Something I haven't seen mentioned much lately is the use of dark pools to hide and manipulate trades. It has become far more of a common practice for short sellers to utilize dark pool exchanges to manipulate securities. To add to my early comment about transparency, dark pools need to go away. I can't believe that this practice is actually considered legal in what is supposed to be a
Hello, Thank you for opening this to comment. My only comment is that I second all of the comments regarding our markets being rigged. Please listen to retail, because without us (and we’re rapidly losing faith), even Citadel won’t be able to make markets. Be on the right side of history and protect our markets from not only 100%+ short positions, but more importantly, off-exchange trading via
Every large institution, hedge fund or bank should have to report their short position(s) immediately and made public. The time is takes for market makers to cover failure to delivers on the thresh hold list needs to be reduced from 13 days to 5 days. All failure to delivers should be reported 3 days after a trading day. The penalty for creating synthetic shares should be the same as creating
There isn’t ANY transparency within the market. Would like the same information as everyone else. Dark pools need to be monitored and used for their attended purpose of large transactions that are approved or rejected by a third party. SSR needs to be enforced much more strictly. FTDs need to be enforced without delay. Actual substantial fines for FTDs, naked short selling to discourage illegal
ESSENTIALS
Banks, savings associations and credit unions offer such products as savings and checking accounts, money market deposit accounts and certificates of deposit (CDs).
Deposits at banks and savings associations are protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); at credit unions, deposits are protected by the National Credit Union Administration.
Bank products are
I was an advisor with a series 65. Some of my clients were knowledgeable some not. There is no doubt that FINRA has some good regulatory laws but guys this is a huge over reach. It is not your job to protect me against myself. This is play money not retirement money. Even if ten or twenty percent of my retirement money was in derivatives that is none of your business. Let the broker and or the
Alternative, "alt" or “liquid alt” funds are publicly offered, SEC-registered funds that use investments or strategies that can differ from what is offered in a typical fund. Compared to more traditional mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs), liquid alt funds tend to hold investments that extend beyond equities and bonds or employ more complex or sophisticated strategies.
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
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
