual investor I am perfectly capable of evaluating
corporate earnings disclosures or other data just as well as the
professional managers on Wall Street. The established (and very expensive)
brokerages have a financial self-interest in maintaining the very unfair
status quo. I do not need any assistance from high-priced money managers
(who fail to match simple index fund returns 80% of the time) to make
prudent and informed investment decisions.
I urge a vote in favor of the new regulations to prohibit favoring Wall
Street analysts at the expense of the general public
Brian Anderson
Database Systems Manager
Shorewood Packaging - a business of International Paper
(631) 232-9500 x5528
Author: "Rick Boice" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 9:09 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to voice my support for the proposed regulation. After reading
some of the comments from Wall Streeters, I can't believe their paternalistic
attitude. As an individual investor, I depend on all information provided and I
don't appreciate having information spoon-fed to me by the major brokerage
houses, especially when it is a day late. As it is now, I have to follow CNBC
closely for results of conference calls, such as today's earnings release of
CISCO. To be honest, I usually ignore recommendations by the brokerage houses
and I have consistently out-performed the market.
If we follow the advice of Wall Street, then maybe we should prohibit on-line
trading as it is apparent that, under their thinking, we're just to stupid to
be trading stocks. If the SEC does not embrace this new proposed regulation,
then we will have taken a giant step backward.
Regards,
Richard K. Boice CPA
Author: H H Bonner at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 1:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I favor passage of the Fair Disclosure bill.
I am an individual investor near retirement age (53, intend to retire at
55) who uses the internet to manage my investments. Since I switched
from a full service broker to an internet discount broker my investment
costs have dropped 90% and my returns have doubled. This switch will
make it possible for me to retire at least 5 years earlier.
I am in support of the proposed full disclosure rule. It will enable me
to manage my investments even better. I do not believe that it will
cause the educated investor to lose money, no matter what announcements
are made- it will simply level the playing field so that brokers cannot
take care of big clients before the news is released. I believe that
not passing this rule will simply enrich the big brokerage firms at the
expense of the individual investor.
Hank Bonner
Working as an Engineering Manager in a major corporation
Author: "Edward Bramlage" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 2:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: FAIR DISCLOSURE
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of fair disclosure. The notion of some brokers that the
average investor cannot read charts, financials and evaluate information
provided by the corporations is rediculous. I do my own research and shold
be able to have access to information provided at the same time as wall
street brokers. Why should they have the advantage to make profits before
the individual investor.
Edward Bramlage
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 7:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD; File No. S7-37-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I urge you to vote in favor of the above regulation. As a private investor I
want to be informed at the same time as the "analysts." I am an informed
investor who is tired of the analysts manipulating the market by their
"informed" comments.
I do not need a nanny in the form of analyst appraisal. I can sort out
information from misinformation on my own.
Sincerely,
Mrs. R. C. Bussell
CEO JRT Investments
Author: "Cassleman; Patrick A" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 3:48 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support this rule. I feel I am just as capable of handling
information at the same time as a Wall Street Broker. Those who oppose this
rule are just trying to maintain their unfair advantage in a market that has
been revolutionized by the internet.
Thanks,
Patrick Cassleman
Intel Corporation
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 4:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Although this is past the comment date, I want to state that I support enacting
Regulation FD S7-31-99. It is my belief that providing indiviual investors the
same information and opportunities as securities analysts will be to their
benefit.
Marea L. Chase
mlchase@mmm.com
Advanced Manufacturing Technology Engineer
3M Corporation
Author: "Clint Cone" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 3:44 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Pass it.
In today's market, Every investor deserves to have the same access to all
the same information as any other. This includes the professional analysts,
investment firms, as well as the large and small individual investors.
As a small personal investor, I find it appalling that I am being forced to
make investment decisions based on incomplete information. My success SHOULD
depend only on my ability to absorb and interpret the company data about my
investments, NOT on how much some analyst and his firm want me to know.
I know this is not a legally derived comparison, but it has seemed to me
that it is a small step from encouraging insider trading when you allow
information to be witheld from the masses to enrich the few. The tie being
that an insider is trading based on unfairly gathered information that has
not been made public yet. The only distinction here is "how do you define
public?". Would I be to understand that I am not a part of the public?
