This is another example of government over-reach. I should be able to choose the public investments that I deem are appropriate for my goals! I am quite capable of understanding risks associated with securities, as well as those associated with crypto-funds such as BITO. I do not need special processes passed on to me to pass a test, nor approval of my broker.
My investments are spread among
Dear Madam, Sir,
I strongly believe passing this law would hurt investors like me who are getting to the capital market with small investments and using inverse funds as a hedge strategy to beat the market volatility, even though it is a small portion of my overall portfolio.
I believe public investment should be available to all of the public without any requirement of passing a test. Anyone who
As an experienced investor who has been making my own financial decisions for 20 years, I find it to be an overreach by FINRA to restrict the ability for me to make my own decisions, thus forcing me to utilize unnecessary investment advisor firms. There are countless resources available to the general public, as well as investment documentation available to investors to understand the risks
It is absurd to prevent Americans from investing in any sort of securities that they want to. Risk assessment should be done by the investor, not by government regulators. For example, anyone could invest in a NASDAQ fund. But a leveraged fund gives me 3x the return (and risk) for 1x the investment. I would have to invest 3x as much to get the same return. That just ties up more of my money
I purchased a leveraged and inverse fund to play the rise in interest rates. I looked at the alternatives, decided how much risk I was comfortable taking, and purchased a 2X fund which has done very well in a time of rising interest rates. While I may not be rich, I am educated and quite capable of making decisions. Banning these investments smacks of authority limiting my ability to make
Well as usual the government is over reaching. It is okay to risk my money in the market as long as I am losing money. If I take position that I feel will make me money the government steps in and wants to make sure I do not. You still get your "cut" in taxes! Anyway, I still run the same risk that the market will go up and wipe out my short position. I do not need the
First of all, thank you for letting me know about this. I know enough about leveraged and inverse funds and am constantly dealing with their risks. And I am constantly striving to acquire for a lot of knowledge and information. Therefore, I oppose any restrictions or other testing measures on my investment rights. Currently, the leveraged stocks I focus on invest in because they are made up of
Comments:IF it ins't broke don't fix it. I am 77 and invest solely in inverse leveraged ETFS. What are the alternatives? Puts where I can lose all my money in a matter of hours or a short sale where I face unlimited losses?If I can't invest in inverse leveraged ETFS, then no one should and you can just make them extinct. My guess is Wall Street has a poor record of recommendations
I strongly disagree with making it harder to trade complex products, specifically leveraged and inverse funds. If I had to meet similar qualifications and go through much the same processes required for margin and options, then I would be tempted to simply go ahead and sign up for those as well or instead, which would expose me to dramatically higher risks than any ETF. It's quite likely
I think a lot of this regulation is being generated to disenfranchise the retail investor. Please allow "regular" working people to continue diversifying their portfolios with products that may seem too "complex" for them to understand. Putting burdensome and elitist restrictions on financial products that empower the middle class is a form of slavery that is not
