I am opposed to regulation restricting the access to leveraged and specialty investment products by retail investors. I invest in leveraged, inverse, and commodity funds as they suit my needs. They are important hedges against market movements and inflation. I should not have to jump through hoops to access these products. Prospectuses are there for a reason and it is up to the individual to
I oppose restrictions on my right to invest in leveraged and inverse funds - funds that are already approved and trading, and which comprise a relatively small share of my portfolio. I understand the risks that are involved, and I have had to express my views on risk regarding investment strategies to my online broker to be able to trade in the first place. It would be a blow to market
If people are too stupid too understand what they are investing in that is their problem, not the employees of the U.S. tax payers. Regulation should be used only in instances where predatory practices are taking place and can be proven in court. Regulation should not be used because stupid people lost money in risky investments. If you mitigate the risk in this area those stupid people will
Trading has recently become accessible to the public via apps in a way it has never been accessible in the past, and I believe that this broad access should continue to be available to all presently qualified people - for better or worse. The burden of responsibility ultimately falls on the individual to understand the risks of their actions and make decisions accordingly, whether it be in
This proposed regulation is yet another encroachment on the rights of investors, all under the flawed premise that investors need more "protection" than already exists. The Fund industry does an outstanding job of clearly spelling out the risks with leveraged investments, and any so-called investor who doesn't educate themselves to those risks has NO ONE TO BLAME BUT THEMSELVES if
I object strongly to the proposed regulations that would restrict my ability to invest in inverse funds. I am fully aware of the risks associated with such funds, and invest in them to reduce the risks associated with "long" stock and bond funds. My investment in an inverse fund is only a small fraction of my net worth, but my ability to invest at the time of my choosing -- and
I strongly oppose restrictions on my right to invest in public investments. Just become someone isn't already a "high net worth individual" or doesn't have a high salary job, doesn't not automatically mean they are not intelligent enough to understand how investing works. Even more "complex" investing strategies can be learned and
I have been trading leveraged ETFs both long and inverse since 2008. I also read prospectus, SEC filings, etc, and understand the risks involved. I have not had any major losses due to leveraged ETFs, inverse or otherwise and pay close attention to any warnings my brokers provide on a regular basis about the risks involved.
The changes you are proposing are unfounded and are attempting to fix a
I believe FINRA's proposed limits try to address a problem that does not exist. Retail investors should have the freedom to decide what to do with their money and Direxion does a great job with several resources in their website to inform us about the risks of leverage investments.
I understand well what the risks are of investing in leveraged ETFs and they have made me a better investor
This proposal is is limiting to the individual investors. Not allowing investors to access derivatives of the market does not allow for a fair playing field. Investors must be made aware of risks and accept them. Having a level playing field with large investors, real money investors, hedge funds and others allows people to hedge their investments like larger investors. Being able to protect
