| Comment Number: | 522418-00699 |
| Received: | 6/3/2006 9:01:09 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Mark Nehs |
| State: | WI |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing this letter because I am concerned with the proposed Business Opportunity Rule. A couple of points: Earnings claims are in every business and all businesses especially ones that hire salespeople tend to puff up income and anyone that violates that should be punished which a law for that is already in place. I am not sure if this is the case with all companies but the two network marketing companies I joined I had at least 30 days to get a full refund. If this is the case with all companies isn’t 30 better than 7 days? I do think a 30-day full refund is better and should be fully disclosed which for me it has been. I come from the mortgage business so I understand both income exaggerations and a full refund policy and from what I have observed with Network marketing on understanding the documents and to understanding how to get one’s money back it is much clearer. I also disagree with the 10 nearest distributors mostly from a logistical point of view. It would put new and fast growing companies up against a wall to try and comply. In fact, I’m fine with no earnings claims. But most of us do want to know if I put 5 hours a week (or however many) will it be worth my time or should I work at McDonalds instead? In my opinion, starting a network marketing business is about a million times easier for the average guy to start and I know because I have started three traditional businesses. Additional restrictions and legislation will only make it tougher for the little guy to find an additional way to make money and build residual income like the rich. I beg of you to reconsider this proposal in its current format. Thank you for your time in considering my comments. Mark Nehs