I have a small portfolio of buy and hold individual stocks and bond funds. To balance my market risk, I always keep several investments that tend to move opposite of the general market. I strenuously object to any government action to remove my ability to protect my investment in a down market without selling my portfolio
Leveraged and inverse funds are important to my investment strategies. 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 and their risks. I do not need these restrictions on my right to invest.
Regularly Use inverse funds as a head to my portfolio. Usually 80% long and 20% short. (Inverse). Provides an excellent hedge to my portfolio. Limiting my Inverse allocation will put my portfolio at higher risk - all the sector in the market go higher every year? Change sector allocation once a year.
Leveraged risk can be highly risky but also highly rewarding. For a long term retail investor it allows me to take advantage of volatility and significant swings in the markets. No one has a foot on my neck telling me how to assess risk/reward ratios . Would be very upsetting if the small guy was unable to access these instruments .
Why do you need to remove a risk management tool from the individual investor. I have used both leveraged funds and inverse in my portfolio to augment my other investments and find them very useful.
If you want to "protect and educate" the consumer--develop a core study for high school students on financial literacy.
I have been investing in these ETFs for years. They allow me to diversity and to reduce my risk as I grow older. They also allow me to simplify my investment strategy. Restricting them would greatly dimmish my ability to invest, which I would consider a denial of my freedom to act in my own best interest.
The choice to invest should be incumbent on the individual investor risk and reward, and there should be no separation of access based on financial status.
The premise of changing behavior by regulation is flawed in every form it has been attempted. Especially with investing, new instruments or alternative instruments will be used, and I prefer to use leveraged assets which are connected to a
I oppose to the restricting of what I can or cannot invest in with my hard earned money. I manage my own retirement accounts and have done well with leveraging positive and negative ETFs. Sometimes to a 4 to 6 times increase. I am well aware of the risks I take and I shouldn't be limited based on my net worth or lack of "formal" education.
I would like to freely be able to invest my hard working earned money in any trust that I find suitable to my and my familys future. If Im taking a risk I would like to be the responsible person to be able judge my actions based on that without the interference of any other entities dictating to me where to invest.
I believe that inverse ETFs, when used properly, are an economical and relatively low risk way to hedge equity portfolios. I have avoided serious losses in the current bear market due to the availability of these products. Restriction of these products would be a disservice to smaller investors who wish to avoid the cost of options and the extreme leverage of the futures markets.
