Subject: #S7-18-96  Comments
Date:    4/19/97 9:21 AM
     
     
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20549-6009
rule-comments@sec.gov
     
April 19, 1997
     
Re:     #S7-18-96
     
Dear Mr. Secretary:
     
I strongly endorse and recommend the adoption of the proposed mutual fund 
"profiles" instead of the traditional fund prospectuses.  "Truth in naming" 
and "plain English" writing are just common sense.  The answers to the nine 
key questions in the Profiles provide the vast majority of the mutual fund 
investors with the information they really want and need to know.
     
I am a corporate attorney, and review and write very long, complex contracts 
on a daily basis.  I am trained by education and experience to evaluate even 
the most convoluted text another attorney (or Court) might draft.  Yet the 
burden of sifting through the moras of verbiage in a prospectus to find the 
answers to the proposed nine key questions is a most daunting task, even for 
the trained eye.  
     
The proposed Profiles will eliminate that moras.  And for those who still 
want the perfect cure for insomnia, the prospectuses still will be promptly 
available upon request.  It really is a win-win proposal.
     
Alan W. Scheufler
10152 Deer Run
Brecksville, Ohio 44141
AScheufler@aol.com