Comments: I am an active retail trader of leveraged ETFs, including inverse funds. I object to all proposed regulations that might require me to suspend my trading activity, including but not limited to minimum capital requirements, and regulations that may restrict execution of trading orders. Persons should be free to engage in speculation in financial markets and the disenfranchisement of any particular group raises a question of equal protection of the law.

I believe that investors such as myself should continue to have access to L&I ETFs, funds, and including derivatives such as options on such products. They are useful for hedging in the short term and in general i believe that investors should have this choice. The reason is they are far more efficient than trying to take short positions or selling shares in positions where we desire long term positioning. I monitor my accounts daily. Removing this choice would be a far worse outcome in my view. Further, my broker/custodian already provides adequate warnings on risks.

Dear FINRA, I am writing to you regarding your desire to regulate and put restrictions on leveraged and inverse funds. I currently use leveraged funds as part of my overall long-term investment strategy. I have done extensive research and have back-tested the performance of leveraged funds over time and with different degrees of leverage applied in my model. My personal opinion is that FINRA should not be stepping in to "protect" anybody.

The funds in question are a big part of my investing strategies.

Leveraged and inverse ETF's are a very practical hedging tool that I have been using for many years. I am an experienced (over 40 years) professional investor that understands the mechanics of how and when these tools work, their shortcomings and their costs. Absent these cheap and very liquid tools, the cost to hedge an equity (or bond) portfolio can be very costly and time consuming. I agree that these investment products may be dangerous in the hands of an inexperienced investor, but that is not an argument to ban them.

Id like to offer that further restrictions or changes to what qualifies an investor to use leveraged and or inverse products are not needed and can cause damage to the portfolio of investors beyond the governments tools that already cause damage, add unneeded complexity and detriment to retail investors. It is disengenuine and presumptive to allow the fed and various lending facilities to manage the bond market , currency and interest rates and then make it so our access as investors no longer have access to meager tools to manage risk.

A plan like this will cost me tens of thousands of dollars as it will tank my current investment.

I have a BA in economics and I'm an accredited investor.

With leveraged products unskilled and uneducated investors are disposed of quickly by the market.

i oppose restrictions to my right to invest

The risks of investing are inherent in any fund or security. That is something made known when beginning to invest and heavily emphasized in literature to those considering investing. It's my responsibility as a investor to vet and understand the products I'm investing in. As part of that vetting process, I use leverage to manage my downside risk. It also constitutes a very small (less than 5-10%) portion of my overall portfolio. The open market should decide who can invest and in what capacity.

You want to prevent me from trading products that are too "complex" for me unless I pass a regulator-imposed test? This seems a lot like when blacks were prevented from voting unless they passed a regulator-imposed "literacy test". My response is simple: this is despicable. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Really.