There’s another way to protect small investor

Re: "New SEC rule seen as likely to deter market timing" [Oct. 22], as a mutual fund investor for the past 40-plus years we truly believe any rule deterring market timing for the small investor is a gross disservice.

Re: “New SEC rule seen as likely to deter market timing” [Oct. 22], as a mutual fund investor for the past 40-plus years we truly believe any rule deterring market timing for the small investor is a gross disservice.

In our case, we call market timing “market insurance.” For a mutual fund investor with a balance of less than $1 million, it is not fair to impose a 2% penalty if the stock market unexpectedly goes into free fall and the investor decides to stop their losses.

This is similar to stops used by stock investors to protect their downside.

The SEC does not label protective stops as market timing — they are used by sensible investors.

To solve the past problem of market timing by institutions, we suggest penalties be placed on accounts with assets greater than, say, $1 million.

In this manner, the small investor can use market insurance the same way that stock investors use protective stops.

Herb Abelow
First Mutual Planning Corp.
Delray Beach, Fla.

Our redesign gets a thumbs down

No offense, but your redesign stinks, big-time. Smaller, harder-to-read type, poor layout.

At least the content is still excellent.

I guess you never heard of the concept: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Robb Levinsky
President
The Kenwood Cos.
Neptune, N.J.

Prime Numbers seen as a Hillary basher

I am not likely to vote for Hillary Clinton, although I doubt she could hurt the country more than anyone else, and I sort of welcome the thought of a woman as president.

However, dislike aside, the Prime Numbers page suggests to me a factual presentation of information. It is not purportedly an editorial cartoon page.

I find her representation in the picture used here in the Oct. 22 issue offensively passing for fact.

Hillary-bashing, quite a sport since Bill took office, has risen to a national— perhaps worldwide — pastime, but I believe it is inappropriate in its usage here.

Steve O’Hara, CFP
Partner
Financial Strategy Network LLC
Chicago

Have taxable maximum cover all earnings

All of the points on Social Security reform in your Oct. 15 editorial are well-taken, but until the maximum earnings amount on taxable earnings is raised to cover all earnings — not just up to the maximum amount in 2007 of $97,500 — will there be even a prayer that the system can be fixed?

Carol Sutton Lumpkin, CFP
Dalton, Ga.
Financial consultant
Synovus Securities Inc.

A possible solution to arbitration dispute

“Industry Arbitrators: We’re the good guys” (Oct. 22) states, “Others contend that they (industry arbitrators) merely educate panelists.”

I suggested solutions to the dispute in my Petition for Rulemaking (4-502), filed with the SEC in May 2005.

One alternative is to “require that information presented to a panel of arbitrators by a securities industry arbitrator be revealed to the parties during open hearing.”

Both sides would then have an opportunity to dispute what currently amounts to secret evidence.

Les Greenberg
Attorney
Culver City, Calif.

Where’s the outcry on egregious EIA sales?

Regarding the new variable annuity rules, my question is what about the “fraud” used against senior citizens who are sold indexed annuities (by non-securities licensed insurance salespeople) with a 20-year surrender period and virtually no way to escape the horrendous surrender charges?

Where is the outcry against that?

Margaret Sheldon
Huntington Beach, Calif.
National Planning Corp.