I believe short interest should be more limited to 15% max 10 business day holds but then have to cover, I personally think its wrong to short a stock when the company is doing well on the books but on the market they are being pummeled to the point of needing an RS and then they are shorted even more to the point of needing another rs. This is where I believe it becomes criminal, Shorts need
Please require all institutions and bonafide market makers to report their short positions who are subject to 13(f). Real time reporting of short positions would be beneficial as well. SSR rule needs to also account for naked shares. There have been multiple cases of $gme and $amc being shorted on red candles instead of being shorted on green candles when SSR is active.
General’s speaking, the more reporting, the better. Especially when it comes to short interest as well as synthetic short positions. As a day/swing trader, given how quickly the markets move and their volatility, weekly reporting doesn’t help me because I need to operate on the most up to date information possible. So daily reporting would be the only thing worth it to me. Thanks for doing this
I want in depth reports on short positions for any and every stock on the market. I also want reports on how many of those short positions are on loan as well as the strike numbers for each individual option. Secondly, short sellers (mainly institutions) should absolutely not be able to hold MASSIVE uncovered short options. They should be required to have covered puts before placing any puts.
Is there a rule that addresses prohibited conditions relating to expungement of customer dispute information?
Yes, FINRA Rule 2081 provides that no member or associated person shall condition or seek to condition settlement of a dispute with a customer on, or to otherwise compensate the customer for, the customer’s agreement to consent to, or not to oppose, the member’s or associated person’s
I have been invested for a number of years in a number of products that are being considered for additional regulation, including CEFs, target date funds, high yield bond funds, leveraged/inverse funds, and crypto-backed funds. I researched these funds before investment, and expect anyone else would as well.
These funds have been some of the most productive in my portfolio, and I think anyone
As a life-long investor and a former registered representative with a Series 7 license, I learned that each person's investment strategy is unique to their current, as well as future, needs. Also, each individual's net worth may require hedging strategies that only leveraged and inverse funds can provide. To restrict access to these investment products means that regulators
As an adult who has invested for decades, Im well aware of the pitfalls and benefits of investing in leveraged funds. Limiting these funds to only high net worth individuals is further assuring that only high net worth individuals can prosper in the investment world. Havent poorer people been kicked to the curb and prevented from prospering long enough? Havent regulators presumed that poorer
I am fully aware of risks and benefits associated with leveraged ETFs. I have made a conscious decision investing in these funds which has helped me achieve my retirement goals sooner. I work for University of Southern California who has not been able to help me in retirement saving. I achieved in a short period of time what university's retirement fund specialists were planning in 20
You are limiting investor freedoms, although you may think you have good intentions, and you may be doing this on the eve of a bear market, which we haven't seen since 2008-9.
Who will this benefit? Hedge funds with a lot more political power than individual investors?
Making normal hedging in down markets less accessible to individual investors is not doing us a favor. We are stewards
