Regarding leveraged ETFs: It would be so unfair to make investors go through even more hoops to invest our money. It is my choice what to do. It is mot like I'm passing my debt to other taxpayers like lazy liberals transferring student debt they said they would pay back. Do you regulators not know what a leveraged ETF actually is? You allow penny stock purchases (rightfully so). You
I am against restrictions on individuals who want to invest in leveraged ETFS for the following reasons:
1. Certain diversified leveraged ETFs really aren't that much riskier then picking a single stock and have a place in certain portfolios
2. This puts the retail investor at a huge disadvantage and funnels more profit into investment managers pockets.
3. As a retail investor I should
There are dozens of vehicles in which people can choose to make investments. Individual stocks are very likely, if not managed correctly, to lead to substantial investment losses. This is also true with options, futures, FX, etc...
The key factor in all investment decisions is managing things the right way. Having different tools to help improve investment results are important. We should not
As an individual investor, I will OBJECT too much regulatory requirements on investors. It will NOT protect small investors, instead of creates confusion and overhead (which will be added to investors in some way). Most stocks aren't less risky than leveraged and inverse funds are.
Any proposal that testing specialized investment knowledge, demonstrate a high net worth and go though a
I am, in general, opposed to the need for additional barriers of entry to use leveraged and inverse funds. The existing regulations require stockbrokers to monitor age and balances of accounts, and already quiz traders on their experience using such investment tools. There is always a risk no matter what the investment, and there's no real difference between leveraged/inverse funds and
I am a private investor with over 30 years of investing experience. My portfolio consists of individual companies, ETFs of various sorts and mutual funds providing a comfortable level diversity. I understand the need for investors with limited experience not to have access to leveraged funds as well as option training without some level of training so they understand the associated risks. I would
I'm just a lower-middle class investor. For the most part, the general public should be allowed to invest in inverse and leveraged funds as long as the companies providing them aren't out to scam the public with unreasonable and/or suspicious tricks. If there is something unusual about a fund, a brief-to-the-point and clear explanation, avoiding double-negative language,
I OPPOSE any regulation related to the restrictions proposed. I reserve the right to invest as I see fit based on my free will and ability to suceed or fail with my investment strategy. My investment strategy may include leveraged ETFs, and any other instruments that involve risk.
I dont want testing or any other qualifications imposed on me to be able to invest in what I desire.
I have been
I oppose the proposed rule changes from FINRA that may prevent or restrict investors from buying a broad range of public securities designated as complex products.
I believe that while consumer protection is key, the overarching trend of the past 20 years has been towards greater consumer choice in their investment options. Although this has at times led to deviations from what one may argue is
I should be able to decide where to invest my hard earned money. The stock is owned by stockholders - not the government. Regulation will just keep those who have lots of money and big business in control of the market while keeping the larger public out of being able to invest where we want to. I already have no income from the company I retired from (not like the good old days) and I use my
