This is a disgusting overreach by the government.
Retail investors and retail traders should be allowed to invest and trade in whichever financial products that are available to them. We sign numerous disclosures and acknowledge numerous warnings that are standard and provided by our brokerage platforms. We have the capacity to engage in this and should be allowed to take risks as we see fit, and
I submit that the current controls of the brokerage company when any investor invests in any leveraged ETFs / ETNs are adequate.
1. Every investor when trades in Leveraged ETFs / ETNs mandatorily signs the Designated Investments Agreement that clearly states the risk & the qualification
requirements.
2. Every time the investor places order of any Leverages ETFs / ETNs, the system
Comment Period Expires June 15, 1994
SUGGESTED ROUTING
Senior ManagementInstitutionalInternal AuditLegal & ComplianceOperationsResearchSyndicateTradingTraining
Executive Summary
The Board of Governors of the NASD is soliciting member comment on a proposed Interpretation under Article III, Section 1 of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice whereby it would be considered a violation of
I have invested on my own for for 36 years, doing my own due diligence, reading, and using my informed judgement. People make all types of financial decisions such as career choices, where or whether to purchase a home, what type of healthcare they access, the foods they consume, where they travel, etc.- the list could go on for pages. Any mature adult of sound mind can make financial
As an individual investor, I will OBJECT too much regulatory requirements on investors. It will NOT protect small investors, instead of creates confusion and overhead (which will be added to investors in some way). Most stocks aren't less risky than leveraged and inverse funds are.
Any proposal that testing specialized investment knowledge, demonstrate a high net worth and go though a
I'm just a lower-middle class investor. For the most part, the general public should be allowed to invest in inverse and leveraged funds as long as the companies providing them aren't out to scam the public with unreasonable and/or suspicious tricks. If there is something unusual about a fund, a brief-to-the-point and clear explanation, avoiding double-negative language,
I oppose the proposed rule regarding increased restrictions on trading certain funds / securities. I, and other members of the public, am capable of making investment decisions and can suitably analyze the benefits / drawbacks to various investments. Taking risks is a fundamental part of the human experience, and placing further limits on the kinds of people who can trade certain products will
As a professional investor with 15 years on Wall Street and another 8 years at the US Treasury, I find this stretch to be over-regulation. Investors should have the ability to choose investments and while limiting investment choices makes a sense for some investors, broadening the scope to require additional hurdles and an regulator review is an over stretching. Investing is risky. Investors are
Ive been well informed by my stock broker with written documents and explanation about the risk of leveraged and inverse funds/ETFs. Therefore, I DO have the knowledge and understanding about the risks/rewards regarding the said funds/ETFs. Thus, I would like the freedom to trade inverse and leveraged ETFs since they enable me the flexibility to profit from both rising or falling or even flat
The tools of an investor to offset risk through the use of some of the inverse or short funds could substantially impact their ability to mitigate losses. Investors need to understand the risks involved in EVERY product, including publicly traded stocks. ALL investments carry risk, every single one. The Boards ability to define who is knowledgeable or not is overstepping their scope of regulation
