From: Jim Greene [email@example.com]
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As a small investor in Fidelity (less than $25,000) and as a taxpayer, I am distressed by the changes proposed in S7-03-04. The public reasoning presented for this rule change suggests that it has been necessitated by some grave impropriety. Yet where, among all the recent scandals, are there any caused by interested chairmen? They don't exist. Nobody ever thought this idea necessary back in the 30's, after far worse scandals in the 1920's. Why do it now, all of a sudden, after decades of fine performance?
Edward Johnson and his family have been outstanding managers at Fidelity. Fidelity is one of the few companies 100% untouched by recent scandals. Fidelity has a solid reputation for its ability to breed successful, competent, ethical managers, among them Peter Lynch. Tradition has served us well here. Rule S7-03-04 could affect the corporate culture of this institution in an unpredictable way. Taking these risks now makes no sense for a company which holds so many of our population's 401K and 403B retirement monies.
Mr. John Bogel is claiming that this rule would be beneficial today. But when he ran Vanguard, Fidelity's major competitor, Bogel himself was an interested chairman! No one has ever criticized Mr. Bogel for the performance of fund investments while he was chairman. No one has criticized his personal performance or conduct during that period for the reason that he was interested at the time he ran Vanguard. Yet a double standard is applied to Vanguard's competitor by himself and the SEC.
Thus, I plead with you to do the right thing and abandon proposed rule change S7-03-04. Thank you.