I am completely opposed to any partial or complete restrictions on the right to invest in any public investments. I have been investing in the leveraged/inverse funds for portfolio hedging and have not found them to be any extra risky than regular funds as long as normal risk management process using proper stop loss is followed.
Leveraged and inverse funds are very important for small investors
Hello FINRA,
I oppose the proposed restrictions on my rights to invest. While I appreciate your concern for the safety of my investments, I am fully aware of the risks involved when purchasing leveraged or inverse funds.
Leverage is a useful financial tool used by almost every financial institute in America, and I don't see any reason why I should be barred from using it.
Leverage can be
I strongly oppose any restriction to invest in leveraged and inverse funds.
Anyone should be FREE to make their own decisions and take their own risk for any investment one deems appropriate for their circumstances.
Leverage and inverse funds are an excellent tool to hedge against stocks and market risk and also to enhance returns in the short run as well as in the long run.
Implementing
There are already several messages and warnings that brokerages give before allowing individual investors to invest in complex funds, specifically leveraged funds. It's a really bad idea to restrict these purchases. All this will do is incentivize people to take higher risk approaches at leveraged investing which primarily involves margin purchases or investing on debt. This could result
Dear FINRA,
I think the current rules for investors are sufficient and there should not be more regulations placed on people in making investment decisions. I believe the vast majority of investors understand the risks of being in the market. Leveraged investments and those for accredited investors provided needed capital and are valuable tools in managing risk in a portfolio. Investors do not
The last thing investors need is more bureaucracy between us and our desired investments. Publicly traded investments and brokerages already provide substantial disclosures and education for those looking to improve their investment returns. No one stumbles upon inverse, leveraged, or other specialty ETFs or other trading vehicles. We have identified a specific need or opportunity, and seek out
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
The idea that everyday people need to be "protected" from themselves with further regulation and restrictive safeguards pertaining to "complex investment products" is absolute nonsense and contradicts the very principals of a free and open marketplace. Real problems like naked short selling and big money manipulation goes completely unchecked, yet the magnifying glass is on
FINRA regulators: Please do not add additional regulation to leveraged and inverse funds as proposed in rule #S7-24-15: Why? 1. These are ALREADY public products APPROVED by the SEC and INCLUDE clear risk warnings. Why impose higher hurdles that would PRECLUDE my ability to use these products. I am specifically concerned about the condition to demonstrate high net worth as I am a small investor.
The people / investors not regulators should be able to choose the public investments that are right for our selfs and our families Public investments should be available to all of the public, not just the privileged. As a investor it is our responsibility to understand what we invest in before we invest so the funds your looking to prohibit with restrictions from the retail investor or public
