July 1, 2009
I am an employee of an SEC-registered investment adviser, and have worked in the securities field under various capacities since 1994.
With regard to the proposed rule, I wish to voice that I am opposed to this amendment to the custody rule that would subject investment advisers to a surprise audit by an accounting firm solely on the basis that the firm is authorized by a client to make automatic deduction of investment advisory fees from their discretionary account.
Our firm does not have actual custody of any client's investments, and a change such as what is being proposed would be unnecessary and costly for the advisor in both time and money. The Rule, as proposed, should be based on those advisors having actual custody of client assets, as with the Madoff case.
Submitted this day, July 1, 2009 from Newport Beach, CA.