I'm writing to register my alarm that FINRA is considering restricting leveraged/inverse funds to only certain investors. This is wrong on many counts, as well as requiring classes or passing tests, which amount to hurdles for the public. Many people, self included, use these kinds of investments to increase returns knowing full well they involve extra risks. I believe we're on the cusp
FINRA Regulators:
While I understand the concern of heightened risk posed by leveraged securities, I am alarmed at the proposed measures restricting investment into these publicly traded leveraged securities, especially requirements related to net worth, because these types of investments allow the type of returns necessary for lower net worth individuals to attain financial success, and
I oppose restrictions on public investments to so-called "complex products" including leveraged and inverse funds. Preventing the general public from accessing these types of investments will subvert the ability of non-high-net-worth individuals from offsetting losses during periods of economic retraction as well as capitalizing during times of volatility with calculated risk-
Public investments should be exactly that- public. As a non-professional investor should not have to go through special processes to invest in public securities such as leveraged or inverse funds. The market is already stacked against the small investor since we cannot access the 'instant' trades where the professionals make so much of their profits. The proposed regulation
Dear FINRA Regulator,
I am retired and derive much of my income from investments. I prefer to make long term investments but have no desire to make complex individual futures trades myself to protect my long term investments during times of exceptional volatility. I do, however, like to utilize inverse funds and leveraged inverse funds to minimize my downside risk when market volatility gets
Regarding my right to invest in leveraged and inverse funds.........................I oppose any further restrictions and / or requirements regarding my right to invest in any products in which I choose to invest. I have invested in leveraged and inverse funds for over 20 years and I do not believe that these products need to be regulated any further. I understand the risks and I believe that
I - not regulators – should be able to choose the public
investments that are right for me and my family.
Public investments should be available to ALL of the
public, not just the privileged.
• I shouldn't have to go through any special process
like passing a test before I can invest in public securities,
like leveraged and inverse funds. I am quite capable of
I won't speak to all "complex products" - but the vague, undefined and arbitrary definition should be more tightly drafted to not include or restrict retail customer access to investments as relatively simple as a 2x or 3x index-based fund. These types of investment can help pass along economies of scale with respect to borrowing and therefore increase access to the markets for
Dear Sir or Mz, Please do not put into place any regulation or test which would impede a retail investors ability to trade leveraged index funds. Trading leveraged index funds such as ProShares funds is a convenient, easy way for a small investor to make a good living. There is always risk in any trading activity. This is well understood by the great majority of traders whether small or
I oppose the SEC Proposed Rule #S7-24-15 for the following reasons 1. It is a form of Central Control for the "government" to impose its judgement on investors about investment vehicles that play a key role in risk mitigation for portfolio managers. 2. It is way to impose additional costs on investors and barriers to market efficiency. When markets are made less efficient people will
