Skip to main content

John Campbell Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

While I understand the need for, and value of, some regulations to insure that unsophisticated investors do not utilize inverse or leveraged funds to their detriment, I do not believe those regulations should be unduly restrictive. Specifically, I do not support required testing or mandatory cooling off periods. I already accept the requirement for demonstrating appropriate net worth and getting approval from my broker. I believe these precautions are sufficient to protect against unwarranted and inappropriate usage of such funds.

Barry MD Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

You are limiting investor freedoms, although you may think you have good intentions, and you may be doing this on the eve of a bear market, which we haven't seen since 2008-9.

Who will this benefit? Hedge funds with a lot more political power than individual investors?

Making normal hedging in down markets less accessible to individual investors is not doing us a favor. We are stewards of our own money and have a right to make choices that could lead to losses as well as gains. You are, in effect, limiting our options [pun intended].

Taufan Kumala Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

To whom it may concern,

I am extremely bothered by this proposal. As I am heavily invested in 401k I would like to be able to accumulate inverse funds in my Roth account to mitigate any risk of a market downturn. It is especially cynical if these inverse funds are available only to hedge funds. Please consider the voices of the retail investors as well.

Thank you very much for your consideration.