Hello, I believe everyone should be able to choose the public investments that are right for them and their family. Public investments should be available to all of the public, not just the privileged. Leveraged and inverse funds are important to my investment strategies. I use them for hedging, as well as investing at times of downturn, like today. I am perfectly capable of understanding their
Leveraged funds are important to my investment strategy. I diversify my investments in the market as a whole and use leveraged funds to boost my returns. If I am able to invest in the S&P, I should be able to leverage that. I am well informed on how the leverage products work including decay. I implore you not to limit my ability to invest as I see fit.
I have used inverse ETFs for over twenty years, well aware that they are risky investments. Yet they are important to diversify away and/or risk-manage my core "long" positions. Losing this functionality would seriously INCREASE the risk in my investment process. Please do not block or qualify the use of inverse ETFs any more than at present.
Please do not attempt to restrict the use of specialty investments. They are needed for a well rounded approach to many peoples portfolios. If someone doesn't understand an investment they shouldn't be using it, or leave it to a professional. Do you really think your going to protect someone from themselves, when the don't know what they are doing? Leave the use of
The risks and benefits of leveraged ETFs are well known to investors. I should be able to invest in a product that I research and feel comfortable investing in. If we regulate leveraged etfs, what about regulating home purchasing (5x leverage) or the actions of Wall Street.. where large players can easily manipulate single stocks through short selling or otherwise?
People have the right to take risks on investments they choose to willingly participate. This is a tremendous overreach of freedom to do with one's money as they please. By this proposed rule's logic by FINRA, no one should be allowed to gamble without an approval process and testing (as well as cooling-off period) on how the gamble-based game they are about to play works and
As a regular citizen investing, I understand that investments carry risk. The argument for restricting inverse and leveraged funds is probably to reduce my risk, but if you reduce all my risk down to nothing, what's the point? I might as well put all my money in a savings account. Please let me continue to make my own choices.
That is not a well advised proposal. It sounds like pure bureacracy that will do little to protect t people. I am a day trader and have a margin account. I use these investments quite often and do not think I need to jump through any more hoops. Please devote your attention to more pressing issues instead of limiting people's ability to invest.
I strongly object to proposed restrictions on my personal investment options for our family's retirement income strategy, including buying leveraged and inverse funds. I'm quite pleased with and confident in my relationship with my financial advisor in this regard, and am very much opposed to the addition of new gates and hurdles in the process, no matter how well intended.
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend Section 4 of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws to: (1) revise the fee for the Regulatory Element of continuing education (“CE”); (2) establish the fee for individuals who elect to maintain their qualification following the termination
