September 10, 2008
I am writing to oppose the SEC's proposed new Rule 151A. I work in the insurance industry, and believe that this rule would not be in the best interests of consumers, and would have a negative effect on the industry as a whole.
The basis for the rule seems to be anecdotal evidence from cases in which the sale of a fixed index annuity was not suitable for the client's particular situation. While the industry should, and does, strive for an environment in which consumers receive all relevant information and suitable choices are made, adding a redundant layer of policy, which Rule 151A proposes, is not the right solution.
The sale of fixed index annuities is already regulated by the states; do consumers really need another layer of "protection" against an insurance product in which their principal is guaranteed?
Thank you,
Jessica Elliott