I strongly disagree with making it harder to trade complex products, specifically leveraged and inverse funds. If I had to meet similar qualifications and go through much the same processes required for margin and options, then I would be tempted to simply go ahead and sign up for those as well or instead, which would expose me to dramatically higher risks than any ETF. It's quite likely
This proposal makes no sense. We understand the risks of owning these securities. The leverage per se is not a distinguishing feature. Individual investors own leveraged securities all the time. We buy futures, options etc.. Leveraged funds are simply a packaged, and often much more liquid way to do the same. All this regulation will do is boost the profits of FCMs and increase transactions costs
I am a small investor who needs the opportunity to prevent losses due to changes in the stock market. Taking away ability to protect my assets will severely impact my ablity to support myself and my family. Public investments, such as the ones FINRA is proposing to impose special requirements on, should be available to all Americans and not for just the privileged. The proposed changes to #S7-24-
I totally reject the government restricting my access to investment products that are properly and transparently marketed and regulated with regards to their upside and downside risks. I totally reject any attempts of the government to extend any exclusion of public markets to exacerbate the wealth disparity we already have. Please spend your time and our taxpayer money on the following: #
I think a lot of this regulation is being generated to disenfranchise the retail investor. Please allow "regular" working people to continue diversifying their portfolios with products that may seem too "complex" for them to understand. Putting burdensome and elitist restrictions on financial products that empower the middle class is a form of slavery that is not
SUGGESTED ROUTING
Senior Management
Legal & Compliance
Operations
Registration
Executive Summary
The 1994-95 NASD broker/dealer and agent registration renewal cycle begins its second phase this month. The NASD is publishing information in this Notice to help members review, reconcile, and respond to the final adjusted invoice packages that were mailed to all member firms
NASD Imposes $200 Fee for Form 211 Applications
On January 2, 1992, the SEC approved a proposed rule change by the NASD relating to a fee for Form 211 applications filed with the NASD pursuant to Schedule H, Section 4 of the NASD By-Laws. The rule change is effective immediately and, as a result, a $200 filing fee will be required together with each Form 211 application received on or after
SUGGESTED ROUTING
Senior ManagementLegal & ComplianceOperationsRegistration
Executive Summary
The 1993-94 NASD broker/dealer and agent registration renewal cycle begins its second phase this month. The NASD is publishing information in this Notice to assist members in reviewing, reconciling, and responding to the Final Adjusted Invoice packages that are being mailed to all member
If you leave assets untouched and have no contact with the entity holding your accounts for too long, they might be deemed abandoned or unclaimed property. While there are avenues for recovering these assets, there are also preemptive steps you can take to help you avoid this situation.
INFORMATIONAL
Regulatory Fees
Implementation Date: October 1, 2002
SUGGESTED ROUTING
KEY TOPICS
Compliance
Legal
Senior Management
NASD By-Laws
Regulatory Fee
Executive Summary
As announced in Notice to Members 02-41, NASD has amended Section 8 of Schedule A to the NASD By-Laws, eliminating the Regulatory Fee and instituting a new transaction-based Trading Activity Fee
