First off, the amount of corruption in today's market is unbelievable. To see FINRA, an organization that is supposed to protect the integrity of the market; come out with baseless claims to try and keep the public from arguably the safest investment opportunities the market has to offer, definitely seems as if there's an agenda that's not in the best interest of the American people.

I gained over $1000 on my DIS today. It will cost me $274 to protect 100 sh (about 1/4) of my position with a put option for next week. That's costly.
FINRA should advocate my right to buy & sell options on a fractional basis. At a cost of $2.74 a sh I should be able to buy a fractional put for as many shares as I can afford.

Let us invest our monies as we see fit. I want to be able to manage my own portfolio. No one cares more about my interest than me.

If regulators are really concerned about helping retail investors manage their risk in the market they should make it easier to buy fractional shares and fractional options. Let's say a retail investor has 1 position in her account. She bought 100 shares of LABU @ $4.93. It rose to $5.93 today so she's gained $100. LABU is the 3x ETF for Biotech Bull. The best protection vs an LABU fall is LABD (Biotech Bear). She can only afford $10 right now in that effort. Allow her to buy 0.10 sh of LABD for $6.10. Now she has a see-saw portfolio. If LABU falls LABD will rise reducing her risk.

I OPPOSE RESTRICTIONS TO MY RIGHT TO INVEST.
I have used both leveraged and inverse funds in the past. They have been especially useful as a hedge against adverse market conditions as well as an enhancement to favorable conditions. I am aware of both their risks and rewards. I view Inverse funds as a type of 'health insurance' for the portfolio in uncertain times; you hope you don't have to use it, but nice to have if you need it. Who doesn't need health insurance?

I guess the idea of more far-reaching regulations is to protect some some investors from losing money. But what about those who might make money? Why should policy be based on one group, and not the other? But even if it would save all investors money, I would still opposed to it -- because it is not the role of government to effectively be making investment decisions for its citizens. The whole premise behind that is one that is inconsistent with a free people. Such a policy would foster a state of mind that would be inconsistent with a free person.

Restricting public access to downside hedges during a bear market will result in compulsory put option protection and force investors, who you fear aren't capable of managing an inverse ETF, to manage a portfolio of option hedges instead.

You will increase the average investor's risk burden this way, putting otherwise prudent investors in jeopardy.

We don't need big brother controlling our financial decisions. This is not 1984! I've already graduated from school many years ago. I don't need to take anymore tests. Leveraged and inverse funds are used to control risk in my portfolios.
Taking them away only puts my investments at a greater risk. Please give me and other investors like me Freedom To Choose.
Thank you

Do not restrict me from investing in triple-leveraged ETFs. I'm an older millennial who got involved in investing later in life because financial literacy wasn't being taught in schools. I need triple leveraged investment products to catch up with my investing goals on retirement.