Skip to main content

James Lawson Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

I oppose this proposed regulation because it is over reaching, limiting investors ability, is over reacting to a very small minority of people and does not reflect the vast majority of investors. If the mandate is to protect the public, then require wording and risks for leveraged or inverse funds. There is a place for inverse funds, particularly when markets are declining. and investors should have the ability and choice to be hedge their funds.

Douglas Shepherd Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

Hello, Surely there are more direct ways to protect citizens that are not competent to invest their own money than interfering with normal activities of average investors. Leveraged and inverse funds are regulated public securities that are easier to understand than the average computer screen used by investors. They are a part of my everyday investment tactics and do not need any further restrictions.

Steve Fekete Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

Please, go ahead, ban what you want. That is EXACLY what people like me are hoping for and actually waiting for. The more you try to crack down on ANY fund, investment vehicle, etc., the more DECENTRALIZED this world WILL become. Do you have any clue what this means? This means your silly little power hungry organization that wants so desperately to hang on to the old system, will be crying when you are literally powerless to stop the avalanche of DECENTRALIZED systems that will be coming that you will NOT be able to stop. You cannot stop DECENTRALIZED. So by all means, be my guest.