As an investor, I think I have the right to choose what assets I can invest..I understood the risk when buying the leverage funds.
Why do I have to go through any special process like passing an exam..?? it sounds ridiculous to me man..so do I have to pass one exam to buy any product..? like I need to pass an exam to buy a share of APPL??
This product is important to my strategy.. I can bear the
I want to have freedom to choose my investments, there is disclosure of risk already before any "risky" asset can be purchased.
I do NOT support further requirements to trade these securities, I should be the one making decisions about risk I am willing to take.
Leveraged and inverse funds play significant role in my trading strategy and investment strategy and can not be
It is my belief that it is my right as an American to choose the public investments that are right for me. I should not have to go through a special process to invest in leveraged or inverse funds. I am an adult and capable of deciding what risks are appropriate for me. I do not need to pass a test to prove to a third party that I can do this, instead I ask: what makes regulators think they
I find it VERY intrusive and limiting to deny individuals with small capital the opportunity to invest in leveraged funds. These funds are professionally managed, providing defined risks to the investor, and should be viewed no differently than a mutual fund with risk and reward based upon a fixed investment strategy that actually limits risk to the investor while providing access to securities
I strongly disagree with the notion that more "guardrails" are needed for retail investors dealing in so-called "complex products." While some products are truly complex and require an investment of time for an investor to fully understand their risks and rewards, other products you name--particularly options--are not truly complex or difficult to understand with a modicum of
As a 'retail investor' I support these measures. I have investments with professional financial advisors/brokers as well as my own self guided investments. I can honestly say if I were to get into complex products such as options, leveraged funds, etc I would not understand the true risks I was taking. I trust my financial advisor/broker to understand and manage these risks, so I would
Hi, I'm writing with concern that my ability to hedge my portfolio volatility via inverse ETFs is under consideration of being limited or taken away. My only comment is that the ability to hedge downside risk via inverse ETF is one of the few ways other than outright selling to cash that I have to reduce risk in certain environments. In a rising rate environment in particular bonds are
Hi SEC, I am a regular investor, investing myself for my money growth to help my family. The 2x and 3x leveraged ETF's give me a brilliant way to carefully craft my strategies for investment needs. I use it very carefully with proper hedging and fully aware of the risks of the downside. It would be pain to see these products go-away from the marked for individual investors like me who is
I totally disagree with the proposal to regulate leveraged and inverse ETF's. They should be available to everyone, not just high net worth individuals. I understand the risks and use them strategically as a small fraction of my overall portfolio. I do not need anyone telling me what to do, or having to prove myself capable. I also totally disagree with the current regulations that restrict
Over the past 6 months I have been investing a relatively small portion of my portfolio in leveraged inverse funds to hedge other portfolio positions.
It is difficult to understand how regulators would presume to require a 'test' or other special requirement to invest in these tools.
Certainly, leverage has risks. Certainly, stocks have risks. If you can't accept that
