I oppose restrictions to my right to invest

Please stop regulating educated investors and address issues to access like when you froze people well positioned out to protect large companies last year. Focus on equalizing the playing field, not limiting access to it.

Dear FINRA, As a 64 year old physician who has been investing in stocks since 1998, I feel that I am quite competent to assess the risks of my various investment choices. Aside from stocks, bonds, and similar 'paper' assets, I have investments in both real estate and collectables. As such, I feel very strongly that despite what undoubtedly are good intentions, FINRA should refrain from implementing regulations barring me from investing in so-called 'complex' investment vehicles such as leveraged funds and inverse funds.

I have been doing my own research and buying/selling investments for over 35 years and do not need or want the government involved in what I do. I am not impression in much of what the governments does now so would not trust them to handle my affairs and plan to continue to do my own investing in the future.

These ETFs are important tools for investing in the future. Now that the feds pump and dump scheme is now in the dump fees investors are going to be feeling a lot of pain for quite a while. Restricting access to leveraged ETFs is bad for investors. Anytime you limit choice, to protect the individual its bad because a lot of these are accounts are self-directed. I am asking you not to limit the use of leveraged ETFs.

Hello,
This regulation should treat everyone the same. These opportunities cant available only for high net worth investors. I am particularly interested in leverage and inverse funds and feel everyone should have this opportunity at these volatile times in the market.

It does not serve public interest nor protect investors to restrict inverse or leveraged ETFs. The cost and tax efficiency of these vehicles are some of the only ways the public can implement constructive hedging instruments akin to institutions. Even better: they are important liquidity providers and trade in the open marketplace vs. bilateral prime brokerage arrangements that unwind in a collateral way (i.e. Archegos). Taking this away would be a step backwards. Stop protecting the monopoly of primary broker-dealers.

Leveraged and inverse funds are used as a limited part of my portfolio but are an important strategy to help protect my investments. These funds should be available to all of the public, not just a privileged few.

It always seems that FINRA's only job is to help large institutions to keep their advantages over retail traders. You already make it disadvantages to trade options and futures. Now you want to add leveraged ETFs to that list. How about focusing on things that are really a problem such as the advantages given to market makers and dealers through paid order flow. It is clear that FINRA does not care about retail traders and investors through there lack of actions.

Why must I "demonstrate a high net worth"? What defines a high net worth? Why are you being so intentionally ambiguous with this qualification? Why would an investor of "high net worth" be better qualified to trade as a trader with less net worth?

What happened to the government's position of income equality?