The government should not be adding more burdens/hurdles to managing ones finances. We do not need more red tape or more paternalism from the government preventing investors from having access to funds such as these. And given the risk of these funds are lower than a large number of stocks the investor might otherwise buy (or such legislation might drive more investors into options) this will
Comments: Restricting an investor's access to investment products will only put them at a disadvantage. These tools fit into a number of viable investment strategies, and can be useful to hedge a portfolio to mitigate risk. Having higher net worth doesn't not necessarily make someone a more intelligent, qualified investor. Providing information and making investors aware of
I should have the right to choose my investments as I wish. There is no reason to restrict me from investing in Cryptocurrency funds. I understand the risks involved just like I understand the risks in trading options, which I also do daily. Cryptocurrency funds are an important part of my balanced portfolio designed to achieve my financial objectives. I object to having restrictions placed on my
I strongly believe in freedom of trading/investing. There is not much knowledge to have about inverse and other complex ETFs...I dont know how regulators can think this poses risk to public. What poses the risk is limitation of choices for investors. The less choice, the less opportunity to hedge and more losses as a result. For this reason, i ask regulators not to enact this regulation.
Comments: I understand and use the leveraged and inverse funds of Direxion to protect and hedge my other investments .Limiting my access in any way is foolish. I find the disclosures of risks, transparency and education provided is excellent with the funds at Direxion. I find Fidelity brokerage also adds a very protective layer by requiring users sign off on their understanding of the risks of
Hi,
Investors should be able to choose the public
investments that fits my investment goal. I understand the risks and responsible for the consequences.
Public investments should be available to all of the public,
not having to pass a test. Its my own money at risk and shouldnt be restricted on when I can make the trade. I have no influence on the bigger market like the CEO of
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
Leveraged ETFs and options can, in many cases, reduce an investors risk when used as a part of a larger portfolio. To exclude their use by everyday investors is to put many of them in an even more at risk position. Simply buying and holding individual stocks can be much more risky, and the equities market would cease to exist if that weren't allowed.
I oppose any restrictions that would limit or prevent my ability to trade leveraged or inverse funds as part of my investment and trading strategy. These instruments provide a means to hedge investments in volatile market conditions. Investing in the market in general requires accepting a certain level of risk and I understand the risks associated with leveraged and inverse funds. Therefore, I do
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.
