It has come to my attention that regulators are considering limiting access to leveraged and inverse funds without meeting certain restrictions. While I understand the concerns that regulators may have in wanting to protect the investing public from themselves, I believe regulating this space would be an unwanted and unnecessary intrusion into peoples private investing decisions. One could
TO: All NASD Members and Other Interested Persons
LAST DATE FOR COMMENT: JULY 22, 1987.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The NASD requests comments on a proposed amendment to Article III, Section 35(d)(2)(D) relating to testimonials used in members' communications with the public. The amendment would conform the NASD rule to that of the New York Stock Exchange.
The text of the proposed amendment is
I strongly oppose restrictions to my right to invest in public securities, specifically leveraged and inverse funds. Taking away retail investor rights and limiting access to these funds by imposing special processes or limitations only serves to further widen the gap between wealthy individuals and the average hard-working American public. These funds allow retail investors to hedge investments
When large investors can break the law and set up naked shorts,it's not only wrong and immoral but it shows the system can easily be manipulated by powerful corrupt hedge funds and allows them to ignore any steps the rule makers such as yourselves make,which then shows that they have you in their pockets and any fines are clearly not making any different. As one of millions of retail
I am an individual investor. I believe that I should be able to choose the public investments that are right for me and my family. Public investments should be available to all of the public, not just the privileged.
I shouldn't have to go through any special process like passing a test before I can invest in public securities, like leveraged and inverse funds. Certainly I understand
This proposed legislation makes no sense to me. Every investment caries risk. In fact, most stocks are a poor investment choice. Right now even the PURCHASE OF A HOME is probably a terrible investment choice. Nevertheless, as a citizen I am under the impression that it is still my right to make my own choices regarding how I invest my money.
I think it is absurd to presume that only a "
I am a retired insurance business owner and am solely responsible for investing and trading my retirement funds. I use Inverse and Leveraged funds to hedge my portfolio insurance to protect, preserve and grow my portfolio. As a small investor it is vital for me to have use of these tools to use as I see fit without interference from any other authority(s). I know my personal situation, my
I think the proposed regulations violate my freedom to use my own funds to invest whatever public securities I want to invest in. I am perfectly capable to understand and assume the risks inherent in any kind of public security I choose to buy when I choose to buy or sell it.
I am a long term investor and in times of extreme volatility it is important for me to have inverse funds readily
It has come to my attention that there maybe regulations imposed on investors who invest in Inverse ETF's. I am a very small investor. My account size is less than $50,000. However, I use these ETF funds as a counterweight to my 401k investment accounts and other investments.
I am not an uneducated investor, and am well aware of the risks of investing, having traded both Futures
As is often the case in government policy, the motivations of this seem good. However, limiting investments until someone has a liquid net worth of 1M or other limit has proven suboptimal. These specialized products are risk management tools - perhaps used to hedge a portfolio without selling and realizing gains, or taking advantage of markets that would otherwise be unavailable without a large
