|Received:||7/8/2006 10:01:23 PM|
|Subject:||Business Opportunity Rule|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 437|
Comments:My wife and I have been IBO's for over 25 years. Although we did not fully understand the depth and potential of the business when we signed on, since our initial costs, as well as all products ordered, contain an money back guarantee, we realized that there was no down side, and we had nothing to lose by signing up as soon as we felt comfortable. A mandated "wait" period would have had no positive effect, and might actually have inhibited our desire to get started. There was sufficient information presented to us, just as we present sufficient information to all those we share the opportunity with. The initial cost for our "kit" in 1976 was $80. Today, the average cost to a new IBO is between $150-$250, far below our $80 when adjusted for inflation. It is a bargain today. Neither of our backgrounds prepared us for getting involved, but the training, support, and togetherness of those already in our organization seved to inspire and encourage us, and we both feel that our involvement and close association with our upline leaders has actually kept our marriage intact, and enabled our three daughters to choose better mates than they would have had we not been involved in the business. We have achieved financial goals that exceeded our expectations, and although we have not reached the diamond level, we are still active and consider that our next goal. We regularly tell a prospect that "this business is not for everyone", and let them know that altough it will product good income for them, it is not a "get rich quick" deal, and although we will be there to support them, they will have to put forth consistent effort in order to reach significant financial goals. A 7-day waiting period would, quite simple, KILL our ability to grow our business. In an era of instant gratification, even a 24 hour cooling off period would be lethal. Since there is no risk, there is no reason to prevent someone from signing on as soon as they express the desire to. A requirement to provide 10 references seems to infringe on privacy laws, and is totally redundant. There is ample ability for a prospect to satify himself that this is a legitimate business with people who do well in it. The same goes for disclosing 10 years of past litigation or alleged fraud. The internet is full of all sorts of allegations, and more than enough information is available to any who wish to find it. Perhaps a 10 year review of dui's and cases involving a canditate for election should be part of the ballot before a voter casts a vote. As far as claims made regarding income derived from the business, there are plenty of indications that those who are active in the business generate certain levels of income, and more specific substantiations seem to me an infringement on personal privacy. Starting a business involves risk. Otherwise it's a job. Starting a business and sticking with it until you have made your mistakes and learned from them is the bedrock of our American free enterprise society. If you eliminate all risk, you at the same time eliminate all but the skimpiest rewards, and you destroy the pursuit of excellence. Wanting to believe that an opportunity is bona fide and worthy of your efforts is a vital qualification in signing up. Quixtar is time tested and proven. Because it is so large and successful, if rules and regulations are put into law which would dampen the free exchange of ideas between IBO and prospect, Quixtar will enforce such regs, to its own detriment, while lesser, start-up companies, too small for the government to take notice of, will "fly under the radar." Like the child proof caps which people over 55 can't seem to open, so they ask their kids or grandkids to open them: Well intentioned laws which have unintended effects.