Subject: File No. S7-14-08
From: Bernard L. Fogel

July 31, 2008

I am against your proposed Rule 151A for many reasons, but I will limit my response to the two most important ones. First : I was listening to a national financial advise radio program some time back. A 70 year old lady had called in and told the host( guest host)that she had $ 100,000.00 to invest and that her advisor had recommended a Fixed Index Annuity. The host went "ballistic" and said the advisor should be taken out and shot( paraphrase).He recommended a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds instead. She thanked him and said she will not buy the annuity. With the decline in the stock market from it's high to now ,the woman's $ 100,000.00 is probably worth $ 85,000.00. Had she purchased the annuity ,her $ 100,000.00 would still be worth $ 100,000.00 I'm sure the "host" will not be held accountable for his advise.This story could be repeated over and over again. If you want to protect the public and senior citizens in particular , don't throw the baby out with the bath water, because of a few bad apples. Second : The insurance companies have in place more safeguards now than ever before regarding suitability issues.The same goes for the State Insurance Departments. They got the message. I spend an average of three hours on an appointment with half the time spent on paperwork. Additional oversight and more paperwork from you is simply not necessary and would be overkill. Anymore oversight would truly be a knee-jerk over reaction and directed to a problem that has already been addressed.Please give these items your attention and thought. Respectfully submitted. Bernard L. Fogel