I have been investing for 35+ years. I think I have enough experience and savvy to make my own decisions. I don't take big risks, I may take some small risks here and there. I think you should be more interested in unregulated securities. I personally don't like inverse funds, I stick to options for short term declines.
1. I should be able to decide how I invest. 2. Shorting the market can lead to unlimited loss. Inverse funds limit that loss. 3. Just receiving an option book permits option trading. Receiving the prospectus of the ETFs should be adequate. 4. If you really want to protect the public, improve and enforce fiduciary standards AND selling annuities BEFORE restricting these ETFs.
If the access is restricted to only big players, then you have enhanced the ability of equity funds, hedge funds and investing banks to pillage the retirement funds of those who saved for retirement. Do you favor the raiders or the people? You could do away with shorting and derivatives and one must hold that transaction for 3 days. Thank you
Hello,
I feel like as an individual investor i should be able to choose investments given my own risk tolerance and time horizon. I am able to understand the leveraging aspects and the risks of such investment vehicles. I use such 'short' funds to hedge downside market moves, as the vast majority of mutual funds available for 401K investment are LONG ONLY funds.
Comments: USA is a free market economy. Public investment should be available to 'all public' and not to certain privileged funds holder.
I believe, I have the right to invest/spend my hard earned money by my choice and not by regulator's choice.
Please understand that me and my family's prosperity depend on such tactical short term investment strategies. Thank
Let retail investors invest in whatever they want. It's not the governments job to prevent people from investing in certain securities, especially inverse index funds. Retail investors should be able to play the long and short side without restrictions. Otherwise the investment environment would favor the wealthy who can invest in what they want.
I bought inverse ETF during pandemic to hedge against the market downturn risk and back then there were no restrictions. Now given the huge risk in the market, Id like to have the same ability to hedge my portfolio against the risk in the current market environment so in a health market, short sales or inverse ETFs balance the risk.
As a small independent retail investor I find leveraged and inverse funds a valuable tool in hedging my investments. They enable me to ride out ups and downs of the market without having to sell, short, and/or rebuy securities in turbulent times. Such funds are an invaluable asset, and access to them should not be denied, or limited to high net worth, professionals.
Comments: This isn't how you "protrct" investors. This is only going to further the point market cynics make that you're rigging the game in favor of the rich and Wall Street. Focus on education and guidance by brokers instead of just walling off a market segment. The proposed rule is nothing short of government overreach. This is not how a "free market" works.
I employ a mix of stocks, and both leveraged and non-leveraged ETFs to achieve investment goals for over 10 years. ETFs provide a facile means to establish both long and short positions when markets reach extreme levels. Non availability of inverse and leveraged ETFs would make establishing planned portfolio positions difficult, if not impossible.
