Subject: File No. S7-15-10
From: Amie J Hughes

July 23, 2010

Dear Sir / Madame,

This issue can be looked at from two different directions.

First, when I was a "do it yourself" investor, i would have thought that by eliminating advisor fees on funds when i am picking the fund and monitoring the fund on an annual ongoing basis is a good idea.

However, as i have grown, my family has grown and my lifestyle has changed, I no longer have the time or wherewithall to do the arduous research in order to pick out the best funds. Nor do i have the ability to monitor those funds on an ongoing basis in order to make sure that particular fund is still the best fund for me to be invested in. By eliminating ( or even curtailing ) the fee that an advisor earns each year on a "level load fund", this would dis-incentivize an advisor to continue to closely monitor the funds that i am invested in. if the advisor were not being properly compensated for continued monitoring of ALL of my assets ( funds), the advisor may neglect those assets and put more of his or her concentration on the assets for which they ARE being compensated. Furthermore, if the advisor is only compensated for the monitoring of a particular fund for only a period of time, this may encourage the advisor to recommend the sale of one fund that they are no longer being compensated for in order to purchase another fund for which they would be compensated for.

While i am sure that this movement has good intentions, it feels that this move is more about showing the public how hard the SEC is working for them and less about looking out for the actual investor's ultimate goal.... which is knowing that my advisor is working hard for me by closely monitoring ALL OF MY ASSETS ALL OF THE TIME.

Please stop trying to dis-incentivize good financial advisors and spend more time on the segment of the financial industry that is responsible for this terrible mess that our country is in today.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely .... Amie J Hughes