This proposed rule is yet another misguided attempt to "protect" retail investors, while all it would do is limit retail investors options and increase the public's distrust towards institutional investors. While leveraged funds do experience greater volatility (and in turn risk), they are relatively easy to understand and give retail investors easier exposure to leverage than option or futures strategies. Inverse funds are sometimes the only way to gain exposure to certain assets (for example some inverse currency pair funds), and retail investors would lose access to this.

Nothing is going wrong. What are you trying to fix ? Leave it alone !!

Leveraged and inverse funds are important to my investment strategies and I should have the right to choose my investments free from government intrusion and over reach.

Please do not restrict investor access to complex and leveraged products. Yes, there ought to be disclosures of risks and transparency around fund mechanisms. In other words: informed consent. But barring access is undemocratic and wrong. Many leveraged funds are useful tools for investors who lack the requisite capital to use futures to achieve leverage.

I oppose any restrictions on the non-institutional individual's ability to invest in any way or investment that is open to institutional or high net worth investors.

It is discrimination to not allow the general public to invest in publicly available stocks.

Please provide at least 2 years lead time for any restrictions to take effect on leveraged and inverse funds. Also penalize banks if they discontinue any of the funds abruptly without provide sufficient time during unforeseen times like pandemic or recession.

This rule is absolutely unfair and limits the ability for average retail investors to earn outsized gains in the stock market. It makes it an un-level playing field with these products available to only large institutions and wealth managers, who in turn will charge extra fees to access these products. Putting a small allocation on my portfolio in an Leveraged and Inverse ETFs has personally allowed me to get over above market returns consistently and I would like to keep that option open without some regulatory overhang or having to prove my intelligence to an agency.

I strongly oppose SEC proposed rule #87-24-15. I earned my money and should be able to invest it as I see fit. Restrictions from the SEC hinder rather than help individual investors including myself. As regards Congress, I would not vote for anyone who supported SEC proposed rule #87-24-15. US citizens would benefit from fewer regulations and restrictions rather than more. Honor liberty and freedom.

To whom it may concern, I oppose this regulation. On the surface this sounds like government overreach. If I understand anything about the purpose of the SEC, it is not to protect individual investors, it is to protect the system. This would prevent individual investors from easily hedging against a market downturn, but allow "high net worth" individuals who can afford to have money managers do just that. Sounds pretty fishy to me. Under the guise of protecting individuals it seems to just prevent individual investors from compounding any effects of a market downturn.