Subject: File No. S7-14-08
From: John P Boylan
Affiliation: Principle of The Insurance Group Annuity Division

July 2, 2008

In having the SEC reference the "Dateline" report on poor sales practices of certain annuity agents of index annuity contracts as a justification of having these contracts under the SEC umbrella is evidence that the SEC has not a clue of what current sales suitability is. When Tyrone Clarke was written up by the Walll Street Journalit it was better than 8 years ago when the words suitabilty and disclosure were nowhere to be found in an annuity application. Today an annuity application is 20 pages long and in depth finaancial information is taken by the writing agent on the client which also has to pass muster with the insurance suitability department. Not one word of this was mentioned in the Dateline expose.
In grouping "at risk" security products together with fixed/index annuities the SEC is not understading the stark differences of the two one you can loose money and the other you can not. What would the prosectus say in presenting an EIA product to a client? The insurance company needs to reserve 100 cents on the dollar to satisfy that future obligaion they have to the owner of the contract a registered security does not. The people associated with the SEC should know this but this proposed rule shows that they do not.
I firmly believe that this is more a money issue with broker dealers wanting a piece of the fixed/index annuity commission that they are currnently loosing out on.It is truely a shame when greed has more to do with this proposal than sheer comon sense.
A fixed/index annuity is not a security and the current oversight by individual insurance commissioners as well as insurers is sufficient adding the SEC into the mix is nonsensical, abusive, and a slap on the face to every good insurance agent, state insurance commissioners and to each insurance company marketing EIA products.