Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: Canavino Curtis-CDBI03 at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 2:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Commissioners,
I am an individual investor who would benefit from the proposed rule change
regarding disclosure and encourage you to vote for it.
regards,
Curtis Canavino
Author: "CHRIS COPELAND" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 5:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Information to Analyst and investors
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have recently heard the arguement that companies would not open up, being
afraid that they would be in violation of the law change the SEC is going to
vote on.
That is just a red herring to the ex-parte information that analysts have
profited from for years.
The fact is a company that wants it's stock investors happy, will provide
more information.
While we may see higer price fluctuations when news comes out, both up and
down, it will only be that way because the inside information is passed to
the entire market at once, instead of being leaked to the privalged few.
Many of these analyst must look at many more stocks than I do, thus spend
less time on the stocks I have a interest in.
More freedom of information will take away the second class citizen status I
presently have concerning my own investments in regards to analyst.
Chris Copeland
Author: "robert flagg" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 8:47 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure) - File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
I strongly urge that you pass the Regulation FD (Fair Disclusure) rule.
After spending several years working in the Investment Banking business, I
can only laugh when I hear Investment Bankers tell the public that a rule
such as this would harm the investment public. The only thing Regulation FD
will harm is the unfair advantage which the large Investment Banks have over
the rest of us. They tend to scream the loudest only when it affects their
own bottom line.
Let's level the playing field.
Sincerely,
Robert Flagg
Author: "Fry; Jeremy" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 3:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor who believes the best person to manage my money is
me, I encourage the board to promulgate the proposed rule.
Jeremy Fry
Phone: 713-420-3602
Fax: 713-420-5280
******************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it from El Paso
Energy Corporation are confidential and intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you have received this email in error
please notify the sender.
******************************************************************
Author: John Godfrey at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 10:35 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Equal access to corporate informaton
------------------------------- Message Contents
Knowledge is power. Wall street apparantly wishes to retain it's
position as the manager of individuals investments, and will resist
people having equal access to the knowledge (power) to manage their own
portfolios, enabling them to trade through discount brokers, diminishing
broker commissions.
The argument that people may suffer from investment information
overload, and therefore suffer losses, weaken the volitility checks &
balances, that they should be encouraged to (coerced into) having the
experts who may more properly analyse the information manage their
investments; is a fallacious argument for several reasons.
1) The small minority of investors who will use the information
otherwise only provided to analysts, will be the more sophisticated
investors who will use the information cautiously. People who are
careless with their money invest in Las Vegas, or state loteries.
Investors are cautious with their money, the large majority investing in
mutual funds, the adventureous through a regular broker, an donly the
sophisticated, inependently.
2) Democracy is all about freedom to act independently, and knowledge is
critical to freedom. With the complexities of the domestic and world
economies, foreign trade issues, foreign affairs, national security, one
could argue that the voter may suffer from information overload every 4
years during the elections. Is this a sufficient argument to withold
information from the voter, take a paternalistic attitude, arrange to
have the "experts" vote for them, or decide how they should vote? I
think not.
Strike a blow for freedom!
John Godfrey
Author: "Brian Grindall" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 2:06 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a law student who has studied the very basics of securities regulation
and worked in several institutions directly participating in the equities
market, I applaud the proposed Regulation Fair Disclosure for advancing the
principle of full disclosure to the basic common interest - the individual
investors. Although some institutions may wish to preserve the status quo,
the advances in information distribution brought about by technology are not
mere trends but seem to have irreparably shifted demand, power, and
resources in entire industries - including those industries heavily reliant
on financial information. To ignore this paradigm shift for the paternalism
argued by the stalwart financial institutions would be harmful. Contrary to
the contentions of the large institutions, the individual investor will
hardly suffer from immediate disclosure of information.
Brian Grindall
Boston, Massachusetts
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 5:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Selective Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
As a long term investor, of over thirty years, I strongly support a change in
rules that will allow all investors a level playing field. Knowledge is
Power. To deny the public access to the same information is a rule that has
existed far too long. As more and more individuals are taking control of
their investments; with the increased use of the Internet and the possible
privatization of some part of Social Security, American citizens can no
longer be deprived of their right to make educated decisions.
A ruling in favor of a closed group, who have a selected interest in
perpetuation their advantage would be an absolute disgrace.
Thank you,
Judy Halpern
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 3:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I urge the SEC to be pro-consumer and vote "YES" on proposed Regulation
FD. Investors are entitled to the same timely disclosures from companies as
analysts. Often the analyst does not act in the best interests of clients,
especially if the client is a relatively small investor. The individual
investor needs to look after his or her's own interests and this is only
possible if relevant information is made available. Why should Wall Street
analysts have the advantage of knowing ahead of the individual investor what
is happening to a company? Its the individual investors money that is at
stake.
