The First National Bank of Boston 100 Federal Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 January 23, 1997 Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary Securities and Exchange Commission 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Stop 6-9 Washington, DC 20549 Re: File No. S7-30-96 Private Investment Companies Dear Mr. Katz: The First National Bank of Boston ("FNBB") appreciates this opportunity to comment on the rules on private investment companies proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on December 18, 1996, in Release No. IC-22405. FNBB is a national banking association that, together with its affiliate banks, had $62billion in assets as of September 30, 1996. FNBB's Private Bank division manages approximately $22 billion, primarily for high net worth individuals, trusts, estates, mutual funds, and common trust funds. This comment letter is being submitted both by e-mail and in hard copy. Although FNBB is generally supportive of the proposed rules, we have grave concerns about proposed rule 2a51-1(f)(1) - (3). These provisions would omit, in the calculation of investments held by a would-be qualified purchaser, any amounts received in the past 12 months as proceeds of insurance, a gift, a bequest, a separation or divorce agreement, or a judgment or settlement. We believe that these provisions are unwise, and should be omitted in their entirety, for the following reasons: 1. This 12-month interregnum will interfere with proper asset-management techniques, even though the individual's assets may be very substantial indeed and the individual may have the benefit of sophisticated investment management. We know from our experience in managing individuals' assets that the individuals described in these provisions, and especially those who receive wealth pursuant to a gift or bequest, are the very individuals most likely to have the benefit of professional assistance and investment education planning. They will be unduly disadvantaged if they are unable to complete an investment program until 12 months pass and they become qualified purchasers. 2. There does not appear to be any reason to exclude some recently-acquired assets here, when there is no similar exclusion in determining accredited investors under rule 501 or in determining qualified institutional buyers under rule 144A. 3. We see no basis for excluding some kinds of recently-acquired assets but not others. Under the proposed rule, an owner of a business who sells it for $10 million would immediately be a qualified purchaser, even though he may have no particular knowledge of or experience in investing. An heiress who receives $10 million in a bequest would not qualify for 12 months, even though the time required for administration of an estate means that she likely would have had ample opportunity to learn about investing and to plan for the investment of her assets with the assistance of professional advice. 4. The provision will have a disproportionate effect on women, who are more likely to receive substantial assets in connection with separation or divorce and somewhat more likely to receive the proceeds of a bequest or insurance policy. We appreciate your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions, please call the undersigned at 617/434-4631 or John Baker of our Law Office at 617/434-8796. Very truly yours, Edward G. Riley, Jr. Chief Investment Officer