Subject: File No. S7-14-08
From: Mark H Spurgeon

August 25, 2008

I view the SEC's proposed Rule 151A as nothing more than politics--the security licensed industry vs. the insurance licensed industry. Even though I am security licensed myself, with a Series, 6,7,24,63 and 65, I strongly believe that the sale of indexed annuities should remain under the jurisdiction of the state insurance commissioners.

The reason I feel so strongly in favor of the insurance industry on this issue, is because I believe that the indexed annuity is NOT a security. EACH INDEXED ANNUITY PRODUCT THAT I SELL IS GUARANTEED AGAINST LOSS OF PRINCIPAL BECAUSE OF INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY ISSUING IT.

I find that the people who buy them are most concerned about the potential loss of their principal. They like the idea of getting some of the up of the stock market without the fear of loss of their principal. Securities don't offer this feature only insurance contracts do.

I believe the securities industry wants to get their hands on the regulation of the sale of indexed annuities, because they have seen a ton of money move out of variable annuities and mutual funds to indexed annuities.

I hear that the securities industry is concerned about the buyer's understanding of what they are buying. My answer to that is that all index annuities written by the major index annuity insurance companies like AVIVA's American Investors Life, the company that provides me with my favorite indexed annuity product, the BPASelect 12, requires suitability and disclosure paperwork signed by the client that is every bit as comprehensive as that required by my broker-dealer when I sell a variable annuity. The client safeguards are already is place and are getting to be just as good as whatever the securities industry might come up with. There is no valid reason to change.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to comment.

Mark Spurgeon, CLU, ChFC
Chartered Financial Consultant
CA License No. 0529040