Subject: File No.  S7-8-96
Author:  Tucker Family
Date:    5/23/96 11:20 AM

We are not senior citizens but have been defrauded out of most of
our savings by a broker/dealer who was a member of NASD and SIPC
and who has now filed a broker/dealer withdrawal with the SEC. Our
comments are as follows:

1. We allowed ourselves to be defrauded because of a mistaken
belief that we would have recourse to SIPC funds in the case of
investment losses for rule 10b-5 violations. SENIORS AND THE ENTIRE
INVESTMENT COMMUNITY OF "PUBLIC CUSTOMERS" NEED TO UNDERSTAND THERE
IS NO SAFETY NET FOR LOSSES DUE TO FRAUD.  If the broker/dealer
goes out of business or has no appreciable assets, the defrauded
customer is left to try and collect an award by the court or
arbitration out of the personal pockets of the individual is who
perpetrated the fraud.

2. The SEC should change the "net capital" rule OR DISCLOSE TO
CUSTOMERS that the broker/dealer they are entrusting thousands of
dollars to, may have appreciably, no assets on which to claim in
the event of disputes. You would not allow a company to do business
as a bank with no assets, why would you allow a broker/dealer to
represent itself as well capitalized and receive millions of
dollars of investors money with such very little asset base to
claim against when practices become illegal and fraudulent?

3. At the very least, the NASD should require its members to carry
fidelity bonds that cover fraudulent practices so there will be
funds available to collect when a court of competent jurisdiction
or an SRO arbitration panel has rendered an award to the claimant.
The awarded claimant should not have to go further than NASD
mandated assets pool by its members for collection of such awards.