Date: 05/07/2000 6:47 AM Honorable Arthur Levitt Jr. Chairman Securities and Exchange Commission 550 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. Dear Chairman Levitt, I am writing to express my opposition to SEC Release Nos. 34-42099; IA-1845, "Certain Broker-Dealers Deemed Not To Be Investment Advisers." Is the wire house lobby that entrenched in our political system whereby it can erect a wall around the way it does business unnoticed by the unsuspecting investing public and unregulated by our industry? How can the investing public expect a level playing field if there are privileged segments in our industry not being held up to the same standards of scrutiny when the same service is provided? Regulatory supervision is a time and labor intensive effort. Let us hope the proposed Rule allowing broker-dealers to take advantage of the exception to avoid disclosing as much disciplinary information as investment advisors, or other information in the new Form ADV, is a result of the regulatory agency's limited man power or time constraints. Or perhaps you are suggesting that by virtue of the title ' Broker-dealer representative' - they should be subject to less stringent customer suitability rules, and therefore not considered to have a fiduciary loyalty to the client as are registered investment advisers. Why? Are you suggesting the BD representatives are more prepared? more competent? more trustworthy? unable to bear the cost of compliance? shouldn't be exposed to the same liability as the rest of the industry? The BD representatives are not subject to the same state competency requirements (the new Series 65 competency exam) as for those generally providing investment advice to the public on behalf of state and federally registered investment advisers. This inequitable proposal would peel away yet another layer of investor protection at the expense of the investing public, and most regrettably our industry. Thank you for your attention Sincerely, Jeanette Fierstein, CFP Westborough, MA