From: Daniel J. Traub [dant@tandemfinancial.com] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 11:42 AM To: 'rule-comments@sec.gov' Subject: S7-27-03 & S7-26-03 I would like to comment on two of the proposals put forth relative to mutual fund reform: File S7-27-03 I am against the hard close as is currently proposed. I feel that this solution, as with many of the others being considered, will further punish the same investors who you are trying to protect. A hard 4:00 pm close will only serve to make it difficult, if not impossible, for the average mutual fund investor to execute orders in a timely manner - especially those whose accounts are held at an intermediary and/or for those on the West coast. The only people I can see benefiting from a hard 4:00 pm close would be the mutual fund companies themselves (who are the cause of the problem in the first place), and institutional investors. The fund companies would benefit since investors wishing to not be penalized may prefer to hold their accounts directly with the fund companies as opposed to through intermediaries. Since the fund companies must pay intermediaries, every dollar held direct, and not through an intermediary, will save the fund company money. Institutional investors will be advantaged because they will be able to react more quickly to relevant news in a way individuals will not be able to. Eliminating late trading is essential, but I favor the modified 4:00 pm close as the better method and fairer to all market participants. File S7-26-03 I believe that root of the market timing scandal is not whether funds allowed timing or not. The real problem is one of fairness. That some preferred investors (which I have never been) were allowed to trade more frequently than others is unacceptable. What is acceptable for one investor should be acceptable for all investors. Yet mutual fund prospectuses are written with such ambiguity that even representatives at the same company can and do interpret a policy differently. I believe we could solve many of the current problems by simply requiring that funds spell out their policy on trading clearly and in plain English - no interpretation necessary. Those wishing to trade outside the prospectus would not be allowed to, and those wishing to trade within the guidelines must be permitted to - even if they are not preferred hedge funds. Thank you for your consideration on these issues. Daniel J. Traub Chief Investment Officer Tandem Financial Services, Inc.