Dear Securities and Exchange Commission, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed rule on "Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets." While I applaud the SEC's efforts to enhance investor protections and address gaps in the custody rule, there are certain aspects of the proposal that give me pause. First and foremost, I am concerned about the potential negative impact this rule may have on the competitiveness of US companies. By imposing stricter regulations on investment advisers, there is a risk that US companies may be put at a disadvantage compared to their international counterparts. This could potentially lead to capital flight and a loss of market share for US businesses, jeopardizing economic growth and job opportunities. Additionally, I am troubled by the lack of clarity surrounding the regulation of digital assets or crypto. It is undeniable that digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, have transformed the financial landscape. However, the regulatory uncertainties surrounding these assets pose significant challenges for both investors and investment advisers. While I understand the importance of investor protection, it is crucial that the SEC does not overreach in its regulatory efforts. Excessive government intervention can stifle innovation and hinder the growth of emerging technologies. Therefore, it is imperative that any regulations imposed on digital assets strike a balance between safeguarding investor interests and fostering innovation in this rapidly evolving space. In considering the proposed rule, it is essential to carefully weigh the costs and benefits associated with the amendments. While safeguarding client assets is of utmost importance, it is crucial to ensure that the compliance costs for investment advisers are not unduly burdensome. By imposing excessive costs, especially on small businesses, the SEC risks stifling competition and hindering capital formation. Furthermore, the proposed amendments to the surprise examination requirement raise concerns about the practicality and effectiveness of such examinations. It is crucial that any requirements imposed on investment advisers are realistic, applicable, and tailored to effectively protect client assets without imposing unnecessary burdens. In terms of the economic analysis provided, I appreciate the SEC's efforts to assess the potential impacts of the proposed rule. However, it is essential to acknowledge the limitations of such analyses, particularly given the varying practices among investment advisers. Therefore, I urge the SEC to consider a more nuanced economic assessment that takes into account the diverse nature of the industry. Finally, I request the SEC to actively seek public input on the proposed rule's impact on small entities. It is crucial to consider the potential effects on small investment advisers who may already face challenges in complying with the existing regulatory framework. Ensuring that the proposed rule does not disproportionately burden small businesses is vital for fostering a vibrant and competitive investment advisory industry. In conclusion, I appreciate the SEC's efforts to enhance investor protections and address gaps in the custody rule. However, I urge the Commission to carefully consider the concerns raised about potential negative impacts on the competitiveness of US companies, as well as the need for clear and balanced regulation of digital assets. By doing so, we can strike a balance that protects investors without stifling innovation or hindering economic growth. Thank you for considering my comments on this important matter. Sincerely, Hector