October 27, 2010
Dear Secretary Murphy -
As an Insurance and Financial Professional for the past 20-years, I would like to provide a few comments about the "Proposed" changes to the 12b-1 Fees.
First, it appears that one of the primary reasons for these changes is to assist Investors. Unfortunately, smaller fund account balances and the middle-market investors would be deprived the Guidance of Professional Advisors due to the lower fees, which upper-income and affluent investors will continue to pay for the direct advice.
Second, I support the new SEC rule 12-b2 fees, which would re-classify the use of terms; "Marketing and Service fees" and "Ongoing Sales Charges." The 25-Basis Points Fee would continue to ensure that investors receive ongoing service and advice.
Third, if the SEC allowed Mutual Fund companies to issue a new class of shares at the Net Asset Value that would allow companies to "Race to the Bottom" in order to capture more market share.
Lastly, If these changes were made, the professional registered representative would continue to provide valuable service to the upper-income and affluent clients. The lower and middle market investors would be left alone to "Self-Direct" their accounts. This change would have a reverse effect on the people that the SEC seems to be trying to protect the most; lower and middle-market investors.
Hence, they would be hurt the most. Since, they would be deprived the Guidance and Service of the Financial Professional, which they both "Need and Deserve."
I appreciate your time and understanding of this note.
My greatest concern is to the Client NOT the "Income or Fees" that I and my Insurance and Financial Colleagues would receive.
The Garrity Group