Skip to main content

Stephen Ellis Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

I'm adamantly opposed to the intrusive and burdensome proposed regulation per FINRA Notice #22-08 of my straight-forward investment strategies which includes the regular, but always limited use, of leveraged and inverse funds.
It is absolute nonsense that FINRA would even think about sticking its unwanted nose further into such an important but limited investment activity that is very much an important element of my investment activity.
You have no business intruding on investors in this outrageous fashion!

Xiaofeng Guo Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

I WANT TO MAINTAIN MY CURRENT FREEDOM TO INVEST PUBLIC SECURITIES OF MY CHOOSING. ANY RESTRICTIONS TO MY HOLD PUBLIC SECURITIES IS UNFAIR . BEFORE I HOLD RUSL, BUT YOU FORCED ME USING VERY LOW PRICE (MUCH LOWER THAN MY COST) TO SALE IT. YOUR ACTION LET A LEGAL INVESTOR LOST MONEY. I LOST MONEY NOT MY ACTION WRONG OR ILLEGAL. I INVESTED PUBLIC SECURITIES AND YOU USING UNFAIR ACTION LET ME LOSE MONEY. Your actions are not to protect legal investors but to harm them

Ximing Wang Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

Investing in leveraged and inverse funds are super import to me. Because I use them to hedge my positions. I believe they are much safer than using options to hedge my positions. If they are disallowed, I would need to use options to hedge, which are super risky. I used to lose a lot of money in options and don't want to touch it again. Basically, I think the public investments shouldn't be only available to only privileged. And losing this way would make lots of people trading with options/futures, which would make them losing everything in one day.