Mary Hannon-Haley
Author: "Heltemes; Cresta" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 3:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please pass Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99. It is unfair to
individual investors not to receive information at the same time as
analysts. My husband and I are college educated and capable of filtering
information provided by companies, it is an insult to individual investors
to say we are unable of understanding the information disseminated. As more
and more investors enter the market it is important for all information
about a company be available. Otherwise, you will have investors making
decisions on incorrect information. I believe that this regulation would
make the market more attractive for individual investors. Also, the
addition information would assure individual investors that Wall Street
companies are not making money at their expense due to inside information.
Thank you for listening to my opinion.
Cresta Heltemes
AOA-PAC Coordinator
caheltemes@theAOA.org
American Optometric Association
1505 Prince Street Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 739-9200
(703) 739-9497 FAX
www.aoanet.org
Author: "Bonnie Hilbert" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 6:51 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please rule for equal access to information at the same time. I have heard one
of the SEC members voice concern about information overload. It should be
obvious that all information released is gleaned by all parties for facts that
particularly concern them.
The level of education of the general public may be of concern on the aggregate,
but many people in the U.S. have had graduate work and degrees in business,
marketing, finance and economics. I think that many people in the "outback" are
as well equipped to handle information as many self-styled gurus on Wall Street.
Please give us the freedom to make the same solid forecasts and the same errors
as those working on the Street. This means access at the same time before
information is digested, filtered and released by those on the inside to the
various news services. This early release affects many investment decisions
that perhaps would not have been made if individuals were allowed to discern and
evaluate before others voiced very subjective economic opinions.
Sincerely, Jon Hilbert
Author: "robert m. hill" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 1:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Selective Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
I read the Wall Street Journal article(page c1 8/9/2000) concerning this matter
as it relates to Janus. I had not heard of this proposal before today but
that's my fault.
I want to register my support of the proposed rule. As an individual investor,
I have always felt outside of the stream of inside information that flows. In
this era of sophisticated information technology, I believe that all relevant
information on a security should be available to all investor at the same time.
I would appreciate your consideration of this view.
Thanks!
Robert M. Hill
11504 Mountain View Road
Knoxville, TN 37922
(TN 2nd Congressional District)
Author: "Jackson; Tony" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 1:37 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure), which would, among other
things, prohibit companies from passing material market-moving information
on to favored Wall Street analysts without simultaneously making the
information available to the public at large.
Thanks,
Tony Jackson
Author: "Sanjay Katabathuni" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 9:37 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
Dear Sir/Madam,
As an individual investor, I believe I should have the same rights to
information as an institutional investor. Providing the information is not an
end in itself to any investor. The analysis of the information provides the
actual value. If I as an individual investor do not have faith in my own
analysis of information about a company, I would hire the services of
somebody in whom I have faith. On the other hand, I might repose more faith
in my analysis than anybody else in the world. But I should have a choice. A
freedom to exercise all of my available options in my best interest. America
is the torchbearer of freedom; freedom of choice and freedom of action. And
it is this freedom that is being curbed by selective disclosure. I believe by
selective disclosure, a grave injustice is meted out to all individual
investors. I would urge the SEC commissioners to vote for fair disclosure.
Sincerely,
Sanjay Katabathuni,
Individual investor.
Author: "johnlang" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 12:34 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I write to express my views regarding the above referenced proposed
regulation.
The notion that selected analysts have access to company-disseminated
information of events that have a significant economic influence on the
valuation of a specific corporation while existing shareholders of the same
company sit quietly in the dark is absurd.
Stated differently, why should I, as an owner of a corporation, be directed
to an analyst to obtain information about my owned company? Is your view
that it is now not the responsibility of management to advise all
stakeholders of significant events that may have a material impact on the
value of a corporation? Further, is it your belief that this management
should direct this information to the analyst, who act upon this
information, before being presented to me as an owner?
I suggest this should not be the case and encourage each of the
Commissioners to vote in favor of shareholders and their right to
information from corporations in which they have a current or prospective
interest. Further, I would prescribe significant penalties be assessed to a
corporation's management for selectively informing shareholders of
economically significant activities.
Best regards,
Dr. John Lang CPA
Houston, Texas
Author: Lannings at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 12:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Get with the public FOR A CHANGE. Let us have a few of the perks you
grant those greedy brokerage "houses." Let us have the new when it is
most timely!
Irvin Lanning
ilanning@empowering.com
4 Robin Ct.
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Author: "Simon" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 10:29 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Am voting for fair disclosure for the public.
Simon Loli
Author: "Mikkelsen; Carl" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 9:50 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs/Madam:
I support regulations which require uniform disclosure to brokerage-firm
analysts and the general public.
