My investment strategy uses a systematic rebalancing of ETFs, some of which are leveraged ETFs. I fully understand the risks of these leveraged ETFs, but with a disciplined quarterly plan of selling when gains have exceeded a threshold and buying when losses have exceeded a threshold, the greater volatility of these leveraged ETFs produce better performance over the long term.
I am not a Day
Occasionally, I have used "complex investment products," such as leveraged or inverse funds in my portfolio for specific purposes. As a retired person, I need growth in my investments to fund my living expenses and so far, 2022 has not been very kind. One bright spot in my portfolio has been the ProShares ETF that shorts the 20-year treasury bond which produces a return in a
Hello,
I am not really clear why FINRA is involved with leveraged or inverse ETF's / funds.
Every investor signs an agreement with each and every broker (account) that they have in that they have the insight or knowledge of the stock market to make these decisions (as well as option trading) on their own without regulation.
In my mind this does "NOT" need to be
I believe it would not be right to limit the use of inverse and leveraged funds only to specialized brokers or limit them to certain sectors. As a public investor I use leveraged and inverse funds on a daily basis as a way to seek enhanced returns. I am fully aware of the risk of these funds, going so far as to download 30+ years of historical market data and running my trading strategy against
Comments: I would like to voice my opinion about leveraged & inverse products. I believe inverse products provide an inexpensive opportunity for individuals and advisors to hedge / short positions. Other options such as Puts are far more complex and expensive. As for leveraged ETF's, my simple thought is there is no need for these products whatsoever, with the key word being need.
I very much disagree with the idea that an unelected bureaucracy, however laudable its motives might be, should be telling ME what publicly traded investment I can buy, is outrageous, and totalitarian. One can clearly see that ordinary people are often better able to see value than are so-called experts. And if an ordinary person , like me, screws up based on faulty logic, so be it. On the other
I am totally opposed to the Proposed Rule #S7-24-15 for the following reasons: 1. I am a small investor that has invested in leverage funds for greater than 20 years and am quite capable of understanding the risks of using leverage funds. In fact, I find it offensive that a regulator would question my knowledge of the market by using some gimmick like passing a special test related to my
The proposed regulatory changes are embarrassing - to FINRA and the SEC, and an insult to investors. I should be able to make investments in the targeted public securities that I believe are in my (and my family's) best interests without going through a special process. Further, given all the extreme movements in individual stocks recently (Gamestop exemplifies), why limit the initiative to
Leveraged and inverse funds allow me to gain exposure to leveraged and short positions without having to take on leverage myself. I use inverse ETFs to hedge my long positions and to express a bearish view on the market. QQQ is down roughly 20% YTD, but I have been able to hedge my long stock positions and profit from this decline through the PSQ, the inverse of QQQ. I do not want to take on
The ability to invest or trade using Inverse and Leveraged ETFs is critical to my ability to make gains. Especially when the government has the ability to completely destroy gains in the stock market through the Fed's money printing schemes, we individual investors need some way to go short on the market when it is prudent to do so. Just going to cash won't cut it either, since the