Clinton B. Cone
Author: "Rachel Cunningham" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 5:54 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern--
I urge the SEC to vote for fair disclosure to all. It will not get
corporate information to analysts any more slowly, and it could be a boon to
individual investors who like to keep a close eye on their holdings. The
current system discriminates unfairly against those who choose not to work
with Wall Street.
Sincerely,
Rachel Cunningham
Author: "Ihor Dankowycz" at Internet
Date: 08/07/2000 2:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
When will you level the playing field? Allowing companies to disclose
information to Wall St. without disclosing it to the public at the same time is
criminal. Are you working together to keep the individual down? Prove us wrong
...
WE ARE THE PEOPLE. YOU MUST LISTEN TO US! STOP THE INSANITY!!!!!!
Ihor Danko
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 5:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC - urge you to vote FOR disclosure to the public, not just to the Wall
Street Analysts - openness is always the best policy.
Patricia Dooher
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Author: Roger Dooley at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 4:25 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC:
Selective disclosure creates a separate class of investors and is
inherently undemocratic and probably unconstitutional.
You should absolutely pass a rule barring selective disclosure!
Roger Dooley,
Individual Investor
13571 Millpond Way
San Diego, CA 92129
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 2:47 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I'm in favor of leveling the playing field by making information available to
the public at the same time that it is made available to the chosen few. I'm
convinced that the vast majority of individual investors will continue to
invest based on gut feelings and "tips" rather than doing their due
diligence. However, for those of us who do try to evaluate a company before
investing, the availability of real-time information will only enhance our
decision making. Please vote for Regulation FD.
Angelo Freda
An individual investor
Author: "P & D Gruntorad" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 5:03 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor, I am against selective disclosure. Selective
disclosure would be proof that government thinks the American public cannot
think for itself!
Patricia D. Gruntorad
19543 Tiger Lily Lane
Grass Valley, CA
Author: "Ken Grund" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 2:47 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the release of information from companies to individuals at the same
time as the information is provided analysts.
Ken Grynd
Author: "Jim Howes" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 5:32 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please do not allow Wall Street Insiders access to information that is not
simultaneously available to the general public. James W. Howes
Author: "M. Eric Hyche" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 4:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Commissioners:
I'm writing to express my support for requiring simultaneous
disclosure of financial information to the public as well
as analysts. I'm a software engineer for RealNetworks, Inc.
and an individual investor. I believe the public should have
access to the same information at the same time as
institutional investors and analysts.
In my opinion, the vast majority of the public will still
look to the analysts to filter and pre-digest the information
for them. Therefore, I don't think that this rule will in
any material way harm the analysts who make their living
from it. However, for those of us who prefer to do our
own digestion of information from the companies with whom
we invest, we should have access to the same information
at the same time. Institutional investors usually have
much larger amounts of money invested in these companies,
and when they have access to the information sooner
than the individual investor, they have the ability
to act on that information earlier. In some cases,
it's easy to see how acting on that information earlier
with large amounts of money at their disposal can
essentially eliminate the incentive for the small
investor.
Thank you for your time.
Eric Hyche
=================================
M. Eric Hyche (ehyche@real.com)
Core Technologies
RealNetworks, Inc.
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 2:59 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Fair Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please add my name to the numbers of people who want equal access to Company
information. Johanna Jones/JohannaJ@aol.com, I, too, have been concerned
about information overload..but it has been more due to the information that
has been sifted through other people's training and opinions and sent to me
when I did not request it than the information I specifically seek out. I
sincerely hope you vote to give those of us who want to take responsibility
for our own decisions equal opportunity to learn what we need to know to make
good ones. Thank you, Johanna Jones, New Mexico
Author: "Ben and Paula Laurens" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 7:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: file no S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The individual investors of this country have the right
to receive information at the same time as the paid
investment "professionals". It is the duty of the SEC
to allow all investors equal access to information
disseminated by publicly held companies.
