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
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 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 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 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
Although it might be good intention to enforce more rules and regulation for leveraged and inverse ETFs. The enforcement could create unfair conditions for investors. Leveraged and inverse ETFs might have their own unique characteristics. But once put on the market and traded freely by market participants, the market force will help regulate behaviors of investors. All investments have risk. And
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 understand that regulations being considered by FINRA might impact my ability to invest in leveraged funds or place an unnecessary burden on being able to do so. I have been managing my portfolio for only a few years now and am on a fast learning curve. Investing in a triple leveraged index fund was not such a hard decision and I put less than 5% of my total wealth in it. I've made
I oppose your attempts to restrict my ability to chose my own investments. Publicly traded investments should be available to all of the public, not just a select privileged few and large institutions.
Leveraged funds and inverse funds are, if used correctly, be a powerful tool to add to a portfolio. I use them as a small portion of my investments. I understand and accept the risks involved
ACTION REQUESTED
Intermarket Surveillance Group
SUGGESTED ROUTING
KEY TOPICS
Legal & Compliance
Operations
Senior Management
Blue Sheets
Executive Summary
This Notice to Members discusses new uniform provisions regarding the automated reporting requirement for Electronic Blue Sheets (EBS).
Effective August 8, 2001 all members were required to:
(1)
