I certainly do not appreciate your attempt to restrict the public investments. If I choose to GIVE my money away, that is my choice, not yours. My inverse fund investing has helped hedge my losses in this most recent downturn, so why limit it? All investments carry risks and those risks are in your face, so to speak, when you make the investments. This is akin to free speech and should in no way
There is risk investing in the stock market already and we don't need the regulators to impose any restriction on our abilities to buy and sell any stocks, especially those that we may already have positions established. New regulations for existing stocks, including current leveraged and inverse funds, expose investors to unnecessary risks beyond our initial decisions to buy or sell.
Traders in leveraged and inverse products don't need the federal government's protection in the form of limiting our freedom to trade. This proposal is another rung in the ladder of a burgeoining "nanny state," and the government needs to recognize its proper role as protecting us from clear and present dangers, not hypothetical ones. Because these products
I'm blessed to have been able to invest in many of the investments at risk of being able to invest in complex securities. This year with the public stock markets in a bear market my investments in interval funds, non-traded REITS, volatility linked ETFs and hedge funds have offset the risk of owning stocks. Limiting these investments further by imposing test requirements, net worth
As an individual investor I trade many different leveraged ETFs and am fully aware of the risks. I have been trading for 20 years and am well educated about the markets. I also am a member of several stock market investment clubs. Please leave things the way they are now. Everyone should have the opportunity to invest as they see fit and we are all aware of the risks of trading and the potential
I would like to submit my opposition to the actions to restrict access to certain funds that are deemed "complex". The funds are the small investors only ability to hedge their accounts against certain market risks. Without them we are left exposed to unnecessary risks. It's a bad idea to restrict investment opportunities. The reality is that these types of funds may
I should be able to choose the public investments that are right for me. Public investments should be available to ALL of the public not just the wealthy. I should not have to go through any special process before I can invest in public securities. I am capable of understanding leveraged and inverse funds and their risks. I occasionally use leverage and inverse funds for enhanced returns. This is
Jim Reese is Senior Vice President of Data and Analytics for Member Supervision at FINRA. Mr. Reese leads a team of data analysts, risk specialists and data scientists responsible for developing and executing innovative advanced analytics, risk and predictive models, graph and other visualizations to enable, inform and drive the efficiency and effectiveness of Member Supervision and its
Enough of our rights have eroded enough. The United States is FREE nation where it's citizens make their own choices as to whether or not they will invest their money. It is not up to regulators or any other high-minded know-it-all to decide whether or not a person can invest in something. Investing has its risks, just as it has its rewards. It is not and NEVER should be up to some &
Comments: Over the years there has been enough said about the features and risks of the leveraged instruments like 3x ETFs. Brokerages also issue pop-up warnings on the risks and margin requirements as we enter a trade. I am strongly in favor of *not* changing the current rules for these leveraged instruments. Doing so would reduce the investment/trading options for hundreds of thousands retail
