I strongly oppose any regulator dictating where and how I can invest my personal money. Investments are an at risk activity and the potential for losses are not limited to leveraged and inverse ETFs. I am confident that I know my risk tolerance better than a federal regulator. If the investment is one I am comfortable investing in I am entitled to the freedom to invest my money, independent of
Dear FINRA regulators,
I want to make it clear that I am against you deciding what I can invest in and what I cannot. I understand you are considering stopping me from investing in leveraged funds. I understand some people may not understand how these funds work, but I know both the risk and opportunity, and those risks are made clear by the fund owners and by Fidelity through whom I invest in
I have used leveraged investment funds for years. I am fully aware of the risks on the up- and down side. The fund issuers explain and highlight the risks and opportunities in full detail. I think that new Government restrictions on the use of these funds are not needed and justified and should not be imposed on me. Investors must have the nonrestrictive right to decide which investments are
FINRA, I should be able to choose the investments appropriate for me including leveraged and inverse funds if I so choose. There should not be special tests imposed to buy these. If you wish to require that brokers issues warnings about risks at the time of purchase, which the buyer must acknowledge, that is okay, but there should not be special processes or tests. I use inverse and sometimes
Having access to inverse funds, such as the ones available from ProShares, is extremely important to me as it helps me hedge risk in my equities portfolio.
I do understand that many consumers may not be familiar with the risks so I fully support limitations on levered funds including 2x, 3x, etc. However, access to inverse funds should be kept available.
Thanks for protecting me as a retail
This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm interested in these products specifically because I understand the risks of leveraging and shorting and I want a proxy institution with higher net worth to assume that risk on my behalf. That's what leveraged and inverse funds offer me. I can't lose anything more than I invest, so how is it any different from other etfs or mutual funds
You seem to be planning to go far beyond any legitimate mandate. Your role should be to make sure investors are adequately informed of the risks of leverage . Make the management pepper their ads, reports etc with as many dire warnings as you like, but kindly allow investors to manage their own risk tolerance. Being a watchguard for investors is not the same as being our mommy.
Roger H. Kaye, MD
Please stop treating investor's like children in kindergarten that need to be protected from themselves -- like a typical Government agency, you think you know better. Stay out of my way - I'm entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that means I can invest where I choose to, hopefully, obtain certain results. All stocks have risks and I understand what those
I wish to maintain my current freedom to invest in public securities of my choosing. Though the notice means to reduce the risk for investors, it will have an echoing effect across asset classes that may not be fully realized. America is a land where we grant greater freedom than most. This freedom has allowed us to create one of the greatest economies of all time. The reduction of risk exposure
Americans deserve the right to take risks. Currently Reddit traders can gamble on options which is much riskier than these funds.
That our prerogative to take risk and if we lose money thats part of investing.
We do not want or need this protection.
Focus on actual pump and dump frauds that are rampant across the industry or Cathie Wood promising 50% compounded annual returns on CNBC if you
