From: Lawrence York [lawrence.york@ipcfinancial.us]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 9:37 AM
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: (s7-06-04) Proposed Rule on Confirmation Requirements and POS

To: US Securities & Exchange Commission

From IPC Funds (formerly The WWW Funds)

By Its Chairman Lawrence York

Your proposed rule to require confirmation and pos disclosures is unnecessary, 
disadvantageous to small firms and reactive not proactive.

First of all, performance is already mandated to be reported net which means that 
performance data already distills the end result in one number for the consumer to 
compare results among funds.  Please explain why a customer is hurt if one fund has a 
higher expense ratio than another, but out performs a fund with lower expenses?  The real 
issue may be that you seek to lower fees.  If that is the case mandate what may be 
charged at different asset levels or for various activities.  Create another government 
run entity to offer the services at the cost you mandate.  But you disadvantage small 
funds by your proposal because you seek to prejudice the public about fees when that is 
not the real issue.  As assets under management rise, fees come down. Your proposal will 
place small funds at a competitive disadvantage because with fewer assets under 
management they have less margin to reduce fees.  It is not the small fund that operates 
at a 3% expense ratio with $10 mm under management that is the problem or indeed too 
expensive.  It is the $3 billion dollar fund that charges 1.5 -2.5% for the same work 
that you target.  The expense disclosure should be in aggregate dollars not percentage 
points and perhaps you should mandate margins or maximum costs, even though I think you 
will agree that is not free enterprise.  Moreover just think of the adverse regulation in 
documenting costs!  You also propose to burden small clearing firms, transfer agents and 
broker dealers who will have to spend to comply with your new regulations when it seems 
that the problems have been mostly with the large fund complexes and broker dealers. 
Finally, I say you are reactive instead of proactive, because you are reacting to the 
trading and incentive programs when what is needed is on-going ethics and morality 
training.  I ask you to consider why public investments (securities) where full 
disclosures are routinely made and are on file should be different and require this 
additional disclosure and selling expense than other consumer products, say for example a 
car.  Imagine the Ford dealer greeting the customer and saying: first I must inform you 
that if you buy a car from me I will make money.  And the more options the greater price 
you pay and higher commission I earn. Secondly, I by law I must inform you that I am 
incented to sell you a car and if I sell my quota of cars this month I receive a bonus 
payment from the dealer which could give me 20% higher annual pay.  Third, Ford by the 
way, pays its dealers a year-end incentive bonus for aggregate dealer sales and provides 
year end rebates to dealers.  And fourth, we provide service in case your car needs 
repairs, but you may be better off going somewhere else because they may repair your car 
less expensively.  And fifth, for the parts we use to repair your car these come from a 
control affiliate whom we receive compensation and these parts may be obtained from a 
third party at a lower cost to you.  And sixth, our cars may be more expensive than 
others.  You should read consumer reports or other available government data to determine 
what choice to make and please dont buy a car until you do this.  And by the way, you 
may be better off buying a Chevy, Toyota, or other manufacturers product.  Essentially 
these items are required of those who sell investments.  Need they be part of the 
salesman job beyond providing a document that makes the disclosure?  Perhaps a look is 
needed into removing regulation and disclosure and the focus should be on sales 
practices.  I believe what is needed more is a proactive program of consumer education 
and business ethics. It should be obvious that when you define freedom by definition you 
limit it and all this regulation trying to do the thinking for people misses the point.  
Lets face it the system is clearly broken because even when corrective action is taken 
the result is hardly acceptable as evidenced when the accounting scandals ultimately 
resulted in fines to companies which is the same as fining the shareholders who were 
already victims.  I urge you to go back to the problem and reassess the fix.  I think you 
will conclude that it is not more regulation but education and ethics.   Please do not 
further burden small businesses. We have too many rules and need fewer ones.  Work to 
reduce them so we can more easily comply and our business will grow.  Consider in the 
alternative to impose greater disclosures on the abusers or except small companies.  You 
burden them and that is harmful to all that America is about.

Sincerely,

Lawrence York