Subject: File No. S7-19-18
From: Frederick R Fadel
Affiliation: Willink Asset Management LLC

July 30, 2018

1)The 1940 Act references and makes distinction between two forms of service by which investors may implement an investment portfolio via advice for planning and securities investment (must be rendered by a registered investment advisor and their IARs) or via order taking (broker/dealers and their sales reps where any advice must be incidental to the transaction).

2) Upon information and belief, current practice among broker dealers is to either encourage or to require their sales reps to also become IARs of the B/Ds RIA. This practice creates what is commonly known as hyrbids. At industry presentations wholesalers often ask for a show of hands as to who in the audience is an IAR as well as a sales rep.It is hard to notice someone who is NOT both a sales rep and an IAR of their B/D.

3) The Best Interest concept, while laudible in its intention, appears to me to undermine the 1940 Act because it obviates or greatly weakens the intent of the Act, by creating in effect a "fiduciary lite" third category whereby a customer can either receive "best interest recommendations" from a sales rep or advice from an IAR acting as a ficuciary. When the same person can act in both roles- at virtually same time. the advisor(er)/ erstwhile sales rep, is able to choose at his/her pleasure in what role they present themselves to the client. But wait, if someone holds themsevles out to the public as offering investment and/or planning advice, as a "hybrid", aren't they ALREADY obligated to act in a fiduciary capacity under the 1940 Act?

4) How does a client/customer know the nature of the recommendation by a hybrid, and how can this be "incidental" because he/she is also a sales rep? Rather, the recommendation already is required to be provided in a fiduciary capacity. I don't see (am I mistaken?) how the disclosure being presented to a lay person would not be confusing.

5) Let me share with you what I, upon information and belief, will (and already does) happen. Solely sales reps (along with non security licensed insurance agents) too often present their sales pitches under the guise of advice "in the client/customer's best interest"- are doing so in a non-oncidntal manner, and by doing so- act in violation of the Act. You should expect that many hybrids will simply choose whatever role at the moment best serves to advance their, and not the client/customer's best interest. It's a gift that will keep on giving, by allowing sale pitches to have the gloss of "best interest".

6)So, why not simply enforce the Act? And pursue violators?

7)Why is the Best Interest concept even needed? Only for those who are soley sales reps and not IAR's of their firm's RIA?

8)Better yet, why not press for training and certification or federal licensing (as for commercial airplane pilots-similar to licensure at the state level for attorneys.PEs, RNs, CPAs etc.) Require serious study and a real test of knowledge, plus proof of a relevant period of experience?

Our industry (it's not yet a profession) has long been regulated by the federal government-through the Securities and Exchange Commission Certification registration process. Might more than simple registration provide what the SEC seeks?

And client/customers would then know the difference between a sales person and an advisor acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Disclosure documents will never be as effective, no matter how long or short, or how well written they might be.

Thank you