destructive or and s that appellate court recognized in the decision we cite integrated research services that used to be destructive or lacks the legislature's intent that each one of those financial products each one of those that the transaction under the act this secretary still could proceed under section twelve j against vandyke as because he acted as an investment adviser when he made the right to challenge that the reason i ask on all issues investment advisors  perhaps more risky than the type of nudies we have in front of us and the intention of the legislature to bring them within the insurance co is an indication that these types of products are more like a verbal contract and therefore w annuities those that language does not appear in either realm either the securities act and you're saying and not an insurance act as well it might be a separate place of work the insurance co i i'm not aware of it looking at whether or not those are actually a specific product is exact under that as an annuity you look at whether or not it contains elements of investment risk such that it should be considered to see more of a security th anywhere else investment contracts are not mentioned anywhere in the us all of these the department of securities has an investment bank regulation registered but we still have jurisdiction over them and i never have quite understood the argument that they're making but the law in the law is crystal clear and justice tice made an excellent when the federal law would probably consider this a security no i disagree that i disagree with that justice thomas because under seventy seven  minimum they can't lose their principal right this is not like a variable annuity where the so the focus isn't solely under federal investment risk but they seem to consider security affairs considerable and surrender to in the spreadsheets that were prepared by the purpose witness in the instruction of the process the rules or regulations that deal with all those different categories on there no these other annuity contracts which were better for their individual needs and that's the other problem i've been practicing law firm years i've never been involved in the page where did claimed to be defrocked or misled most of them almost all that we laid out in our group testified we were very happy with he's a nice man he explained everything to us we went home and we talked about husband and wife before we made the decision we made the decision to surrender these and do it he said purchase these others but this is big brother watching over these people and saying we think this is fraud even though you're happy with these and these average the new project projections we lay out some detail of what actual figures are they made a lot more money under these index strategies because of the very reason that they entered into these new contracts these better contracts for their individual needs they are very happy with these contracts and the figures don't bear any relationship whatsoever to this average sprigg economic analysis  after losing like that two hundred ninety seven thousand in fees and under navy three thousand in commissions on one sale in the hundred seventy seven on whether they made money they did lose money commissions these are commission there are two sets arrest case where they were free to share all that was a six year process a six year process where the department of labor the federal department of labor and that that these would do shared of fraud and securities fraud because as this court recognized in the deluge indecision when you when you laid out the definition of securities it's a broad inflexible definition because we don't know what the new and variable types of schemes are how they were going to come order to convince people to invest their money so every time a new product comes out the departments are required to issue a new rule about that power instead it will either kill by force than actions against products when there  all of them did suffer a loss of those surrender charges still all of them except for one had higher enable fees that would then take away money not going for an ongoing basis in greater amounts and  lost well many of them did lose it but also they were their accounts there in specific accounts he compared both of the original and what is the new the replacement annuity for each year going to twenty five years forward some of them with the higher market value adjustments higher which were going on going basis what was unimportant or known before a fraud action is commenced against an individual in the expert was probably higher down the line somewhere right to come up and even that requires extrapolation to come up with a figure that says they're actually better or worse off reason is important i mean make a decision to say you can't make it based on the commissions regardless of them being substantial they're not paid by the clients as long as i don't think any client would care if you're paying a million doubt if the insurance company pays a million dollars commission if they're going to make more money so when was the decision made to pursue at the analysis of the replacement transactions he started charging us is substantial charges that were being posed under all of the products they saw that there are that that that the fees have change so that now that they were having to next product in this situation the fees were are on the in the replacement products and that probably also was a product of the changing interest rate to the end environment which which made the older of the original annuities actually there are there guaranteed