There needs to be more regulation on Overall market transparency. Otherwise the system is always going to be rigged. Things such as dark pools, payment for order flow, and short interest reporting latency, all make the perfect bed for abuse in the general market. Not even mentioning algorithmic trading. Also why so can be both a market maker and a hedgefund. I mean come on that’s just ridiculous
I as an American citizen should have access to these products, not left only for the rich. The entire stock market is a complex beast, but with research there are many tools to become more informed. I am capable of making my own informed decisions. We as small investors should not have to jump through hoops that others do not. There are already so many restrictions and we should not have any more
The FINRA is a non-governmental agency designed to insure Brokers are acting in good faith to all their clients. It is not a governmental agency their to regulate the clients! And if you were a government agency attempting such a non-ethical proposal I would feel the same as I do with this agency. You are not their to protect client interests regarding investing. You are their to enforce the
I am a personal investor and self investing for many years. I am using leveraged funds to increase my returns in a responsible way in times of stocks surge - investing a small amount of my total funds, and hedging the investments to prevent colossal losses.
Leveraged funds already send out learning material and warnings to customers investing in those funds.
Limiting these investments to the only
FINRA released a new edition of the OATS Reporting Technical Specifications dated May 3, 2011. The changes described in this version of the OATS Reporting Technical Specifications include all required changes related to FINRA’s rule changes expanding the OATS Rules to all NMS stocks (SR-FINRA-2010-44), along with other technical enhancements.
I have seen warning provided by the broker website on each buy trade. In addition I had to go through a risk signup document to confirm that I understand the risk.
Above steps are good way to provide disclosure on every trade.
However if the changes are being planned to make an investor go through certain tests then I think that is excessive, and would not appreciate putting such restrictions.
I understand the risks and rewards of leveraged funds, and have used them to my advantage. However, I understand they can be dangerous in the hands of the uneducated. I believe some type of mild screening process would be useful, i.e., specialized reading materials and a test targeted at leveraged funds only, without other more heavy handed restrictions. The individual, once educated, has a right
SUGGESTED ROUTING:*
Senior ManagementInstitutionalLegal & ComplianceTrading*These are suggested departments only. Others may be appropriate for your firm.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 20, 1992, the NASD® submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a letter responding to the SEC's request for comments on today's market structure and regulatory environment
I oppose restrictions on my right to invest in leveraged or inverse funds. These funds are important compositions of my portfolio. It makes investment more rewarding for many of us. Without these funds, I will have to invest in stock options instead when I want to use leverage. The restriction on my rights makes it unfair for me in comparison with investment agencies who have more resources,
I have recently established a brokerage account which was made available by my company. I have applied a portion of my 401k income towards leveraged funds. I am well aware of the risks and consider myself to be an informed investor. I do not believe I should have requirements imposed such as tests. Nor do I believe I require a cooling off period as I have already invested effort and expense into
