Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Cents and Sensibility - Kimberly and Friends' Consortium -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KevinMark who wrote (99595)	4/22/2000 12:37:00 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 108040

Thanks for the Fool's view of the proposed rule by the SEC and the brokerage's lobbying group's (SIA) argument against it. I hope others will read that link and write the SEC immediately, as time's running out. This is what I wrote to the SEC: ________ To Whom it May Concern: As an individual investor, I am convinced the fair disclosure of information by publicly traded companies to the public is in the best interests of ALL the public, contrary to the assertions made recently by the SIA. The notion that analysts at brokerage houses best serve the larger public's interests flies in the face of reason. Their first job is to gain profits necessary to assure their own survival. Their second job is to serve their customers well enough to accomplish the same end. The larger public is hardly their concern; are they suggesting they are motivated by religion or philanthropic vision to aid the poor, misguided masses? These are the same brokers, mind you, that I've observed setting lofty price targets to us poor ignoramuses, and as the buy orders pour in, they are selling their holdings of same stock. Why, if that were a smaller guy, it would be called "pumping and dumping". Does the SIA expect you to roll over and play "make-believe-we-protect-the-public" when they say: >>>"It hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary and very valuable function in the U.S. capital market. They, together with the media, are the principal way in which important financially significant information (including information contained in prospectuses and reports filed with the Commission) effectively reaches most investors and gets reflected in the marketplace. The 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. <<< Hogwash. The smart traders I know do just that, poring over prospectuses, comparing fundamentals of competitors, and working within small groups of traders to compare notes and projections. More than once, I've been saved from a bad trade by the reasoned arguments of others. Certainly, I've also been misled, but certainly no more so than by the professional analysts. Out of sync with the old world, perhaps... but the real world has evolved away from the type of paternalism the SIA proposes to maintain. We are not talking about national security issues here. We are talking about free trade, the underlying economic theory that supports our democratic republic. The free access to information is essential to the informed investment decisions of all who participate. Scenarios about companies limiting questions to a crowded field are also nonsense. Does the SIA propose that there are an unlimited number of questions to be asked, or that investors will redundantly ask the same questions over and over, refusing to believe what was said to another with the same question? Do they truly believe companies will coyly evade answering truthfully to anyone but the tough brokers... and hope to stay in business? Despite all the stats about daytraders who lose money, I'd remind you that: a) we are not just talking of daytraders here, but every kind of investor. b) given a playing field more level, as this rule proposes to do, is likely to improve the percentages of successfull daytraders. Institutionally 'protected' ignorance is hardly bliss. Mindful that the SEC is appointed to serve the public, the same public that demanded and gained a Freedom of Information Act that has proven beneficial and successful throughout the institutions of government, I trust you will be wise enough to see the holes in the SIA arguments - too numerous to detail in one missive - and pursue the only course acceptable to every investor and trader, who are, after all, adults.... with all the responsibilities for their own decisions in life resting solely on them as individuals. Unless the SIA is proposing to feed and clothe the incompetent investors who suffer losses taking their 'superior' advice, there is no reason to discard or amend the proposed rule to grant brokerages the continuation of an undemocratic favor. I'm no neophyte and well understand the weight carried by a professional lobbying organization representing such heavily monied interests. We all know that money walks and BS talks. But the gains of the marketplace, and the strength of the current economy, have occurred at the precise time that individual investors, via the internet, have gained unprecedented access to real time information that was formerly reserved for the few. I contend that's more than mere coincidence. Should your agency cave in to the false arguments of those lobbyists, you may, indeed, see the money walk... right out the door. If our economy plunges into recession in a year or two, economic historians puzzling over the series of events leading to that (as no individual event is cause alone) may well point to a poor decision in this matter as a critical undercutting of investor confidence in the market by a regulatory agency unable to protect anything but the past, for fear that the future cannot possibly be improved. Don't get me wrong. There are some analysts at some brokerage houses who provide timely and well-reasoned advice. But the percentage of good vs. bad advice from that community is well under 50%. Unlocking the flow of information will not diminish the good work of the wiser analysts; it will support their assertions. But likewise, it will undercut the work of the analysts whose advice is poor. That latter group is the only group protected if this proposed rule fails to get enacted. To the detriment of all others. Please, pass this new rule. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully; Kevin Hayden, individual investor armed with a brain

To: KevinMark who wrote (99595)	4/22/2000 1:29:00 AM
From: Frederick Langford	Respond to of 108040

the SIA argues that individual investors are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions about the value of securities and need Wall Street's analysts to hear and interpret important information first. Through that method, the SIA argues, individual investors are protected from their own ignorance and emotion. That is truly pathetic! Fred

To: KevinMark who wrote (99595)	4/22/2000 9:30:00 AM
From: kathyh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108040

thank you kevin, for publishing that link to the fool story regarding proposed regulation fd... the regulation requires, among other things, that companies no longer engage in the practice of discreetly disclosing important information to Wall Street analysts without also giving that information to the public at large. fool.com i sent an email to the sec urging passage of this regulation, and it seems to me the more of us they hear from the better... here is the address to send comments to the sec... rule-comments@sec.gov hope everyone here has a joyful easter weekend... kathy :)