Investors should be able to determine for themselves whether or not particular investments are appropriate for my or my family's investment goals. It suffices for investors to know that ANY security poses inherent risks, or more often, volatility.
The ability to invest freely is a necessary component of Americans' financial security: Social Security and pensions often are not enough to meet all the costs families and individuals will face pre- and post-retirement.
Inverse and leveraged funds are investment instruments that are democratizing: they should be available to all, not merely those with high net worth (who have benefited from an easy money policy which enhanced financial asset returns to the detriment of those who may have only modest funds to invest.)
Leveraged and inverse funds are a way to achieve at least two important and necessary objectives: (1) to augment asset buying power for those with modest accounts, and (2) to hedge against portfolio risk. Regarding these objectives, the alternative, e.g., options, pose an additional and substantial learning curve. In this manner, the leveraged and inverse funds simplify and lower the risk for investors who do not have the requisite knowledge to trade options.
The firms providing these funds are doing a fine job of alerting investors to the risks of investing in these funds, and how to invest in them. There is much free and public information available for investors to figure out which of these investments could meet their needs, and how and when best to use them.
Restrictions on leveraged and inverse funds would adversely and severely affect me: I depend on being able to allocate a portion of my portfolio to them to enhance returns and/or hedge my risk. As a retiree, I would not be able to live on my social security income alone.
Evelyn Kendall Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08
Investors should be able to determine for themselves whether or not particular investments are appropriate for my or my family's investment goals. It suffices for investors to know that ANY security poses inherent risks, or more often, volatility.
The ability to invest freely is a necessary component of Americans' financial security: Social Security and pensions often are not enough to meet all the costs families and individuals will face pre- and post-retirement.
Inverse and leveraged funds are investment instruments that are democratizing: they should be available to all, not merely those with high net worth (who have benefited from an easy money policy which enhanced financial asset returns to the detriment of those who may have only modest funds to invest.)
Leveraged and inverse funds are a way to achieve at least two important and necessary objectives: (1) to augment asset buying power for those with modest accounts, and (2) to hedge against portfolio risk. Regarding these objectives, the alternative, e.g., options, pose an additional and substantial learning curve. In this manner, the leveraged and inverse funds simplify and lower the risk for investors who do not have the requisite knowledge to trade options.
The firms providing these funds are doing a fine job of alerting investors to the risks of investing in these funds, and how to invest in them. There is much free and public information available for investors to figure out which of these investments could meet their needs, and how and when best to use them.
Restrictions on leveraged and inverse funds would adversely and severely affect me: I depend on being able to allocate a portion of my portfolio to them to enhance returns and/or hedge my risk. As a retiree, I would not be able to live on my social security income alone.