"What I'd like to see is a statement from TMF's individually discussing individual stocks, whether they own any of that stock or not. That's all; not how much they own, or how much they paid if they did."

I also applaud TMF for adopting a full disclosure policy with respect to fool.com and the company's employees. However, I also hope fool.com will limit disclosure policy to the fact that, unless the employee is required to report stock owned to the SEC or is otherwise qualified as an "insider" for the purposes of the SEC, the required disclosure be limited to the fact that the employee owns stock in the company(s) concerned. No disclosure is made of the number of shares owned.

For example, assume XYZ"TMF" owns 3,000,000 shares of GM. Further, XYZ writes an article reviewing the various methods of automobile financing, including the option to lease. As a reader, I may not give XYZ extra credibility regarding the article. However, if I knew XYZ owned 3,000,000 GM, I might look at other subjects relevant to GM very carefully for specific recommendations which might benefit XYZ"TMF."

IMO, disclosure of stock ownership, whether it be 1 share or 25% of the company, could open a "can of worms." At some point in time, a judgement call would be necessary. Does TMFXYZ have a limit of shares-owned requirement before TMFXYZ is considered to own too many shares to allow TMFXYZ to write an article?
What if your readers do not agree with the fool.com prescribed limit on the number of shares owned?

On the other hand, with the disclosure of the number of shares owned of specific companies, has fool.com subjected specific employees to increased harassment from anybody who wants money from them, legally or illegally? Let us see....3,000,000 in GM..another article said there was 200,000 in Yahoo!.com...and on and on. Conclusion is "TMFXYZ is rich!!" How much can TMFXYZ pay for a home? a car? a boat? Isn't public knowledge of that kind of information an unfair price for an employee to pay work for fool.com ?