Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: Ward Archer at Internet
Date: 08/10/2000 11:52 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
I'm astounded that this practice even existed. Thank you for voting in
favor of it.
Ward Archer
Memphis
Author: Geoff Cornish at Internet
Date: 08/10/2000 9:26 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Re: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Here is my name: Mr Geoffrey N. Cornish
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
Author: Geoff Cornish at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 9:42 AM
As commissioners of the SEC it is your job to protect democracy in this fine
country and ensure that all investors get a clear look at all new information at
the same time and in the same form as all others, including the priveledged
manipulators of stock prices on Wall Street.
I urge you to collectively allow democracy to take it's place in the world of
financial investment and vote for the free flow of information. Do this, or
history will look at your hard-earned career reputations with nothing but a
large black mark on them at the end.
Please let us individuals decide whether or not we need information. Attempted
Censorship, prevention of distribution, and cover-ups of information the public
has a right to know about, could not prevent Nixons Watergate or Bill Clinton's
"private activities". Are you prepared to be alligned with and compared to those
who would have protected these two Presidents from having their "infomation" go
public. ??? It is time to get serious about this issue.
One would otherwise be forced to wonder what private interests the commissioners
of the SEC have in making new information the private right of some Wall Street
Brokers, and the resulting speculation could really cause some investigative
journalism to take flight.
from A Fool, and an investor.
As commissioners of the SEC it is your job to protect democracy in this fine
country and ensure that all investors get a clear look at all new information at
the same time and in the same form as all others, including the priveledged
manipulators of stock prices on Wall Street.
I urge you to collectively allow democracy to take it's place in the world of
financial investment and vote for the free flow of information. Do this, or
history will look at your hard-earned career reputations with nothing but a
large black mark on them at the end.
Please let us individuals decide whether or not we need information.
Attempted Censorship, prevention of distribution, and cover-ups of
information the public has a right to know about, could not prevent Nixons
Watergate or Bill Clinton's "private activities". Are you prepared to be
alligned with and compared to those who would have protected these two
Presidents from having their "infomation" go public. ??? It is time to get
serious about this issue.
One would otherwise be forced to wonder what private interests the
commissioners of the SEC have in making new information the private right of
some Wall Street Brokers, and the resulting speculation could really cause some
investigative journalism to take flight.
from A Fool, and an investor.
Author: "Joel Fillmore" at Internet
Date: 08/10/2000 10:05 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 express my support for the rule mandating the equal
dissemination of infomation to analysts and institutional investors alike. I
understand that many professionals in Wall Street are concerned that
individual investors should not manage their own portfolios. Many would
voice the same concern about professional investors and the fact that most
fund managers will not match major indexes consistantly.
The real issue here is our faith in the free-market economy. Do the
opinions of analysts provide value to the investment community or are they
revered soley because they have access to exclusive information. The
opposition to this proposed regulation by Wall Street Firms seems to
indicate the latter.
The new generation of investors is here to stay. Regardless of the outcome
of this proposal they will continue manage their portfolios. Is witholding
information really protecting them? Selective dispersal and denial of
information undermine the basic principles of a equal opportunity
marketplace.
Look at the growth of the internet, it provides the perfect example of the
growth and progress that can be made through the sharing of information.
Millions of people are becoming more educated and intelligent investors due
to the exchange of ideas and information on the Internet. It is my hope
that you will embrace this ideal and mandate that all investors have equal
opportunity in every aspect of the investment community.
Sincerely,
Joel Fillmore
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/10/2000 10:28 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Advance disclosures
------------------------------- Message Contents
I was surprised to learn that companies may make advance disclosures of
operating results to brokers and large investors. Now I understand why the
market often moves a day or two in advance of a surprise announcement.
Apparently, it is a surprise only to the little guy. I thought the SEC's
responsibility was to provide a fair and level playing field. It's not fair
when big investors can trade on advance information before the rest of us. I
urge you to adopt a rule prohibiting this practice.
Jerry Gray
Author: slgrtc@webtv.net (sandra Green) at Internet
Date: 08/10/2000 2:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Selective disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is my opinion that all investor should have access to the same
information in order to make prudent and cost effective
investments. The current method of large
financial investors having access to
information that is not available to small and midsize investors is
wholly unfair.
ALL traders should have equal information not just large trading
houses.
Regulation for fair disclosure is a must if
we are to be able to play on a level field. The current method unfairly
gives
a privileged few access to company information and the opportunity to
trade on information that is denied to others.
Selective disclosure meane that big investors profit and the little
guys are shutout.
Sandra L. Green slgrtc@webtv.net
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/10/2000 11:17 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I would like to add my voice to the need for full disclosure to all investors
at the same time. It is unfair for Wall Street brokerages to be given
information before it is available to individuals. This is actually a form of
insider trading and should actually be against the law. Please vote for the
new regulation. Matt Keefer
Author: "Paul J Konnick" at Internet
Date: 08/10/2000 2:40 PM
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"
Let the people know! Paul J Konnick
Author: Patrick Mannion at Internet
Date: 08/10/2000 2:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Regulation FD" Kudos
------------------------------- Message Contents
I want to thank you for creating the new Fair Discolsure
regulation.
