Subject: File No. S7-14-08
From: Maria Y Tan, Esq.
Affiliation: Allianz, agent

September 9, 2008

I have been an Insurance agent since 2001.

1. As a lawyer by training (LL.M., Columbia University 1978) as well as holder of an Insurance License, a Real Estate Broker Licemse and a Tax Preparer's Registration, I feel that the SEC concerns are laudable.

However, it does not help to frighten the public, especially the elderly, who may have transferred the bulk of their pensions to FIAs, by putting the issuance of these instruments under the control of the SEC.

The stockmarket is known by the public as a volatile place where you could make and loose your savings overnight. Hence the need for regulatory control.

2. FIAs are not deemed to be volatile instruments, the worst risk is that your savings do not increase, but it does not diminish in numbers (though value of the dollar is subject to inflation and international money markets which applies to any amount of money, whether in the bank, a money market account or under your mattress.)

What I, personally would like to see is that FIAs are truly non-"gambling" instruments. A good example is ALLIANZ's Masterdex 10. It may be slow in increasing your savings, but it is almost no risk in numbers/amount of money you already have (except, of course, the value of the dollar itself).

3. There are ALLIANZ FIAs which though seemingly "no-risk",
have the inconvenient "drop" in value which needs time to get back to the "zero" level, before it can accumulate further up. Masterdex 10 does not have this inconvenience.

This unobvious risk has to be clearly pointed out to customers and clients, to be able to make an educated decision in choosing the instrument.

4. Personally, I think, that too much pressure is put on insurance agents to sell and make a living, that most "forget" to point out these differences, either by their own ignorance or by sheer ambition to close the deal.

I believe that the onus should be put on the training/marketing divisions of the Insurance companies producing products to train and make agents aware of the various risks and onuses of a product, to produce check list for each FIA for agents to go over with clients, especially the elderly, and to apply the necessary disciplinary measures, rather than bringing in an already overburdened agency to have their staff (who are tuned to think and assess speculation risks of the stock market) to police and monitor peaceful insurance agents of all ages, including seniors, they do not even know.

5. I have been inactive for the past year in promoting any product to any prospects, partly because I felt that the current monitoring system is going to blow up. Too many marketing departments are strained an pressurized to produce the bottomline, so every new product they present on the market is only halfway revealed by marketing officers who themselves do not know the negative side of a product and are trained to only teach "how to sell" and present the seemingly hugely profitable aspects of the product.

6. Please address the issue correctly and avoid further bureaucracy that does not increase confidence of the public, but only increses their jitters for the financial industry. The public has the right to know and be secure that there are products that are reasonabl slow growing, that can be faster than a CD which can be bought from any agent. They also need to know that to obtain a full blown comparison of the most popular products they are interested in with an adequate description of the risks of time "loss" of a drop, they need to speak to a Chartered Senior Financial Adviser (I did not pay my dues this year, but was a member of the Association of Chartered Senior Financial Advisers). They also need to know that to get a full picture of risks and possibilities among the different gamut of their investments/estate, they need to involve an estate lawyer, an estate accountant and an Estate Insurance Agent. One of these three alone will not be able to assess the full blown concepts, interchange and effects of their investments/estate, unless they here the objective opinion of all three professionals. Then when they are the more risk tolerant clients and have instruments on the stock market, they should be made aware that a Securities Licensed agent should be involved in the explanations. Do not forget the necessity of a Licensed Commercial Real Estate Broker when real estate is involved.

Personally, I believe, that it is impossible to expect that one person can know all the risks from either of the professional aspects above. I may not be a genius, I do not profess to be, so I know that with all my training in international business law/corporations/investments, insurance and securities, taxation, mortgage, real etate and marketing, it is impossible to know all the details thereof. Interdisciplinary cooperation and alliance has become a must in the current developments of financial instruments on the market.

7. To sum it up. The solution in protecting the public and innocent investors is not by polarizing control and policing by an already overburdened agency that already has problems doing so, but by delegating and assigning that responsibility and increase the educational ability of the insurance companies that produce these products, as part of their licensing liability, not that of the agents.

Is not this an analoguous concept to prospectuses before stocks/shares are issued and placed on the market?
Yet, it is not the prospectus that can protect the public, but the integrity and ability of the insurance companies to pass on the correct disclosure information to prospective buyers, through their marketing instruments, be they prospectus(flyers and brochures) and their informed agents?

May these points help the SEC make a more informed decision on the issue.

Sincerely,
Maria Yvonne Tan.