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
Dear FINRA Regulators,
I would like to oppose the restrictions on certain investments deemed as "Complex". As part of my investment strategy I would like to continue to invest in public securities such as leveraged and inverse funds without going through any special process. These investments are important for my future financial goals.
I use systematic investment strategies to
I have researched various different leveraged funds (and strategies) and believe that in my 20s being able to apply leverage to my investment strategy and to deleverage as I get older will allow me to maximize my returns while reducing my risk given my long investment timeline. Specifically I plan on using a combination of leveraged broad stock market funds and bond funds and maintaining a set
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'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 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
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
The tools of an investor to offset risk through the use of some of the inverse or short funds could substantially impact their ability to mitigate losses. Investors need to understand the risks involved in EVERY product, including publicly traded stocks. ALL investments carry risk, every single one. The Boards ability to define who is knowledgeable or not is overstepping their scope of regulation
