To whom it may concern.
I believe that current FINRA regulations are sufficient, if followed by investors, to protect investors from investing without knowledge of the specifications of various investments, including such investments that might be inverse in nature and/or leveraged.
The investor always has the choice to use a broker who is supposed to act in a fiduciary manner.
Personally, I use
I strongly oppose restrictions and limitations on inverse and leveraged investment products.
Too many of the tools available to protect, preserve and increase a lifetime of savings are restricted to professionals and the wealthy. I have spent a lifetime working hard to save, and I should have the power to invest as I see fit. Special processes and tests are simply gates to further limit access
Funding is extremely challenging. Additional regulations are not the answer. I deal with "sophisticated" high net worth investors every day for fundraising for my biotech company. Most have less knowledge about pharmaceuticals than my special needs seven-year old son. These individuals would undoubtedly pass the proposed test, but they still won't have a clue.
More
I oppose restrictions to my right to buy leveraged and inverse funds
I should be able to choose the public investments that are right for me. Public investments should be available to all of the public, not just the privileged.
I shouldn't have to go through any special process like passing a test before I can invest in public securities, like leveraged and inverse funds. I am capable of
Dear Finra,
I am absolutely opposed to regulation on leveraged ETFs. I have been using them for years and they are part of my long term strategy for growth in my Roth IRA. I know the risk I am taking and I have a long time horizon for these investments. I have studied the markets for 20 years and learned about economics and even technical analysis of the price charts on my own through all
I urge FINRA not to further regulate the ability of investors to purchase complex funds including leveraged and inverse funds. Investors should have the freedom to choose their investments without judgment or approval from government regulators. The current regulations and disclosures of risk are sufficient. I am capable of understanding risks without government judgment of me.
Proposed rules
I, the investor, and not you, the regulators, should be the one to choose the public investments that are right for me.
This is a matter of basic principle, and therefore of first importance: PUBLIC investments should be available to ALL the public, not just the privileged, who are already more than privileged enough.
What you propose is part of an insulting trend: the "Nanny State
I not regulators should be able to choose the public investments that are right for me and my family. Public investments should be available to all of the public, not just the privileged. I shouldn't have to go through any special process like passing a test before I can invest in public securities, like leveraged and inverse funds. I am capable of understanding leveraged and inverse funds
I am an ordinary investor, with a regular day job. I do not have time to take classes or tests or extra regulatory hoops in order to manage my portfolio, and yet I am perfectly capable of understanding that some investment vehicles are more risky than others.
As a regulatory organization, you are stepping over the line if you are stopping me from taking part in a legitimate investment fund
I, not dubiously motivated regulators should be able to choose investments that are right for my strategy. The majority of investment vehicles should be available to all of the public, not just the privileged considerating there are already plenty of investment products off limits to the public. I shouldn't have to go through any special processlike passing a test before I can invest in
