From: Marcelo Zinn
Sent: January 29, 2007
Subject: File No. S7-25-06

Dear SEC,

Ever since I became interested in investing, the SEC was regarded as a extremely vital element of individuals rights. The SEC has done a great job in the past protecting the interest of individuals and businesses in the U.S. and setting an example for other government regulatory bodies throughout the world. It is in this capacity that individual investors large or small have felt comfortable investing in U.S. companies and investment vehicles alike. While I understand the philosophical basis for adjusting the minimum requirements for individuals whom may be entitled to invest in hedge funds and the like, I am unsure it will serve its intended purpose. Hedge funds have had an unfair connotation associated with their name, but this has been brought forth much more because of their obscure nature than as a defining characteristic of their risks. Hedge funds are in many ways, better investments than traditional vehicles such as mutual funds, and their complexity is no more complex than understanding a bio-tech company, warrants, or convertible preferred stock. Hedge funds provide an excellent way of diversifying a person’s risks and returns in much the same way as other vehicles such as options. Hedge funds have a rightful place in investor’s portfolio’s and increasing the limit will only further limit the options of the majority of Americans, especially those who are less fortunate financially. As it stands, only those well-off can afford to invest in hedge funds, which gives them another advantage over the less fortunate investor. Everyone should be afforded equal opportunity and restricting the rights of smaller investors for what is inappropriately labeled "less informed investors" or "more dangerous investments" is not ample reason in my humble opinion. I am certain that other forms of investment such as options and futures where seen in the same light when they were being discussed as possible investments, and now they are rightfully part of many investors investment strategies. It is often the perverse effect that prevails when a "limiting" decision is made (I.e. 1929 Crash, Asian Crisis, Abolition, etc...), and only those "more able" will be permitted to profit from their "more fortunate" position.

Graciously your,

Marcelo Zinn