From: Jim Franceus [jfran@easystreet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 7:52 PM
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: S7-09-04 The Proposed Rule in Release No. IC-26356

Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary
U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20549-0609


I am opposed to the removal of 12b-1 fees, because I believe they are useful 
to the average mutual fund shareholder.

12b-1 fees have enabled shareholders to receive ongoing professional services, 
which would otherwise not be available to them or only available at additional 
costs. These services include not only administrative services, such as 
providing, changing or correcting account information, but also substantive 
assistance through the provision of analysis and financial planning for these 
shareholders.  

Many advocate no load funds without the 12b-1 charge.  While they may think 
they are heroes to an unsuspecting public, be it known that they may be 
putting shareholders in a worse situation, by causing the salesman or advisor 
to lose interest in providing continued investment guidance.  As a fee for 
service financial advisor, many clients that come to me are underserved by the 
no load fund families they are in. Most of these individuals can afford to pay 
separate fees for help in managing their money.  The average mutual fund 
holder cannot and will not go to a fee based advisor.

I strongly urge you to allow 12b-1 fees to continue and thus protect the 
guidance that the average shareholder would receive from the advisor who 
placed the investment.

Thank you for considering my opinion.


Jim Franceus, CFP
Senior Financial Advisor
Summit Financial Advisors, Inc.
Phone: 503-675-0241