So I can buy ridiculous options, yet I cant inverse through a diversified fund? This is ridiculous, and only gives institutions more leverage. Timing is interesting as well considering weve been in such a long bull run, now that the markets are volatile we get this notice!?
Regulatory ObligationsSEA Rule 15c3-3 (Customer Protection Rule) imposes requirements on firms that are designed to protect customer funds and securities. Firms are obligated to maintain custody of customers’ fully paid and excess margin securities and safeguard customer funds. Firms satisfy these requirements by keeping customer funds in a special reserve bank account and by maintaining customer
Firm Violated Reg BI, Excessively Traded, and Churned Numerous Customer Accounts, Including Those of Gold Star FamiliesWASHINGTON—FINRA announced today that it has expelled Monmouth Capital Management for churning and excessively trading customer accounts in violation of Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI), failing to supervise its representatives, and providing false and misleading disclosures to
Stop trying [REDACTED] with retail investors! Enforce the rules on short hedge funds, stop dark pools and naked shorting. Retail has removed hedge funds from operating and we can remove your agency as well. Retail ain't nothing [REDACTED]
The risks of trading leveraged and inverse ETFs are well known. Retail traders who can trade options or futures should be able to trade such ETFs without restriction. Its less expensive and easier to do than trading options and futures and dealing with margin etc.
Pamela Davis , I should be able to purchase as well to whatever stocks I deem to acquire. I should not have to be tested per se or read certain materials to purchase. This is controlling and manipulative ways to not allow person who are not stock regulators to purchase stock. This is a travesty to say the least.
This possible new regulation makes no sense as you already have to be approved by many brokers to invest in leveraged funds. This seems like a new way to limit the possible returns an investor can make, as well as cater to more institutional investors rather than individuals.
I am opposed to changes in my ability to invest in inverse or leveraged securities, because it is an important part of my investment work. I am very well informed about all of this, and these proposed changes would cost me a lot of money. I will take you to court if necessary.
Comments: I think leveraged and inverse ETFs should be available to retail investors. They give access to the ability to hedge and provide more liquidity then options. They are much safer then options as well. Disclaimers on these instruments make sense but I think it is a disservice to limit access to these items for everyday retail investors.
The elements of your proposed legislation is unfair, arbitrary and capricious.
I opposed it on the grounds that it is discriminatory, and an intrusive overreach of a regulatory agency.
I believe that if banks and large investing institutions such as corporations can invest in a financial instrument then so should a free American have that right as well.
Mitch Naylor
