January 14, 2005
I strongly urge the SEC for the complete withdrawal - not revision - of the proposed rule:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 275
Release Nos. 34-50979 IA-2339 File No. S7-25-99
Certain Broker-Dealers Deemed Not To Be Investment Advisers
While I am encouraged with the increased attention that the SEC is paying to the rulemaking - and that it is strongly considering restricting brokers from marketing their services as financial planning unless those fee-based accounts come under Adviser Act oversight -- I believe that the overall proposal will still provide for two different standards of conduct by brokers and advisers in providing similar services.
Questions the SEC should consider in its decision making process:
1.How should the SEC draw the line between financial planning services that are incidental to brokerage and those that are not? Can such a line be drawn?
2.Do you think the SECs approach, to interpret financial planning as not solely incidental to brokerage services, is workable? Do you think there are other marketing terms that a broker could use to provide similar services and thereby evade restrictions on use of the term financial planning?
3.Should the SEC also or alternatively attempt to identify specific types of financial planning services that would or would not be incidental to the brokerage business?