As a self-directed investor, It is my opinion that I should
have equal and fair access to information that might affect
the value of my investment(s).
If certain Wall Street analysts are allowed to view (and act
upon) certain information before I am, the results can be
catastrophic to my portfolio. Analysts have power to move
markets, and move the value of my portfolio when I am
powerless to do anything about it. If I have access to the
same quality of information at the same time the analysts
do, I at least have a fighting chance of protecting my
investments.
The situation wasn't fair before, because the old
regulations allowed a community of a few to realize large
profits at the expense of the investing public at large.
Keep the "reform train" moving at full speed.
-Patrick Mannion
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
> Author: "Moore; Jim" at Internet
> Date: 08/08/2000 5:30 PM
>
>
> I concur with Mr Schmidt.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Schmidt, Mike
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 12:39 PM
> > To: rule-comments@sec.gov
> > Cc: Moore, Jim
> > Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
> >
> > Regards:
> >
> > I have heard of Full Disclosure (FD) for quite some time, but only
> > recently became aware of the upcoming SEC vote. I fully support FD and
> > although I could list several reasons why, the main reason is because
> > these are public companies. These companies aren't just owned by
> > professionals, they are owned by a very diverse mix of individual
> > investors. What I'm talking about is equal rights in a sense. Why
> should
> > one investor be given preferential treatment (Selective Disclosure - SD)
> > over another? I'm almost tempted to call SD borderline insider trading.
>
> > What else do you call it when an individual in privy to non-public
> > information? Perhaps the information does become public eventually, but
>
> > that head start provided by SD gives an unfair advantage. Sure, some of
>
> > these professionals manage large mutual funds that individual investors
> > own and there might be some benefit to the "little guy." Also,
> individual
> > investors may very well under-perform the market when they manage their
> > own money. However, considering +90% of all mutual funds under-perform
> > the market, what value is the individual receiving for this "expert"
> > advice besides high fees? I find that analysts are very good at
> > predicting the past, but don't do so well in predicting the future.
> That
> > is why they need SD, to maintain the little edge they have left before
> > they are exposed as mere mortals like the rest of us. The professionals
>
> > are only interested in one thing...commissions.
> >
> > The SEC should do the right thing and put FD into effect. It is the
> right
> > thing to do.
> >
> > Michael T Schmidt
> > Engineer << File: cc:Mail note part >>
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/10/2000 2:41 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please vote for these changes in the disclosure rules.
The so-called concern about information overload for individuals is
ridiculous. Theoretically we, as individual investors, get the same
information as the analysts...just later than those working on Wall Street.
Let us get "overloaded" simultaneously with Wall Street.
It's the right thing to do.
It's your job.
It's long overdue.
It's going to happen sooner or later as more and more individuals take
control of their financial well-being...make it sooner.
Kristi J. Olsen
Author: "Jeremy Pottberg" at Internet
Date: 08/10/2000 12:33 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Fair Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC
I am a investor who believes that there should be fair disclosure.
The idea that only those on Wall Street are able to understand company
information is absurd. I have never received any formal training on investing, I
do not have a broker and yet I am still beating the S&P 500. The idea that
individual investors is utterly preposterous and I think Selective Disclosure
should be abolished.
Jeremy Pottberg
Author: "kaeserc" at Internet
Date: 08/10/2000 4:59 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
BRAVO!!!
Thank you for providing the small investors with vital information they deserve
- you have made a major step in leveling the playing field.
Thank you!
Eva Pruett
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/10/2000 10:39 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
John Rice.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
Author: at Internet
Date: 08/08/2000 11:33 PM
I am for the subject regulation as a first step in leveling the criminally
unlevel playing field. Among other favorable effects, its passage will
facilitate the inevitable demise of the so-called "Wall Street analyst"
profession which is a parasite on the free market. You, the SEC, are WAY
behind on what needs to be done, no doubt because YOU are in bed with the
perpetrators. Naturally, I don't expect you to pass this regulation.
signed,
An Individual Investor
Author: Smith Wayne-WWS002 at Internet
Date: 08/10/2000 11:26 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: RE: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am aware that the vote for Proposed Regulation FD: File
No. S7-31-99 is coming Thursday. I wanted to again voice my desire to see
full synchronous disclosure to all potential investors, not just analysts.
The bias of the current system towards analysts is apparent
with instances of major price fluctuations days prior to a major public
announcement. A portion of the market is allowed to act on information not
publicly available, and profit from it.
Furthermore, the SEC should not take it upon themselves to
protect individuals (investors or fund managers) from themselves. If
overreaction to news (good or bad) causes a short-term inefficiency in the
market, those able to see that will correct and profit from the
inefficiency.
Thanks,
Wayne Smith
Author: "marketex" at Internet
Date: 08/10/2000 9:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Changes in the OTC BB reports under Selective Disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
In reference to proposed rule S7-31-99 on Selective Disclosure
Dear Sir Ma'am,
Though I have already responded once before today 8-10-2000, I discovered
another disturbing factor in the OTC BB market. Before the small shareholder
could order the trading report from the Market Makers directly from
http://www.otcbb.com. The report was quite a thorough summary of the daily
events on the trading activities of an OTC stock. These reports were free and
provided an invaluable service and resource for the small investor.
