I oppose the proposed restrictions on leveraged or inverse funds. To me, those funds are invaluable in allowing me sometimes invest in a diversified index simulating single stock performance but without single stock risk, especially during earnings season where price gap downs can occur. They also help me easily maintain my portfolio value in market downturns. Please allow me to continue trading
I strongly oppose any regulation on trading leveraged and inverse funds. I use them extensively to build wealth and create an income stream which my wife and I live on. Like any investment vehicle, these carry certain risks. However, I am ok with the risks because I harness the added power they give my trading strategies. It is much easier to profit trading them than individual stocks. I have
I oppose any restrictions on the right to make investments in leveraged and inverse ETFs. These investments are critical to my investment performance and successful trading strategy. I do not need to jump through a bunch of hoops to be granted "permission" to freely contract and do something that I have been successfully doing for many years.
These ETFs already have plenty of
I do not need a regulator to tell me what I can invest in or not, unless there is clear evidence that there is insufficient market competition, market failure or market inefficiency. I use a portion of leveraged funds to either hedge my overall portfolio, or to enhance my returns, depending on where the market stands at a given time. As an almost-fulltime personal investor, I am well-versed in
To whom it may concern:
Leveraged funds are vital to responsible management of my family's investments. I've been tasked to safeguard our family monies and this responsibility has taken on extra urgency since my father died and my mother experienced a major stroke.
I have used SPXS as an insurance policy against a major market downturn. Certain external risk factors -- Putin,
I use a leveraged product to protect my retirement investments. When the market corrects, as it is doing now, this investment stabilizes the portfolio through varying market conditions. The product could not be simpler: as the value of the tracking index sinks, the value of the leveraged fund increases. Taking away insurance that limits downside risk is going to hurt investors. Why do you want to
Dear FINRA,
I understand all investment vehicles have risk and one can lose your principal. Making it harder for ever day Americans to be able to invest in leveraged and inverse funds only empowers the rich and well connected. I should have the right to be able to invest in public products. I am a sophisticated investor that understands risks and should not have to go through special processes
I'm a retail investor. From my perspective, the entire reason for the (increasingly public) debate over short-selling regulations stems from the loopholes in reporting that are being exploited to the detriment of investors at all levels and to the detriment of the integrity of American markets at large. In this context, I believe the language in this Notice does not go far enough to allay my
I am extremely upset with this proposed rule as I want the ability to choose what public investments are right for me and my family, and not some bureaucratic regulator that knows nothing about me or my situation. I should not be forced to go through a bunch of ridiculous hoops and processes to be able to decide how I should invest my money. I am well aware of the risks of leveraged and inverse
It makes no sense to me for regulators to restrict access to leveraged and inverse funds to accredited investors. I am an accredited investor for many purposes but earlier in my investing career, I was well aware of the risks of leverage but because such funds were rare, I was unable to access them without incurring substantial margin debt. Similarly, investors need access to inverse funds when
