Ive been using leveraged funds e.g., UPRO for 14 years. Its a critical part of my trading strategy. I fully understand the risks, and in many ways, its less risky than borrowing money (i.e., margin account) to implement my trading strategy. My demonstrated success in using these funds as part of my trading strategy is testament to the fact that traders can learn through reading and experimenting
The ability for investors to invest in leveraged ETFs should not be altered in any way. ProShares and other firms do an excellent job informing investors of the inherent risks in leveraged ETFs. It is then up to the investor to make his/her own informed decision on whether he/she has the risk appetite to invest in such funds. In a free market democratic society, investing ones own earned funds
The ability to freely access leveraged and inverse investment products allows even the small investor both opportunity and protection from market volatility. True, there are some who use these freedoms unwisely, but that is true of anything. Existing safeguards and regulations, in my opinion, are sufficient for the majority of investors, and risk and foolish choices will never be squeezed from
It is absurd to prevent Americans from investing in any sort of securities that they want to. Risk assessment should be done by the investor, not by government regulators. For example, anyone could invest in a NASDAQ fund. But a leveraged fund gives me 3x the return (and risk) for 1x the investment. I would have to invest 3x as much to get the same return. That just ties up more of my money
I purchased a leveraged and inverse fund to play the rise in interest rates. I looked at the alternatives, decided how much risk I was comfortable taking, and purchased a 2X fund which has done very well in a time of rising interest rates. While I may not be rich, I am educated and quite capable of making decisions. Banning these investments smacks of authority limiting my ability to make
Comments: I believe that limiting access to leveraged ETFs would be unfair to small traders. While leverage increases risk of loss, I think taking instruments like TQQQ away from the general public does more harm than good. You can try to prevent one person from losing money, but if that also severely handicaps someone who is actually seeing returns, I am not convinced that is a net good, all
Dear Madam, Sir,
I strongly believe passing this law would hurt investors like me who are getting to the capital market with small investments and using inverse funds as a hedge strategy to beat the market volatility, even though it is a small portion of my overall portfolio.
I believe public investment should be available to all of the public without any requirement of passing a test. Anyone who
Well as usual the government is over reaching. It is okay to risk my money in the market as long as I am losing money. If I take position that I feel will make me money the government steps in and wants to make sure I do not. You still get your "cut" in taxes! Anyway, I still run the same risk that the market will go up and wipe out my short position. I do not need the
Comments: Good day!
The approach of limiting access to products instead of educating the consumers is a wrong one. It means taking a stance that the only people who should have access to the market are professional investors and accredited investors.
I would recommend providing more guidance on how retail plstforms have to provide the disclosures and warnings to consumers, so that there is a
Please consider that some investors utilize ETFs that are inversely related to financial instruments like stocks, indexes or bonds to short a market without the unlimited losses possible if shorting those instruments directly. These types of ETFs allow small investors to limit their risk and conveniently position themselves to benefit from declining markets.
Additionally, instruments that
