Subject: File S7-3-98 Date: 4/24/98 8:41 AM I would just like to go on record as saying that I favor any increased regulation or scrutiny over bulletin board and other stocks not on any nat'l exchange. While the listing and maintenance requirements of NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ cannot by themselves prevent an out and out scam, they at least help establish some kind of standard against which the financial health can be measured, and reflect a professional's current monitoring of that health. On the other hand, a company can back it's way into a BB stock, make no filings, yet trade actively. The transmission of communications has expanded greatly thru the use of the internet. There are far too many novice, and even expert, investors constantly being hyped by unscrupulous operators of websites with stories of such and such a stock jumping xx% today. While I have made some money on BB stocks, it was only after some rigorous investigation. Where I failed to due my own due diligence, I usually lost money, and severely in one company that turned out to be a total scam and should have been halted long before by the SEC, as the only agency that could do so. I would also like to see NASD have greater powers to intervene, halt trading, and investigate claims of BB companies than at present. The relatively few companies that are either totally fraudulent or at least borderline hurt the entire industry, and investors. To date, it does not appear that SEC has the ability, willingness or staff to act in sufficent time in light of the increased internet activity. Placing a greater burden on market makers to do their due diligence prior to making a market may well reduce the number of active participants, thereby hurting liquidity on some. However, those with clean and current financial reporting, and responsive to requests for information, are not likely to have a significant problem. I recently interviewed for a job with a market maker in about 2000 stocks, many of which are BB stocks. I asked how the proposed regulations would affect their BB business, and was told it would have little effect other than increasing their internal workload to not only do the due diligence, but ensure it is maintained current. Any loss in the number of marker makers or liquidity is more than offset by greater safety for investors. Any legitimate company, than is only able to go public on the BB, is likely better off staying private for a few more years and gaining sufficient strength, and financial health, until it can gain NASDAQ listing. Tom Worley