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 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 the sole ability to choose what investments I want to pursue. I oppose any restrictions of my right to invest in any public investment available in the market place. It is ridiculous to have to pass a special test so I may invest in a public security. If/when I invest in a leveraged and/or inversed fund, I do understand the risks, my goodness I am literate, educated, and capable of
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
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
Hello, I disagree with the rules this document is proposing. These products are cleared labeled as leverage products and the retail investor is aware of the risks and strategies involved. These are outlined in the prospectus and online which are sent to every trader. This would be a barrier to entry and unnecessary burden for retail investors who already are required to acknowledge the risks when
As a retail investor that has garnered a profit over the years trading options as well as holding leveraged ETFs on and off and having gleaned through the wealth of information available to me about these products I don't believe there's any need for further regulation. Both options and leveraged ETFs should be trade-able by "non-sophisticated" retail investors at their own
I oppose restrictions to my right to invest. I, not regulators, should be able to choose the public investment(s) that are right for me. I should not have to go through any special process, like passing a test, before I can invest in public securities. I am 100% capable of understanding leveraged and inverse funds, as well as the risks that come with investing in them. I do not need a regulator
Please understand the consequences of the proposed rule, I need flexibility on investment opportunities and this rule could stop my ability to determine my own investing strategy. I don't need a certification to make the right decision on how I should invest my own money. My money, my risk, no need for anyone else to be involved. Please do not overact because some people play the market and
