January 17, 2005
As an 18 year veteran in the financial planning community I would like to urge the SEC to completely withdrawal of the proposed rule that would expand the disclosure requirements for brokerage firms using fee-based programs and to expand on what is solely incidental brokerage advice not subject to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
I have the following questions relating to this issue:
1. How should the SEC draw the line between financial planning services that are incidental to brokerage and those that are not? Can such a line be drawn?
2. Do you think the SECs approach, to interpret financial planning as not solely incidental to brokerage services, is workable? Do you think there are other marketing terms that a broker could use to provide similar services and thereby evade restrictions on use of the term financial planning?
3. Should the SEC also or alternatively attempt to identify specific types of financial planning services that would or would not be incidental to the brokerage business?
Thank you for your consideration of these factors. I believe it is in the best interest of the public at large for this proposed ruling to be totally withdrawn. There is too much confusion among the public already and I see this as only creating more. How can this be good for them?
I will look forward to a response.
Sincerely,
Scott Thomas