The risks of investing are well known. Loss of capital is always possible. The risks of investing in leveraged and inverse funds are equivalent. As an investor, I don't need the government to tell me what I may or may not invest in. Your duty is not to protect me from myself, or from possibly poor decisions I may make. At the limit, your duty may be to inform me of risks, but beyond that, it
Dear Sirs, for several years I have been investing in the market and I am well aware of the risks and rewards of the available assets and tools to negotiate them. I am a retired small trader with accounts at three different brokers, therefore I wrote three of these comments, one for each platform. I am an educated person and feel comfortable and aware of my investment proficiency, Please, do not
Dear Sir/Madam:
Leveraged and inverse funds are a vital part of helping me to hedge my portfolio and avoiding constant trading. I use these tools to short the S&P 500 or other indexes when they have become frothy (in my view). These products reduce the volatility and allow me to stay in core positions longer. I use them as short-term hedges and the risks of staying in them too long
I should be able to choose the public investments that are right for you and your 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. I am capable and am sure many others are as well, of understanding
I am a retail investor that needs access to the same shares, instruments and leveraged techniques and hedges institutional and very well to do investors have. I understand and assume all risk with my capital. I use some of these instruments to seek higher returns in some cases or hedge against loss in other instances. As long as there is a prospectus and a warning on use and misuse of these tools
This proposed rule is a bad idea. Making any investments is inherently risky - even the "blue chip" stocks have periods when they don't do well. Some people have a higher tolerance for risky investments than others. If they are willing to take the risks involved in buying into an investment, and they have the wherewithal to afford it, they should not be limited.
Also
This idea of regulation is only to block the average citizen from becoming financially secure. For whatever reason our so called democratic government is striving to keep the common citizen from attaining wealth. This is a classic case of creating a Cass system. Shame on our government for trying to keep the majority poor, when there is more than enough to go around. In keep the majority poor the
I am writing in response to the proposal to regulate the use of inverse ETFs and leveraged funds. I strongly oppose the federal government regulating which public investments I can and cannot invest in for myself and my family, as well as any additional regulatory processes required to make an investment of my choosing. There are already plenty of disclosures that address the potential risks and
We do not need further regulations on funds which can be invested by normal people. Further limiting parties who can invest in these funds removes opportunities for investment equality as well as potential economic growth. Any stock market investment should be considered for risk. There is already significant notifications as to the additional risks involved in a leveraged fund. Please do not
Comments: The Brokerage firm clearly stated the risk associated with the leveraged ETF and the warning before the trade that the risk is understood and also the Risks associated with the ETF which could amplify gains or losses and the intended use for short term as well as the long term returns will not match the underlying index performance.
May be adding real performance example during recent
