More regulatory rules need to bet set for for hedgge funds creating synthetic shares. They borrow shares that don't exist then have to cover them (FTD) after a certain amount of time. Time should shortened to 5 days and there should be absolutely no way of the Hedge funds getting out of it once 5 days has been reached. The rules need changing!
As part of FINRA’s mission to protect investors and promote market integrity, we are focused on addressing the regulatory challenges presented by our member firms’ crypto asset activities. Crypto assets—also known as digital assets—are assets that are issued or transferred using distributed ledger or blockchain technology. They include, but are not limited to, so-called virtual currencies, coins, and tokens. A particular crypto asset may or may not meet the definition of a “security” under the federal securities laws.
This is ridiculous.
In the finance world, first I found the Pattern Day Trader (PDT) rule is ridiculous. If this is risky: when you don't have money (< $25,000), you cannot do it; when you have more money (> $25,000), you can lose them more quickly. It means you have a higher trial and error cost.
Now, the new rule is even more ridiculous, similar to PDT. People
I'm writing to let you know that I find it unconscionable that you would pass rules that prevent the public from making their own investment choices. There is no reason that those who have more money would have a right to invest in things that others would not. This sounds like a set up to make the rich, richer and the poor poorer. I and others are capable of working out the risks and
FINRA Amends Electronic Form NMA and Adopts New Electronic Form CMA Filing Requirements
Overview
This publication outlines emerging insider threat risks and helps member firms identify, prevent, detect, and respond to these threats, including:
identifying how insider threats can occur at firms, and what factors may indicate that these attacks are on the rise;
providing a summary of core controls and effective practices firms may consider when evaluating their insider threat
I am opposed to regulation restricting the access to leveraged and specialty investment products by retail investors. I invest in leveraged, inverse, and commodity funds as they suit my needs. They are important hedges against market movements and inflation. I should not have to jump through hoops to access these products. Prospectuses are there for a reason and it is up to the individual to
I oppose new rule making that would make leveraged and inverse ETFs difficult or impossible for normal investors to buy. I have used these sorts of ETFs in the past profitably for both hedging risks and investment purposes. I believe these products are both understandable and useful to the average investor.
Given the recent blow-up of so-called qualified investors and family offices like Bill
FINRA’s Regulation Best Interest Conference, held on December 18, 2019, in Washington, DC was a one-day event designed to bring regulators, executives and industry practitioners together to learn more about Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI).
View the recorded sessions from the 2019 FINRA Regulation Best Interest Conference.
For technical questions, please call (800) 321-6273.
FINRA's
This feels a lot like A: nanny states attempting to protect us from ourselves in ways said nanny states don't succeed in protecting *themselves* - I think a government with as much debt as the US govt has has no business telling anyone how to run their money B: a set of rules which advantage the rich while screwing over the rest of us - as per usual, rules for thee, not for me, since I bet
