Skip to main content

Roger Thomas Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

I consider investing my own money a decision that I am fully capable of making without additional controls. The changes being considered to gate who has access to leveraged and inverse ETFs/Funds are barriers to entry. Personally, I use them in my investing to better manage market downturns and to gain better returns. In 2020 when the market was getting hammered, I was able to invest in an inverse ETF which significantly protected my down side. More recently, I was able to invest in a leveraged ETF which brought me significant returns.

Scott Kuehn Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

Leveraged ETFs are an important part of my investing strategy. Of course, each individual needs to understand how these investment vehicles are designed and meant to perform, the pros and cons for them in an investment strategy, and most importantly, the risks.

But just like we don't ban automobiles because they are dangerous, but instead install seatbelts and require a license to drive, a blanket banning of leveraged ETFs for the individual retail investor would be akin to taking away one's vehicle. Don't do that!

David Dehn Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

Do not impose restrictions on my rights to invest in leveraged and inverse funds. These funds are very useful in protecting my investments and enhancing my returns and used only as a limited part of my overall investment. These tools should not be limited to be used only by the privileged. They should be available to small independent investors, like myself. I do not need these regulatory measures imposed on me. Everyone is aware that there are risks involved with any investment.

Kenneth Andresen Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

Limiting investment options, such as leveraged and inverse funds, to those that meet special income or asset tests is clearly discriminatory. These types of restrictions allow for the wealthy to financially gain from certain economic opportunities, while investors who are economically challenged would not be allowed to take advantage. The government would be restricting people who freely desire to purchase a form of investment insurance from doing so. I find that these types of investments are often restricted or removed when they will be needed most. Who are you really protecting?