From: RegardingURmoney@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:20 PM To: rule-comments@sec.gov Cc: JBahls@ptd.net; AlMarland@aol.com Subject: RE: File # S7-25-99, comments Dear SEC: Its hard to know where to cut down a rampant weed. Certainly, this rule qualifies as a weed of great proportions. Weeds are generally pulled up at the roots, however this weed goes too deep. So pulling will only get your back out of line and create visits to the bone cruncher. The aforementioned rule is a deep weed. A weed that is choking the very life blood of fair play and fair dealing. Your Rule to exempt certain B/D's from IA Act of 1940 is duplicitous were it not so blatantly favoring the "Big Fat Boys of the Street." It seems to me the problem before "us" is trust. This potential step by you will create more smoke than light and alienate one part of the financial industry from an another. Precisely, the trust among advisors like myself who are independent, small, slim, and mature from these others. I have known that they are motivated far more by bottom line concerns than what is good for the "clients." I don't have the corner on truth. Neither do they, nor you for that matter. This Rule will create more problems than any solutions. Perhaps I am slow; I do not know what problem this new Rule is a solution to. The litmus test is "Will this Rule help the public in any way?" If it does not, then, let it go. As always, hoping for a better tomorrow, George Toth CFP(TM) President Chestnut Investment Advisory