Subject: File No. S7-06-04
From: Tin Y Tai

March 28, 2004

The proposed forms do clearly communicate the information I would need to make informed investment decisions.

The point of sale for hypothetical class A purchase should list what the extra 1.98 is for. The form lists front-end sales load as 321.18, but explains only 319.20 of it.

I would think the confirmation for hypothetical class B share purchase back-end load as minimum of present or future NAV is better because the consumer needs to understand that these fees and charges apply no matter what the NAV is or may be in the future.

Regardless of what class of mutual fund shares someone may buy, the broker, brokerage firm and fund company should make it clear that these fees and charges apply no matter the NAV as long as the shares of the fund exists to be sold.

Finally, it may be a good idea to state in the proposed forms that the fees are assessed every year and not just the first. Also, why are the amounts the broker will receive from the fund or affliliates does not equal the listed first year load, charges and fees?

Thank you, I think it is needed that these loads, charges and fees are spelled out and detailed instead of getting sticker shock after buying the shares.