Though, I work in the financial services industry and am very familiar with closed-end funds, I am submitting my comments as in individual investor. I fully support the proposed rule change. As an investor in closed-end funds, I have experienced the negative results of activist investors. As a former investor in PPR, I experienced first-hand the impact and disruption that Saba created when they hostilely took over PPR. They were not investing in PPR for the benefit of all shareholders. They were in it for their own gain and the gain of their hedge-fund investors. The proposed rule will ensure the longevity of the closed-end fund industry, support growth of the industry, and fuel innovation and new entrants to the space. Why would any firm launch a new closed-end fund in the current environment? Long-term investors pay the price of activists' pursuit of short-term gains. Closed-end funds, as an investment option that serves many retirees and those seeking income, will become extinct if not protected from activists. As a former investor in PPR, I was invested through my 401k. And like many investors in CEFs, we do so as part of our retirement planning. Saba acquired 25%+ of the outstanding shares, lied about their motivation and purpose, controlled the vote at the annual meeting, and was able to elect an entirely new slate of trustees. Trustees hand-picked by Saba! But are considered independent? That is laughable. Saba then took over PPR completely, fired the existing manager, and their "independent" Board appointed Saba as the adviser. Any conflicts of interest there? Saba then drained the fund and wholesale changed the strategy. I stuck it out as an investor as long as I could stomach it. Saba and other activists exploit the current legal structure of CEFs for their own gain at the expense of true, everyday investors. Those are the investors the SEC and the NYSE should be protecting.