I agree with the proposals as listed. I believe this would prevent or reduce the manipulation many believe the market is subject to at present. As such it would promote confidence within retail investors many of whom believe that institutional investors have made the market inherently unfair to them and as such retail may begin to disengage with investing. These proposals I believe would also
Institutional investors are professional investors who pool together capital—sometimes referred to as Wall Street’s “smart money”—and invest on behalf of others, typically at much higher volumes than retail investors. learn more about institutional investors and how they can and cannot impact your investments.
As a retail investor, I find it insulting and disrespectful that FINRA could think that leveraged and inverse ETFs and other products are too complex for the retail investor to use and that you need to protect us from these products. I have used various leveraged and inverse products for many years and had made significant amounts of money trading with these important tools. If you remove these
Dear FINRA Regulators,
I understand that you are AGAIN considering to limit my capability to invest in leveraged and inverse funds. This the the second time in about 5 or 6 years you have attempted to do this. Please DO NOT impose your proposed limitations because this would hurt small investors, such as myself, to utilize such tools for investments and protection against major market swings.
I have been investing for many years and it is just un-american to try to stop normal up standing American citizens from the right to make their own investment decisions. It is important that each individual have the right to choose the best investments for their family. All investments should be available to all of the public, not just the privileged super-rich who then take advantage of the
I am opposed to new rules regarding leveraged and inverse ETFs. I am a seasoned investor and conduct my own research. You should not be babysitting myself or my portfolio. There is plenty of information available already for the public to read and decide for themselves. You are stepping over the line in making this judgement that individuals need monitoring.
The cost of any bureaucracy to
High net worth requirements are a horrible restriction to place on leveraged securities. A regulator imposed test , and attesting to reading certain materials is fine because anyone has the capabilities to do this, many individuals have been investing their entire lives and have a plethora of knowledge and would not be able to meet this high net worth requirement. Leverage and inverse securities
To Whom It May Concern - I consider the proposed FINRA restrictions to Leveraged and Inverse funds to be yet another example of the Nanny State coming to the rescue of individuals that the government and their agencies feel the need to protect. I for one am more than capable of understanding the risks of these investment vehicles and want NO restrictions on my investment strategy. L&I
I use double and triple leveraged long and short index funds as one of multiple tools to implement my investment objectives. I invest a small percentage of my investment portfolio in leveraged assets. These leveraged investments achieve a small dumbbell portfolio distribution in what is predominantly a conservative porfolio.
I am a high net worth investor and require special permission to
While leveraged and inverse funds have different levels of risk than non-leveraged finds, the public should have access to these publicly traded investments, not just high net worth individuals. Inverse funds are an important means of hedging without selling a security or ETF short, which is (relatively) lower risk for an investor and an important part of my personal investment strategy.
