Skip to main content

Kent VanEvery Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

All investing comes with risk. By choosing to invest, we investors willingly assume that risk. Regulations should not be used as an to attempt to save unwise investors from themselves. The State allows lotteries and widespread sports betting, which inevitable causes more financial harm to unwise investors than leveraged and inverse funds. Thus, I see these proposed regulations as unnecessary and unjustifiably restricting.

Keith Fung Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

Please do not restrict public purchase access to Defined Outcome ETFs, ETNs, ELNs, Market-Linked CDs, Structured Notes, Principal Protected Notes, Derivatives hedging ETFs, Opportunistic/Tactical Multi-Strategy ETFs--all of which serve to REDUCE portfolio risk. Restricting access stifles liquidity, thereby increasing volatility creating even more risk to market function and more risk to investors! Restricting public access to ETFs trading in assets such as commodities, currencies, real estate, crypto, etc..

Ernest Woo Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08

Trading leveraged/inverse funds has been a boon to my ability to hedge upside and downside risk without the complexity of options. Also, through products like SARK and SQQQ, I am able to hedge against downside risk without margin.

I think smaller traders like me will lose a lot of flexibility if unable to trade leveraged/inverse funds.

Fidelity already shows comprehensive warnings about trading leveraged funds and requires a phone call to enable trading of inverse funds.