Ben Laurens
Author: "Christopher D. Lewis" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 6:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I understand that certain commissioners are concerned that releasing
news to the public instead of to selected analysts might cause
"information overload" to paralyze or confuse investors. Nothing could
be further from the truth. My conclusions are based on the following
facts:
(1) If analysts had any interest in "ferreting out" bad news on
companies, they would maintain more than 1% negative recommendations on
stocks. Analysts instead use their relatively exclusive access to
further the objectives of their employer firms, including the
maintinence of buy recommendations on known bad bets in order to
increase the chance of reviewed companies' corporate business with their
firms.
(2) Analysts' conflicted position on news therefore prevents them
from representing investors' interests in interviews.
(3) Investors have such ready and rapid resources for filtering
irrelevant news on the internet that news on corporations in which they
are interested in fact does not come fast enough. Increased information
will tend to make the news on companies more meaty and less misleading
and speculative. Silence, followed by third-hand accounts from insiders
reporting to small numbers of preselected analysts, is a poor model for
information dissemination.
THEREFORE, the proposed rule to require simultaneous information
release to the public is of utility and will not create problems for the
investment community; in addition, it will minimize the problems
associated with selective disclosure, in which analysts have motive and
opportunity to disseminate information through mechanisms which further
the interests of their investment firm employers. Investment firms
should not be able through their analyst-agents to take unfair advantage
of their relatively exclusive access to the detriment of other market
participants.
Most Sincerely,
Christopher D. Lewis,
Lewis Management, L.C.
Author: "Avigdor Loeb" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 2:44 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Commissioners:
I, as an average investor, write in support of Regulation FD, a obvious
pro-capitalist rule, leveling the playing field for all. The self-interest
of the securities industry in opposing such a rule is obvious. Their
"information cartel," however brief the duration might be, has immense
possibilities of profit and prestige. Given how fickle the markets are, and
how mediocre so many analysts are, I don't understand how they justify their
stance. Power yields nothing without a struggle.
They are selling fear. As if the ignorant and greedy aren't taken grievous
advantage of now, under their kind tutelage, do they think their exclusivity
is some kind of magic? Sounds like their own fear to me. Please enact
Regulation FD.
Yours truly,
Robert Loeb
2909 W. Strathmore Ave.
Baltimore, MD 21209
Author: Garrett Marshall at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 12:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think it is absulutely obsurd that the individual invester does not
get the same information when "Wall Street" receives there information.
With more and more people flocking to the internet, it has become easier
and easier to plan ones own portfolio. How fare is it that the big
money managers have information before the little guy. It isn't!!!!
Also another misconception is that individual investors are stupid.
Wall Street would like to believe that individuals can't read financial
statements. In essence reading financial statements is not a hard task
at all. I have just started investing and only a month into it I can
comfortable sit down and read the financial statements and understand
enough to sway my decision to keep or buy a stock. The real issue is
that by making the playing field level there is really no need for money
managers.
Garrett Marshall
Author: MARTIN_BEN at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 4:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Commissioners:
In the interest of fairness, we must have full disclosure of management
discussions and reports. The idea that potential stock purchasers might suffer
from information overload is bogus. As the situation now stands, many people
must rely on the analysts for their information, and the reports that come
from those geniuses is all-too-often wrong or slanted. Furthermore these
analysts often use their priviledged position in order to tilt the playing
field in favor of their favoite clients and/or themselves. Please vote for
full disclosure.\
-- Ben Martin
Los Angeles, CA
Author: Bernie at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 6:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please vote in favor of the rule change that would make corporate
information available to all interested investors at substantially the
same time, and eliminate the unfair disclosure of information to select
commercial "analysts".
I have read the rather amazing comments from some commercial brokerage
firms that disclosing information directly to interested Americans and
other investors would be dangerous! Incredible! "Disclosing
information about their investments to interested Americans would be
dangerous!" Hard to believe anybody could say anything like that with a
straight face, isn't it?
The rule change won't force information upon people that don't want it.
It won't force information on people that would rather have someone else
analyze it. It simply should make information available to all
interested parties at substantially the same time.
Thank you.
Bernard Mayoff
1411 Huntington
Richardson, TX 75080-2812
bernie@mayoff.com
Author: Richard McCaffrey at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 3:58 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, I would like to have access to
company information no later than analysts, and I am fully aware of the risks
and benefits of such informtion. This is where democracy meets capitalism.
