As a life-long investor and a former registered representative with a Series 7 license, I learned that each person's investment strategy is unique to their current, as well as future, needs. Also, each individual's net worth may require hedging strategies that only leveraged and inverse funds can provide. To restrict access to these investment products means that regulators
I have utilized Leveraged and Inverse funds successfully for many years. I prefer them because as a self-directed investor, I am able to select funds which reflect an area of interest in small increments rather than invest large sums in non-leveraged funds. In this way I don't risk as much of my own capital--therefore preserving my hard earned capital. During downturns in the market
I should be able to decide what the right investment is for me and my family. Levered and Inverse funds are safer than the alternative. The alternative is to short, use margin, use futures, or use calls and puts. All of which can wipe out your entire capital. Levered and inverse levered products offer an amazing alternative to less sophisticated investors. They're definitely more volatile,
You have no right to take away my ability to hedge using inverse funds. You are trying to take away a tool from small investors and leave all the profit to the big boys. I've been using leveraged inverse funds for over three years, what gives you the right to take away my ability to predict a downturn and capitalize on it? You just want to leave all the profit to the big boys right
I vehemently disagree with a government entity telling/restricting how I invest my capital. Investing shouldn't be a privilege for the rich only, and that is what this ridiculous consideration is. You will allow banks to get back into business with insider traders like Bill Hwang (how'd that workout by the way?) but want to restrict how the average person invests. Absurd. If your
I totally reject the government restricting my access to investment products that are properly and transparently marketed and regulated with regards to their upside and downside risks. I totally reject any attempts of the government to extend any exclusion of public markets to exacerbate the wealth disparity we already have. Please spend your time and our taxpayer money on the following: #
This proposal makes no sense. We understand the risks of owning these securities. The leverage per se is not a distinguishing feature. Individual investors own leveraged securities all the time. We buy futures, options etc.. Leveraged funds are simply a packaged, and often much more liquid way to do the same. All this regulation will do is boost the profits of FCMs and increase transactions costs
SUGGESTED ROUTING:*
Senior ManagementCorporate FinanceLegal & ComplianceMutual Fund*These are suggested departments only. Others may be appropriate for your firm.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 7, 1992, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved amendments to Article III, Section 26 of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice relating to asset-based sales charges by mutual funds.
As a retail investor, I do not wish to see so-called Complex Products subject to additional regulation. Every major trading platform provides lengthy disclosures about these products. All investors using these products already have the tools necessary to understand them and become familiar with the risks if they so choose. Further restricting access to these products by ordinary investors
Market makers and Hedge funds have turned the stock market into a casino. The practice of short selling and even worse naked short selling are nothing short of criminal. Allowing these firms to manipulate the price of shares at will, in dark pools, without any threat of consequences is reprehensible. How the SEC continues to allow this practice shines light on their impotence and questions the
