I oppose restrictions to my right to invest. Here are why: - Every investor should have the freedom of accessing the entirety of the public securities markets, not just certain stocks. - The new potential regulations will only create obstacles for investors to invest. They will no doubt create confusion with what public securities they can and cannot invest in. - As adults, we all know that it is risky to invest any public securities, not just the leveraged and inverse funds.

Leave our investments alone. I am retired and not going back to work. I have worked a long time to be where I am and government has been trying to destroy that. Cut spending and waste. Cut your own salary.

Access to investment opportunities should not just be for hedge funds and the wealthy. Inverse and leveraged funds allow the common investor to protect longer term positions against losses from events like inflation and interest rate fluctuations. Securities often react stronger than the underlying index, thus only a leveraged position will make a substantial difference.

Allow everyone to invest, you do not need to see everything through one looking glass

To Reader, As a retail investor that actively manages their own portfolio: - I use leveraged ETF's to hedge against and gain exposure to volatility in the markets as a way of running a long/short portfolio. - I understand that these products are not meant as long-term holding devices and are to be strategically applied depending on market conditions. - Limiting my ability to use these ETFs would restrict my abilities for hedging/leverage to just options which are a worse way for a retail trader to hedge/gain exposure compared to using these products.

I think everyone has a right to make money and provide for one's self without government interference. The Founding fathers NEVER intended that we have big government.

These products are clearly labeled as risky and requires a written consent to trade already. Let people and cats do what they want to do with their money.

Warning: Rule #22-08 is currently the subject of a deceptive advertising attack. Let's play "which of these is not like the others": * Target Date Funds * Funds using cryptocurrency futures * Reverse Convertible Notes * Volatility-Linked Funds The answer is "Target Date Funds". I don't use this, I don't intend to use this; but it's an old tool that's well understood and is being used as the first item on the list of the advertising campaign. I read the actual rule and could find no rule opposing. I could guess the why and the why might be "funds selling short" are the actual target here.

I am against regulation of inverse funds such as Proshares PSQ and SDS.

This proposal is is limiting to the individual investors. Not allowing investors to access derivatives of the market does not allow for a fair playing field. Investors must be made aware of risks and accept them. Having a level playing field with large investors, real money investors, hedge funds and others allows people to hedge their investments like larger investors. Being able to protect money on the downside and participate on the upside only allows investors a way to mitigate risk. This is another proposal that will make the playing field more lopsided to institutional investors.