I have been managing my own investments for 35 years. I was trained at the graduate level to do this, but was never employed in the financial services industry.
Leveraged and inverse, open and closed funds, are useful instruments. In appropriate circumstances, I use these instruments. They are especially helpful for generating routine income (in retirement) and setting up hedges.
Not everyone is qualified or well informed about these types of instruments. Some people may need a simple but direct warning, but most people certainly do not need to be blanket restricted from the use of these helpful funds.
I do believe that regulation is indispensable in many cases. Example, mortgages require considerable, understandable, disclosure on the part of lenders. But regulation should not be heavy-handed, nor should it be gauged by the need of the least well-informed segment of society.
Not everyone should necessarily be investing their own accounts. But most people can perform this task reasonably with just a bit of training, support, and care.
Gamification of investing, such as introduced by Robinhood, is a legitimate concern. But how much should regulators protect retail investors from themselves? Brokers do need to plainly disclose important details to investors, such as the potential dangers of using margin accounts, or shorting equities.
But banning helpful instruments is not the way to protect neophytes, because it denies the legitimate rights of well-informed citizens.
Please refrain from going over-board with nanny-state obstructions.
I have no need or desire for anyone to protect me from myself. The idea that regulators should be able to tell me what instruments I can use, frankly speaking, is a vicious ignorant insult.
Harlan Finer Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08
I have been managing my own investments for 35 years. I was trained at the graduate level to do this, but was never employed in the financial services industry.
Leveraged and inverse, open and closed funds, are useful instruments. In appropriate circumstances, I use these instruments. They are especially helpful for generating routine income (in retirement) and setting up hedges.
Not everyone is qualified or well informed about these types of instruments. Some people may need a simple but direct warning, but most people certainly do not need to be blanket restricted from the use of these helpful funds.
I do believe that regulation is indispensable in many cases. Example, mortgages require considerable, understandable, disclosure on the part of lenders. But regulation should not be heavy-handed, nor should it be gauged by the need of the least well-informed segment of society.
Not everyone should necessarily be investing their own accounts. But most people can perform this task reasonably with just a bit of training, support, and care.
Gamification of investing, such as introduced by Robinhood, is a legitimate concern. But how much should regulators protect retail investors from themselves? Brokers do need to plainly disclose important details to investors, such as the potential dangers of using margin accounts, or shorting equities.
But banning helpful instruments is not the way to protect neophytes, because it denies the legitimate rights of well-informed citizens.
Please refrain from going over-board with nanny-state obstructions.
I have no need or desire for anyone to protect me from myself. The idea that regulators should be able to tell me what instruments I can use, frankly speaking, is a vicious ignorant insult.