The current system of selective disclosure impacts me as an individual
investor in two ways:
1) For situations where I make my own investment decisions, I do not have
the same information as the institutional traders, which lowers the
efficiency of the market and places me as a personal disadvantage.
2) Where I seek the counsel of investment advisors, brokers, and analysts, I
have no independent way to verify that the "whispers" and secret disclosures
so many brokers use to tout stocks are real, and not simply sales
fabrications.
The market works, only works, because all buyers and sells have the same
information. Companies, including my company, go to great lengths to control
the flow of information so that no employees are either trading on inside
information, or inducing others to do so. Providing a special loop-hole
where certain privileged investors have information denied to others is not
in keeping with market efficiency, or equal status of all investors.
Thank you,
Carl Mikkelsen
Splash Technology, Inc.
Author: Harihara Moorthy at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 9:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I wholeheartedly support the rule-change to
prevent companies from releasing critical
market-moving information exclusively to
select wall street analysts.
Thanks, H. Moorthy
=====
.._
/(_) _
| | | Harihara Moorthy
| |__|_(510)440-1610(h)
\__/ (510)771-3592(w)
Author: "Diane Peters" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 5:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of the proposed rule. While there are investors who will not be
able to use the information effectively, its availability will be no more
damaging than anything else that can be misunderstood and promote a mob
mentality. For those who are willing and able to learn to use the information,
it will be extremely valuable. We will be able to make intelligent decisions on
how to invest our own money in order to achieve our goals, and this increase in
wealth can only be good for the American economy.
Diane L. Peters
Author: val scott at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 9:53 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
I am strongly in favor of changing the rule about
disclosure of information from the curent "selective"
to "full", in order that ALL of us who trade, no
matter how "small", may be operating from the same
knowledge. Such would be the democratic way.
Thank you,
Valorie Scott, Westfield, MA
Author: "Richard K. (Rick) Sykes" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 6:45 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
Folks,
The only way to have a fair stock market is for every investor to have
access to the same information and at the same time. Allowing
companies to disclose business information to a select group of
investors gives those investors an advantage in the market until the
information becomes widely known.
Those investors who wish to have business announcements interpreted
for them by stock analysts would still be able to do so.
Please vote for Regulation FD.
--
**** PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME ATTACHMENTS > 50 KBytes ****
**** WITHOUT PRIOR ARRANGEMENT ****
Rick Sykes Senior Engineer, SysAdmin LinCom Corporation
rsykes@lincom-asg.com
Author: RafaelGV at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 11:17 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: fool@fool.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is amazing how paternalistic the goverment can be
when it suits its ends and special interest. The
public can be responsible enough to pay their taxes,
but not responsible enough to manage their money.
Money investing information is "overload", but
billions of paid advertisement bits a day is good
business, not information overload. How odd! As a
private investor who have made all my investment
decisions and been beating my ex-broker by double, I
think the SEC should be on the side of the public that
wants the same courtesies extended to the big players.
If the SEC wants to decrease "information overload",
limit the amount of advertisement we are all subjected
when we are trying to watch our favorite show, or the
amount of red tape needed to deal with the most simple
of goverment transactions. Giving the public
information that may benefit their purse, instead of
taking from it, is what the SEC should do, not the
other way around.
Approve the FD!
Rafael Gonzalez-Vizoso, MD
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 2:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: JVaughan@levi.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: file No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To: The Securities and Exchange Commission
I am asking that you change the rules and that companies be prohibited from
passing market information through favored Wall Street analysts.
The rules have changed in case somebody hasn't noticed. The same old-same
old good ole boy network just doesn't cut it anymore.
In a day and age where consumers and investors are extremely interested,
knowledgeable, and educated, the same tired rules where favored analysts get
advanced information is unfair, unethical and quite frankly, wrong!!!
This is the type of action that just has to stop. And stop right here and
now.
Why make it easy for analysts? You know why various companies want favored
analysts specially treated......and that is why it should end.
Fair and timely disclosure for one and all!
The consumer and citizen is alive and well. And the old ways are dead,
obsolete and by-the-wayside. Why continue under the wrongful pressures of
the analysts' lobbyists?
Take a stand and do the right thing.
Patrick R. Wilson
President
Hanley-Wilson & Associates
Knoxville, TN 37938
865/922-3380
Author: "Young; Dan" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 3:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Ref: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. 57-31-99
Dear Commissioners:
I strongly and respectfully urge you to support the small investors of our
nation in their efforts to obtain corporate information at the same time
that it is received by large investment houses. I am perfectly capable of
managing my own money and do not need an analysis to interpret information
for me, particularly when that information is made available to the
investment house and its large customers before it is available to me, and
other small investors like me. Please do the right and fair thing and vote
for the implementation of the rule.
Thanks for your considerations.
Very truly yours,
Daniel R. Young, C.E.O.
Federal Data Corporation
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0809b02.htm