Please vote to open up the system to John Q. Investor. I'll do own 'due
diligence' and take my chances, thank you.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard McCaffrey
P. O. Box 86, Ester, AK, 99725-0086
Home Email: richardm@gci.net
Home Tel: 907.474.3478
eFax: 503.212.6025
------------------------------------------------------------
Author: "Richard Kutta" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 6:55 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of adopting the "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99" . I
have a BS in Statistics and thirty + years of employment history. I've managed
budgets in the millions of dollars. To say I'm not capable of managing my own
finances, even though these people have never met me, is a supreme act of
ignorance. I resent being treated like the least common denominator.
Thanks for your time,
Nancy Meyer
xxxkuttmeye@netbox.com
remove x's to use address (Down with spam!)
Author: "Steven Miale" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 3:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC:
I am writing about the Fair Disclosure proposal that will soon be evaluated
by the SEC..
As an individual investor, I am in full favor of the proposal as it stands.
I do not feel it is fair, in any way, for publically-traded corporations to
pass relevant material which can affect the markets to certain analysts and
not make it also simultaneously available to all the shareholders of the
company. My reasoning is as follows.
First, it is very close to insider trading. What is the real, effective
difference between a company officer acting on information that is not
publically available, and the very same officer passing information that is
also not publically available to favored analysts? The impact is the same;
a select few are favored, while the rest of investors are not. This
undermines the confidence that investors have in the market. The market
should be fair, and I feel that any attempt to make the market feel "less
fair" for investors will be bad for the market.
Second, the issue of information overload. Some opponents to the proposal
believe that release of this information could overwhelm investors. I
believe this is an incorrect assumption. First, there is already a large
amount of data anyone wishing to invest in a stock can examine: SEC filings,
whisper numbers, analyst reports, technical analysis charts, et cetera.
Making additional data available to the investor would not overwhelm them;
they could and would take the information into account if they so desired.
Investors are not currently overwhelmed, for example, with the numerous SEC
filings. Investors could easily deal with the additional information that
would be revealed to them if the proposal is passed.
Third, the issue of added value by the analysts. Mr. Adams of Adams,
Harkness, and Hill claimed that "most investors are amateurs", that most
investors are not "capable of managing their own money", and that release of
this information would only encourage them to "play a game in which the odds
are stacked against them." I reject this. First, it is true that many
investors are amateurs, but this does not and should not prevent the release,
for instance, of SEC-mandated filings or the prohibition of insider trading.
In essence, this argument is irrelevant to the proposal, which is geared
towards making the markets fair - the very reason the SEC exists. Second, I
should point out the oft-noted fact that many professional investors,
including managers of large mutual funds, regularly underperform the S&P 500
Index. Should we deny these professionals information because they are not
winning the "game" as well? Third, as far as the odds being stacked against
the individual investor... indeed, that is part of the problem which this
proposal is intended to alleviate. Permitting corporate information to be
divulged to some investors, but not all, is not going to level the playing
field.
To summarize: I believe strongly in the stock market being made as fair as
possible for the investor. Allowing the release of non-public information
to certain parties and not releasing this information to other shareholders
at the same time undermines the goal of a fair market for all investors -
and the goal of a fair market is why the SEC was founded. For this reason,
this proposal is needed, and I urge the SEC to approve it.
One final note: as I was writing this letter, I visited the SEC's web site.
Displayed prominently is a quote by William O. Douglas: "We are the
investor's advocate." Please be that advocate.
Respectfully,
Steven Miale, Investor
Author: "Tom and Sharon Milholin" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 3:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "proposed regulation FD: file no. s7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support fair discloser. Equal for everyone seems like a no brainer to me.
Tom Milholin
8595 Apple Park
Rogers AR. 72756
tamilhol@ipa.net
Author: nagler at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 5:44 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: file no. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
it took Martin Luther to make the bible available in the
vernacular. What is it going to take to make information
available to investors, who put their own money on the line, as
against intermediaries who work with other people's money? As
for information overload, a lot of analysts are so afraid of it,
the only material they use is what is spoonfed to them in the
form of "guidance". You know it, I know it, they know it. So
why not simply throw it open, and may the best man or woman win?
