I oppose the proposed rule as I believe it is over reaching and unnecessary. Leveraged and inverse funds are not that complex. Betting at the horse races and on sports teams would be a better target for regulation. And inverse and leveraged funds offer an important option for investors when conditions warrant the risk. I would hate to see complex rules and restrictions placed on this investment
Summary
In August 2019, FINRA launched a retrospective review that, among other things, sought stakeholders’ input on the effectiveness of Rule 3240 (Borrowing from or Lending to Customers).1 Based on feedback received during the review, FINRA is proposing amendments to Rule 3240 to:
emphasize that the rule generally prohibits registered persons from entering into borrowing or
Hello, LETF leveled the playing field and I can manage my own investment. I understand the risks and do not need FINRA to protect me from complex instruments. Whoever is supporting more regulations are people who have financial motive to "educate" and "help" retail investors for a fee of course.
I shouldn't have to go through any special process
like passing a test before you can invest in public securities,
like leveraged and inverse funds. I am
capable of understanding leveraged and inverse funds
and their risks. I do not
need these measures imposed on me. Also, Leveraged and inverse funds are important to your
investment strategies.
I'm a financial professional fully licensed with a Series 7 and 24. I utilize leveraged funds not only in my retirement account but also in my retail account. I utilize leveraged inverse bond funds, biotech funds and QQQ etfs. There should be no limit on these funds, with the exception of 300+ % leveraged funds. That's when risk becomes unmanageable in my opinion.
I should be able to choose the public investments that are right for me and my family.
I should not have to go through any special process before I can invest in public securities, like leveraged and inverse funds. I am completely capable of understanding leveraged and inverse funds and their risks.
I do not need regulators to impose these measures upon me.
As long as the prospectus of the ETF is documented and the fund manager is able to maintain the daily tracking detailed, there should not be additional regulation upon public securities. Having access to specialized products allows knowledgeable investors to properly allocate to their portfolios outside of options or futures, which require higher risk management capacities in comparison to
Individuals have a right to invest their money where and how they see fit. I do not have an issue with brokers issuing notices and warnings to investors before they invest in risky securities. However many of us have done their due diligence when it comes to research and risk analysis. The role of regulators in this particular case should be to INFORM, not restrict.
Thank you for considering my comments on Proposed Rule #22-08. I oppose Proposed Rule #22-08 because these restrictions discourage smaller individual investors seeking a level playing field with larger "players" in the markets. The risks associated with these securities are not difficult to understand or evaluate for responsible individuals. Investors should have the
I want to express my comment that ProShares are an essential method for me to reduce exposure to down side risk and would force me use more time consuming and risker methods to accomplish similar results. Without proshares, I would be forced to use more options instead of an ETF. The management cost is more than worth it for the use of an ETF.