On or around May 2000 the SEC gave permission for the OTC BB site to charge for
these reports. The charge established was $7.00 for a report and the report
before
was a 5-day report. One would naturally assume the report would be for 5-days at
$7.00 which was reasonable and could be afforded by a long term shareholder
wishing to keep up with the trading on a highly risky OTC investment. However,
upon ordering the report it turned out to be $7.00 per day making the 5-day
report $35.00 a week or roughly $135.00 per month.
After realizing the report was worth that expense because of the small
shareholder being totally blind in an unregulated market, the report was order
today for the month of May 200 for a cost of $133.00. However, upon receiving
the report the report was totally different and worthless to say the least.
The following is an example of a report that was free back in April 2000.
04/11/2000 09:51:04 S 1,000 5.5
09:51:49 S 500 5.25
09:59:19 S 100 5.5
10:41:17 S 500 5.25
10:46:58 B 3,000 5
10:52:28 S 3,000 5
10:52:57 S 2,500 5
This log showed the small investor a few things.
1.. Actual buys and sells and at what time and price
2.. In this example the MM were selling and buying on the bid, not the ask.
3.. A small investor could total the buys and sells to arrive at the
oversell, which is either dilution or shorting. Both, of which, are very
important information especially in trying to discover Pump and Dumps or Short
and Distort schemes.
This report was the only resource of proof to exactly what was occurring in the
trading of an OTC stock. Then the SEC approved the OTC BB site the ability to
charge for these reports and the following is now what you get when you pay the
extreme cost for the report.
Now they charge $7.00 a day for the report and it looks like this ...
05/15/2000 09:32:32 100 2.25 136501090100
09:55:28 500 2.4375 136304514500
09:57:18 500 2.5 136203805500
09:59:32 1,000 2.75 136305048100
This report can be gotten basically free with any online broker or real time
account. There is nothing in this report remotely valuable to a small
shareholder wishing to track his investment. This was the only source available
to do such. Now it has an extreme cost and nothing of value. SO the main concern
is what was not "Proprietary Information" for a long time is now protected under
selective disclosure.
When I contacted the OTC BB I was informed that yes the report was changed
because the information turned out to be considered "Proprietary Information"
and not for public disclosure. I was also informed that it would take a subpoena
to get the actual report as it was before the charge was imposed.
This has now cripple the small investor to basically now be able to track
anything and thus again setup the realm for false information. Is the OTC market
so manipulated that this report was exposing the naked shorting that a market
maker does not have to report, much less cover, because the OTC is unregulated
and now protected under select disclosure? However, on other market is
unregulated and shorting has to be reported.
This example of selective disclosure protection has the potential to further
feed the OTC manipulation where the small investor regardless of due diligence
and best effort is basically not on a level playing field. Also the Supply and
demand rule is also manipulated and Market Maker money is the true force in the
market.
One question one has to ask is . Why is it everything that a small investor uses
to due the deep due diligence and track their overall fundamentals of an
investment, as the SEC advises, is severed once it shows exactly what is
happening?
How long can the SEC go without regulating firm guidelines for naked shorting
and selective disclosure. Again, all other markets have to disclose short
positions where the OTC is now selective in its disclose of the trading logs and
no disclosure of shorting.
Is this an example of changing the one source of monitoring a security basically
proof the Fox guarding the Hen House?
Gary Swancey
Author: Rick Wall -- Information Services at Internet
Date: 08/10/2000 4:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
Thank you for supporting this rule (Regulation FD). For too long, insiders
(Media & Institutional investors) have been privy to "privileged"
pre-release company information. Thank you for working to level the playing
field for the small investor!
Please remember us in future!!!
Rick Wall
801 23rd Ave N
N Myrtle Beach, SC 29582-3100
Author: HeineJ at SEC1
Date: 08/10/2000 9:54 AM
Normal
TO: Rule-Comments at 03SEC
Subject: Selective Disclosure Rule
------------------------------- Message Contents
______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Selective Disclosure Rule
Author: "Lloyd Zand" at Internet
Date: 08/09/2000 5:50 PM
Dear Sir:
As a retired person, and individual investor I would like to strongly urge
the SEC to enact the proposed rule on Selective Disclosure and Insider
Trading.
In terms of "fairness" to the public the rule is not impeachable. The
spurious arguments made by representatives of the Security Industry
Association that the public will be harmed by having timely and full
disclosure is, in my opinion, ridiculous. All the rule does is to level the
playing field for the public, and give the majority of the public a fighting
chance to compete with institutional investors and analysts to get a fair
price for their securities. Under the current system, there is every
likelihood that by the time selectively disclosed information is
disseminated some select few have profited while the majority of the public
is at a disadvantage.
Again, I strongly urge the Commission to not be swayed by well funded
special interests-the public will thank you.
Thank you.
Lloyd C. Zand
Coral Gables, Florida
lczand@yahoo.com
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0810b01.htm
