Subject: File No. S7-25-06
From: Benjamin W.

February 16, 2007

I would like to submit an addendum/follow-up to my first comment (File No. S7-25-06 - February 12, 2007).

Perhaps I came across a bit harsh towards the SEC, I would like to correct that perception.

I am proud to belong to our nation where one of its main watchdog organizations freely allow its citizens to state their views upon issues such as the one currently proposed by the SEC.

I take my hat off to the SEC and pat them on their back for working hard to make our investment environment as strongly appealing as it is, globally.

Their regulation work and effort is tops, and, as a currency trader and student of the market I really appreciate their efforts to continue to work so diligently to regulate even off-exchange products as currency trading in the ForEx.

I think we all need to sort of take a deep breath, step back from the issue for a moment and relax.

We should really keep in mind that hedge fund products (shares, or, interests) are basically still products, they are "returns" and "investments," but still exist in a consumer / supplier business relationship setting.

Now, consider what would happen if the SEC set a minimum entry price (net financial worth) upon Walmart stores. Or, into a Payless shoe store.

Would that be fair to all the people?

Yes, it would be fair to all the people who the SEC deem to have enough money to enter the supplier stores, but not for the rest of us.

Yes, FoFs (funds of hedge funds) provide consumers with lower entry fees, but, since they take a chunk out of the product of "returns," and "investments," by default the SEC heightens the overall risk by chopping down the percentage of return a consumer (trader or investor) gets, therefore, increasing the risk of the product purchase -- since risk can be offset by potential return.

The SEC is not probability setters.

Nor is it the SEC's position to make "batch" determinations and judgments for investors regarding trade or investment probability / risk:reward ratios.

Investor: "How will this trade/investment work out? Hm...."

SEC: "It won't, because we are not allowing you to make it. Others can make it. But, not YOU. You are too poor to manage your own money, and to make determinations on trade/investment probabilities. We can judge your inability to do this, based on your net worth. In essense, you're too stupid to think for yourself. Please, allow US to think FOR you."

Is that trend of thinking really getting anyone anywhere? Is it progressive? Is it fair?

The SEC desires to do a better job and protect people better. I fully agree with them in their stance and thank them for doing so.

However, I do think it behooves the SEC to seriously think over all the suggestions of intelligent people being made in this open forum and come up with alternative solutions for accomplishing the same (or improved upon) goals of the hedge fund issues.

Thank you.

Kindest regards,

-bw
advanced currency trader