Hello, First of all any rule changes should effect at least after 12 months (maybe 24 months) to be fair for the investors. We are using these funds generally to protect (hedge) our investment or sometimes to gain in a short time. We know the risk of the any investment which we are investing. So, actually/generally I oppose restrictions on my right to invest in public investments. Rules should
Hi, These detailed changes are very important for a lot of people. They would leave the market as a much more transparent way to invest as there would be less reliance on rumour surrounding primarily short interest and synthetic shares. The companies involved in these large amounts of share borrowing would be much more open to legal action as illegal activity would be more obvious. These changes
Dear Regulators, As an investor, 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 agree that there should be warning agreements that need to be checked that an investor understands what they are getting into and the risks, JUST AS ALREADY EXISTS. NO
STOP THE MADNESS! It's hard to believe that another agency is again wanting to control/restrict me, telling me how and what to trade. I am 66 years old, have been trading stocks since 1998 (24 years now). I am the only one that should be deciding on the risk of whatever stock or ETF that I (not FINRA) am going to invest in. I am abundantly capable of making these decisions on my own, and
It is extremely important to me that I maintain at least the current level of freedom to flexibly and effectively invest via leveraged and inverse ETF products. Such instruments allow me to produce suitable returns while simultaneously limiting my capital outlay. They allow me to hold greater cash reserves for safety while I produce the cash flow I need to supplement my current family income and
This attempt at preventing investors from making investments of their choosing is un-American and appears to be another way to further stack the deck against individual investors. As if the un-punished crime publically commited by Robinhood with them protecting hedge funds and stopping profits by a large group of small investors wasnt bad enough, this further rigs the game to ensure more small
I have been investing - on my own using my own methods - for over 30 years and don't need the Government to tell me how to do it. I fully understand the risks of leveraged and inverse funds and us them diligently as part of a balanced portfolio. I do not need additional regulation imposed on me. In fact, it is my current positions in leveraged inverse funds that is protecting me in the
An individual investor making their own decisions is not the same as reckless wall street fund managers shorting with money they dont have. How dare the SEC come after retail traders when the clear issue is the wall street crooks. I trade for proprietary firms and i know what I am doing. It is apalling the Federal reserve is not being investigated and politicians are not being investigated,
As an amateur investor, I find leveraged and inverse funds to be a huge help in complementing my investments and hedging against falling markets. I am WELL aware of the risks associated with leveraged and inverse funds, as my broker often posts warning statements on the trade screens when I buy these funds. Leveraged and especially inverse funds offer me an "all in one" product that
AMC has magically come off of the threshold list. A real time example of no transparency is the fact that there are many different speculations as to how that happens after being on it for 10 days with no price movement. (The bigger short laddering happened on Thursday and AMC was on the list on Friday still). It wasn't until late Friday it became apparent that it had been taken off. Is