Sincerely,
Harry Nagler
2817 Silver Avenue
El Paso, Texas 79930
Author: "D. Padowitz" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 3:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Comissioners,
I strongly support fair disclosure.
I would hope that the SEC sees its role as
insuring that investors receive accurate,
truthful, and timely information. Allowing
Wall Street insiders to maintain a monopoly on
information is not in the public interest. --
--
David Padowitz
Assistant Professor of Chemistry
Amherst College, Amherst MA 01002
(413) 542-2660, fax 542-2735
http://www.amherst.edu/~dfpadowi
Author: "A. Reichert" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 3:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the proposition to require suimultaneous release of company
data to both
analysts and the public at large.
- Alan A. Reichert
2232 White Cornus Lane
Reston, VA 20191
Author: "Bezhan Salehy" at Internet
Date: 08/08/1998 8:34 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Bezhan Salehy, user of Fool.com and concerned investor.
Author: "Scholz" at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 9:16 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
I think it is of uttermost importance that the indiviual investor has access to
the same kind of information at the same time as Wall Street analysts. There is
absolutely no reason why Wall Street Analysts and their preferred clients should
be able to trade and make money on information that is not accessable for the
public.
Sincerely
Cord-H. Scholz
Author: Jim Skinner at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 3:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am for the equal access to company information change. We are in
the information age. If an analyst is a good one more facts will only help
him or her. I believe analyst comments should acknowledge the monetary
interest their firms have in promoting the firms they offer opinions on.
If it lessens the amount of information available then we need to
require more frequent reporting from corporations above a certain size. More
frequent reporting should not pose a hardship on corporations due to
increased computing power and the communication ability of the internet.
Jim Skinner
Mediware Information Systems
Support Analyst
800-255-0026
913-307-1000
jim.skinner@mediware.com
Author: Greg Starkey at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 5:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hello,
Urge you to give the public a fair shake. Limiting
knowledge to a small group is not the
democratic way. Free enterprise at its best requires knowlege
to be available to all who
desire it, not just the Wall Street Elite.
Regards,
Greg Starkey
2046 Dixie Drive
Waukesha WI 53189
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 12:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
8/8/00
Dear Sirs:
I would like to add my voice to those asking for more timely information
for the individual investor. It seems patently unfair that a
professional analyst for a brokerage company or investment firm has
advanced access to important news. Doesn't this have the same effect as
insider trading?
I personally spend several hours each day researching information about
companies on the Internet. Systemic trading advantages already vastly
favor the professional manager. How much more do they need?
C. J. Tempey
Author: John E Uhlir at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 2:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Regulation FD:File No. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
My vote is in favor of full simultaneous disclosure.
John E. Uhlir Fresno,Calif.
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 6:37 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: file no. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sir:
As a non-professional, private investor, I write to support the passage of
the above-referenced regulation. To me, this is a no-brainer. There is
absolutely no reason in the world why analysts or anybody else should have
privileged access to company information. In a day when plus or minus 50
million Americans hold stocks, it is imperative that they be granted a level
playing field. The industry argument that the investor would be "overloaded"
with information is ridiculous. Each investor can take it or leave it, as
he/she chooses.
The core problem here is my personal conviction that there remains
considerable insider information available to certain persons in the market.
It doesn't have to be so crude as an actual tip, but arrangements such as a
special relationship between the companies and analysts suggest other ways it
can take place. Much of the "insider" tipping can never be countered--friends
calling friends. Some of my friends would never think of investing without
calling a friend at some company in their sector whom they know.
This proposal is a major challenge to the SEC. Arthur Levitt is leading a
moral crusade on behalf of the small investor. Let him push this forward with
a rule change which is so vitally necessary. Bruce van Voorst
Author: Carole Werling at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 3:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
PLEASE VOTE TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR - vote so we individual
investors have the same advantage as the Wall Street professionals - for
too many years Wall Street has profited at the expense of individuals.
Thank you most kindly [ as my dear old Dad always said]
Regards,
Carole Werling
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0808b02.htm
