November 16, 2008

Subject: AGAINST RULE 151a

To Whom This May Concern,

My name is Bruce Yenk and as a professional in the investment and insurance industry since 1984, I would like to state my opposition to 151A. I believe that I have the education and experience to render a qualified opinion. I am an Economics Graduate of Rutgers University, MBA from Pace University in Financial management, Certified Financial Planner and am insurance and securities licensed since 1984.

It has always been my understanding that a savings vehicle, guaranteed to be worth more tomorrow than yesterday, having no potential for loss of principal, is not and could not be considered a security. These products (EIA's and Fixed Indexed ) have many people exerting their time, effort and money to stop the sales of these very useful and successful products. Further, I do not believe that they get a bad reputation for being complex to the consumer.

For my clients and the general consumer they are ideal products. These vehicles are issued by banks and insurance companies with a stated guaranteed minimum interest rate either for the duration of the holding period or as a lifetime minimum rate of return.

Fixed index annuities fall under the definition above. Further, they are accepted by the consumer as no-risk investment alternatives and SHOULD NOT BE registered or considered as investments that entail the possibility of a reduction in principal value during the holding period. As a matter of fact, if the deposited, invested or premium paid amount of the consumer into a fixed annuity is compromised in some way, either the Federal government or State government is responsible within certain limitations, to refund these losses. The same cannot be said for securities and therefore the conclusion MUST BE, that fixed annuities of all type, index or traditional are NOT securities and should not be treated as such.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce T. Yenk CFP