Floyd Norris mischaracterizes the debate about Regulation FD. He seems more interested in setting up the big bad voice of business against the little guy.

It's not that simple. The main academic objection to Regulation FD is not that it stifles some abstract concept of free speech. It's that it winds up being worse for investors. The argument goes that if companies have to tell everyone something anytime they tell anyone, they will eventually reveal less. That will limit the flow of information into the market, and limit the extent to which well-informed investors can react to it and signal to other investors where to put their money.

To my knowledge, there is no convincing proof that Regulation FD has made life better for everyone. I think it's too early to tell whether it's good or bad overall.

As Norris observes, most of us don't have a friend in the executive suite who can tip us off during the next golf outing. Fine. This is a fact of life. That's why investors need to diversify and not pin all their hopes on what Wall Street analysts or the media say.