November 17, 2008

Subject: File No. S7-14-08

I disagree with the basis of Rule 151a and think the States should maintain regulation over fixed and fixed indexed annuities.

My primary business consists of high net-worth individuals and physicians throughout this country. These people are very sophisticated and intelligent investors. I only sell fixed and fixed indexed annuities to these individuals. I have sold hundreds of millions in fixed indexed annuities to the public. Many individuals are starting with a minimum six figure initial premium.

I have never had one compliant or ANY dissatisfied customers. In fact, many have referred to me as some sort of a savant, due to the fact they haven't lost any money and their retirement hasn't been jeopardized. I tell them time after time, I am no savant, but the fixed products I have been able to provide to them have been the success to your financial and retirement stability.

It is my opinion that the State's have done more than a proper job in regulating the sale of these products and the carriers who offer them on behalf of the public. It is also my opinion due to the strict sales regulation and reserve mandate the States have set forth has given my clients the social and financial assurance their money is not jeopardized. To have the SEC regulate the sale of these fine and very appropriate products would not be efficient or constructive. I truly cannot see how the fixed indexed annuity can be defined as a Security.

To date, I have not come across any improper sales activities in conjunction with these products and when my clients have only praised the fixed indexed annuity, I cannot foresee how a sale can be improper to a qualified prospect. But, as a devil's advocate would say, "Doesn't every product in the financial or general marketplace have some improper and misled sales?" Although I have not been a witness, it's probably so. To define fixed indexed annuities as a Security because of stated improper sales activity seems unreasonable and unjustified.