Skip to main content

Daniel Teske Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

People understand products better than you think. Let those who want to take additional risk in funds choose to do so. You should not be regulating public access to such items. Individuals can choose to invest in their own business which is just as risky (if not much more) as these public funds. You aren't preventing that?? Let each individual choose their own level of investing or speculating.

Marco Heredia Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

I have researched various different leveraged funds (and strategies) and believe that in my 20s being able to apply leverage to my investment strategy and to deleverage as I get older will allow me to maximize my returns while reducing my risk given my long investment timeline. Specifically I plan on using a combination of leveraged broad stock market funds and bond funds and maintaining a set ratio to take advantage of the security of bonds during market downturns. I plan on this strategy being 10-20% of my portfolio though it hopefully will outgrow that proportion over time.

John Elliott Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

The idea of putting restrictions on Inverse/Leveraged securities is just a bad idea. 1) These instruments are not that complicated - people can understand them....Typically they are based on indexes (e.g., 2X SPX etc.), that's easier to understand than the inner-workings of any individual company! 2) FINRA, I believe, already requires brokers to display warnings - that's good enough. A warning that these instruments are different is what is needed and that makes good sense. Restricting trading on these by FINRA makes no sense.