July 8, 2009
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been a Certified Financial Planner since 1985 and A registered investment advisor since 1989. I have approached Each working day with two standards in mind—1) be a fiduciary for Your clients and 2) be compliant in every way for every thing that I Do in this profession.
At a time when I am encouraged by proposed regulations requiring Fiduciary standards for everyone who promotes themselves as an Investment advisor (broker-dealer reps for example) I am completely Opposed to custody rule IA-2876. In its current configuration, it will Not offer consumers any added protection and the additional audit Expenses will be passed on as in increased cost to clients.
Clients can freely choose to elect their method of fee payment. If they want a paper bill every quarter, then they get a paper will. If they want their bill paid automatically, and a written record or the Transaction, they can select that option too. If an advisor does not Offer that choice the consumer should immediately seek a new advisor.
Rule IA-2876 also has the potential to end the life of many younger and Smaller firms—especially the independent, non broker-dealers— Due to the burdensome expenses and wasted compliance resources.
Finally, the rule also misses the mark on its major thrust—fraud protection. The biggest frauds occur in firms that have direct custody of client assets. (Mine does not. I use Charles Schwab). I humbly suggest that your Proposed legislation target those firms specifically, and that debits for Advisor fees are merely the client’s desired mode of conveyance to pay Their bills— entirely different from “custody” of their assets. The dragnet Approach of Rule IA-2876 will waste considerable resources—yours and mine.
Sincerely,
John Cress