From: Mick Meiners [mick@finplans.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 6:25 PM
To: 'rule-comments@sec.gov'
Subject: file # S7-09-04 comment

To:
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth 
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609
Having read the proposed rules and followed the developments in the past 
few years, it is clear that there are significant problems to address.
However, as a Certified Financial Planning Practitioner, registered 
representative and attorney, who has successfully served my clients for 31 
years, I see a major problem with the complete elimination of the 12b-1 
fees. That problem is that many clients will be faced with either an 
increase in costs or the significant curtailment of services.
I can best describe my own practice to illustrate this. I provide 
comprehensive financial planning with a comprehensive annual review to my 
clients. For the vast majority of these clients we use A-shares of the 
American Funds Family as our investment of choice, thereby maximizing our 
ability to reach appropriate breakpoints. The greater amount of work 
required to prepare and implement the initial plan is compensation by the 
fund load. We charge no additional fees initially or for subsequent 
reviews. Our subsequent compensation is from 12b-1 fees. I am satisfied 
with my remuneration and my clients are very happy with our services. We do 
basically no marketing and receive many referrals, mostly from satisfied 
clients and some from accountants and attorneys.
Our arrangement promotes long-term relationships with our clients and a 
long-term investment focus. Through our services clients have set and 
attained goals such as education of children or having a secure retirement. 
Clients have avoided inappropriate investments through proper asset 
allocation, moved from equity funds into bond funds (at no cost within the 
fund family) in the late 90's and stayed in or purchased equity funds in 
late 2002 when the industry was experiencing record redemptions in that 
area.
We plan to continue to provide these services for many years, but if the 
12b-1 fees are elminated, we will be forced to find a less efficient means 
to be compensated so we can continue these services. Many of my peers have 
switched to Managed Asset Accounts to provide comparable services at a fee 
of 1 to 1.5% per year (the actual cost to the client would might also 
include internal expenses of mutual funds if that was the investment of 
choice). Some representatives have used what I feel are inappropriate 
highly commission vehicles such as large ticket B-shares, long-term C 
shares or certain insurance based products.
If 12b-1 shares are eliminated, I predict that the ultimate loser will be 
the middle or even upper-middle income investor who will not likely choose 
to pay for fee-only services with the minimums required to make them 
economical for the financial advisor. This would be a sad result at a time 
when there is a growing recognition of the need for and increased 
utilization of professional financial advisors.
It seems that verifying full disclosure of 12B-1 fees and limiting those 
fees to .25% would be a preferable alternative. There are many financial 
service representatives with various types of service and methods of 
compensation, but it seems that leaving that choice to an INFORMED public 
is the best alternative.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,


Michael J. Meiners, CFP, JD*
Investment Advisor Representative
Financial Plans & Strategies, Inc.

Registered Principal with Securities offered through
SunAmerica Securities, Inc.
Member NASD/SIPC