Comments: The education around the risks of these products has been openly communicated to me and other investors. Investing in any of these products is the sole risk of the investor. Many want to stay away from them. For me, it provides a great opportunity for my investment goals. These products cater to a unique need in the market and preventing anyone with those investment goals from accessing
I use leveraged ETFs everyday and am well aware of the risks involved. Pulling retail access from them cripples the idea of a free market. Removing them does not make the market any less risky for retail investors, there are plenty of retail investors who have lost it all on worthless meme stocks such as $GME. This proposal makes no sense once its thought out and reduces 0 risk.
I want to state me displeasure at your attempt to limit my investing in leveraged or inverse funds. I know the risks involved in this type of investment. One of the risks was not the government stepping in and potentially making my current investments plummet in value.
There would be so many rules involved I would have an extremely tough time selling my shares, plus I want to leave open the
Dear Sirs/Madams:
I object very strongly to any FINRA regulation which would limit my freedom to choose my own investment tools to manage my own assets. I have been an investment professional for more than 60 years and fully understand the risks of inverse and/or leveraged ETFs which I use as a hedge against market risk.
John M. Bruderman Jr., CFA charter 1841
This is extremely disturbing information that FINRA would seek to limit individual investor access to more complex investment products. Retail investors are already saddled with significant disadvantages. This only serves to further stack the regulations against them. I invested in leveraged products fully aware of the inherent risks. To take these investments away from those retail investors
As a 91 yr-old with over 70 years of experience in the Securities Markets__15 of those years as a Registered Broker__I have witnessed countless examples of inept actions by Big Govt. "Hedge Fund" connotes dodgy transac- tions in the view of most. And yet the basic strategy's been used with commodities, insurance and debt securities for 100's of years to REDUCE "risk
Hi,
I am very concerned about the FINRA Regulator notice #22-08 with the following reasons:
(1) I should be able to choose the public investments that are right for my family. Public investments should be available to all of the public, not just the privileged.
(2) I am capable of understanding leveraged and inverse funds and their risks. Unnecessary measures and extra requirements actually
Good evening,
Being able to invest in the products of my choice is extremely important to me and my family. Without inverse ETF products I wouldn't be able to hedge against long positions in our retirement accounts. The only way to manage risk would be to sell down long positions further increasing risk of abrupt market sell offs. Thank you for trusting Americans as individuals to manage
I believe it is the prerogative of individual investors to choose for themselves their risk appetite. Placing such strict regulation on leveraged investment vehicles would do very little to protect a select few investors and very much to send destructive ripples through the entire investing community. I strongly oppose such regulation and favor instead a free market approach where, as mentioned
Heavy disclosure on the risks associated with these securities (leveraged funds) already exist. The brokerage community is doing a fine job without any required regulation. Tax payer monies can be better spent. As an example, when I purchase these securities in my account, and I use several brokerage firms, a large warning sign pops up and I can not complete the trade until I have read the note
