I can understand the goal of protecting novice investors from complex investment tools they lack the sophistication to understand; however, requiring vendors to supply documents to educate the investment community and requiring users to sign off on having reviewed those documents should be the limit of any requirements. Restricting access based upon net worth is absurd.
In addition many
I oppose limitations on leveraged an inverse products.
These products are an important part of my portfolio and are useful tools for securing my long-term financial security.
Furthermore, these don't represent an outsized risk compared to idiosyncratic risk associated with investing in (or short-sellijg) individual stocks -- yet they already carry an *abundantly clear* warning --
I'm opposed to FINRAs proposed limits that may restrict access to L&I Funds or to disqualify individuals from trading L&I Funds or other complex products. Limiting access to investors should never be the answer. Education of the risks should be, which is what my financial institutions have provided. As an investor I understand that a leveraged ETF has increased
I disagree with the proposal to restrict access to leveraged or inverse funds for several reasons:
1. It is not the government's responsibility to tell me what I am capable of investing in. It is my money, my risk.
2. It is my responsibility to determine if an investment is right for me, and to understand benefits and risks.
3. it is not the government's role to assess or
I want the right to invest in Bitcoin. Be it an ETF, Digecoin, or any type of digital currency. Public has allowed me to invest on my terms. I understand the risk involved with buying any stock be it cryptocurrency, blue chip, mutual fund, or bond. Putting restrictions on my account is another layer of beurucacy. If I had wanted to spend hours on paperwork and federal and state forms, I would
Comments: I believe that the foundation of a free market is the ability to choose the financial decisions that we as people make. While I understand that regulation is necessary to create a safe market environment with lower risk and less chance of inexperienced losses, there could be no possible way in which new regulations would be fair to all types of investors. A small percentage of investors
I do not need any regulatory measures imposed on me when Im investing. I can understand the risks of a certain investment. If i do not understand the risks then I wouldnt invest. You may want to limit false advertising/marketing of funds -if there are any- but limiting investors- or just letting a certain group of investors be able to invest on certain securities freely should not be the
I've traded stocks since 1999, and options since 2005. But I spent about 5 years or so learning about options before trading them in earnest. The problem is that nobody reads the fine print they end up sighing off on anyway. The reason is the Ts&Cs are too long and arduous. And they are too long and difficult to understand on purpose so people will give up and check off the
I am writing to request that leveraged and inverse finds remain open to average investors. These products do have their own risks and my broker places several warnings before I can make a trade in an inverse or leveraged product. These are meant for short term and day trading only and there are many warnings that they are not intended for long term and you can lose everything if you do. I think
I find it disturbing that your agency wants to take away my ability to pick investments based on my research and ability to decide how much or little to risk in very common market instruments. Why should I have to take a test to prove to you - unnamed bureaucrats - that I understand the risks and potential rewards of these instruments and what I do with my money.+ What tests can predict the
