From: Paul Whaley [PWhaley@RJFS.com]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 11:57 AM
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: File No. S7-25-99

RE:  “Certain Broker-Dealers Deemed Not To Be Investment Advisers”

 

I am a financial advisor/financial planner located in a commercial bank in the 
Midwest, with approximately twenty years of experience in the securities business.

The current turmoil in the markets created by lack of oversight within the corporate,
accounting and regulatory worlds certainly makes the Securities Exchange Commission’s
(SEC) stand on the above topic quite peculiar.  At a time when the public desperately 
needs the assurance their government agencies are working in their best interest, the 
SEC’s disregard of apparent conflict of interests is astounding.

The public must be secure in knowing the difference between investing in a brokerage 
account and receiving investment advice which is then executed via a brokerage account.  
The advice is independent of the brokerage industry in much the same way a physician’s 
prescription is independent of the pharmaceutical industry.  The physician uses the 
products manufactured by the drug companies to affect the cure or control of physical 
ills; the investment advisor uses the products manufactured by financial companies to 
affect the cure or control of financial ills.

I strongly urge the SEC to preserve the safeguards represented by the Investment Advisers 
Act of 1940 and similar state laws with their incumbent disclosures and fiduciary standards,
by continuing to require all who provide comprehensive financial planning advice to the 
public be subject to those safeguards. 

Sincerely,
 

Paul W. Whaley
Vice President, Beatrice National Bank and Trust Co.
Financial Advisor, Raymond James Financial Services
523 Court St., PO Box 100
Beatrice, NE  68310
June 24, 2002