From: Raymond Heidel, CFP [planner@iximd.com]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 11:08 AM
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: File No. S7-25-99

Dear sirs;
 
I am writing as a Financial Planner who is "out there" working face to 
face with clients in an effort to help them meet their financial goals. 
I am registered under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, not because I 
want to go through the hassle, but because it is good for my clients and 
I believe I should be.

I urge you to withdraw the current proposed rule allowing exemptions to 
"certain broker dealers". Call me naive but I believe your primary mission 
is the protection of the public interest. Allowing the larger firms to 
"sell themselves" as financial advisors, and I believe mislead the investing 
public, is not in the best interest of the public nor the industry.

I understand what the commission is being told by those who want this rule 
exemption. I am also constantly bombarded by the commercials intended for 
the public where all of the industry has become "financial advisors" 
overnight - without the appropriate education, code of ethics requirements, 
continuing education requirements etc.
 
Clearly theirs is marketing driven. They want to get in step with the 
investing public and their desire for fee based accounts. I applaud this 
and only ask - if you want the business, register as we have - and go for 
it. Why exempt them? If they intend to sell themselves as advisors, then 
have them register as such.
 
All of this aside I ask you to step back from regulations, rules and what you 
"guess" congress meant with the Act. What do you really believe will happen to 
the average guy on the street with this exemption? They will be "legally" 
misled to believe they are getting comprehensive financial planning when only 
getting sold investments for a fee rather than a commission. Watch the ads on 
TV today. What are they trying to convince people of?  We all want to help our 
clients. Also, I ask you to empathize with the clients. Do you really believe 
that any significant portion of clients will 1) see and read the "small print" 
you propose and 2) know what it means without an explanation? Now envision that 
explanation. Think it would be skewed - not "illegal" - just skewed to convince 
this potential client of the advice they will receive for their fee? In reality 
the ad on the TV got the client in the door. Did the ad thoroughly explain the 
difference and why this firm is NOT registered under the act? My opposition to 
this rule is to ask that we all operate from the same set of rules and not be 
permitted to mislead the public about what it is they are really being provided.
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
Raymond Heidel, CFP(TM)