The idea of the simpletons at the SEC deciding what investors can and can't do with their money is appalling to me. In a world where stock manipulation is rampant, perhaps there are other things you could do rather than assume that the public is too stupid to understand the risks involved with their investment decisions. Even if that were true, it should not be within the scope of the SEC to
I believe that the current proposals to invest in leveraged and inverse funds are wrong headed. First, these funds are an efficient way to use margin vs a traditional margin account. Second, it is my responsibility to make investment decisions not the regulators. Third these are great tools for hedging risk that are not available except by using margin and exposing myself to higher cost and fees
Taking the rights of investors away, to choose their investments regardless of how risky or silly they may be perceived to be, really runs contrary to the goals of free markets. Yes, put warning and red flags in place to warn potential investors that certain funds are very risky, but do not restrict our ability to choose the amounts of risk we take in our individual portfolios.
Dear sir, I do have enough capital and knowing the risk to invest for my retirement, I only use small portion of my capital to invest in those leveraged and inverse funds and trying to enhance my return on my investment! Please never put any restrictions on my right to invest in those leveraged and inverse funds! Thank you!
In relationship investment scams, fraudsters often hide their true identities, reach out to unsuspecting targets (often online or through text messages), gain their trust over time, and then defraud them through fake investments. These scams are sometimes referred to by terms including romance scams, “cryptocurrency” investment scams, financial grooming scams, and “pig butchering scams.” Learn more about these scams and red flags to watch for.
Access to complex public investment products are critical to the advancement of wealth for people of limited means. Yes, their complexity increases risk, but the potential return allows poor people with some riskable savings to at least aspire to have some wealth down the line. To limit people with only a few thousand to 10% per year furthers wealth disparity and is bad for the little guy.
It's especially important regulators hear from you in your own words. Please use the body of this email to customize your response.
These categories of investment vehicles are important for my portfolio diversity and protection. They are an important tool for helping me assess potential risk sentiment in the market and have a tendency to provide higher returns. Please do not restrict
Update to Security Futures Risk Disclosure Statement and Supplement
Leveraged funds have become an important part of my investment strategy. Adding any sort of limitations or restrictions on my ability to utilize these investments will have significant negative impacts on my ability to participate in financial markets which I believe should be open to all. The focus should be on investor education and risk disclosure, not limiting access based on an arbitrary
I am an adult. I complete understand the risk and the benefit of purchasing leveraged and inverse funds. In this case there should not be any special requirements to get permit of purchasing public investments. If a restriction is adding to me, my strategy that I set years ago will be greatly impacted and there will be a huge loss purely due to regulations.
Therefore I oppose restrictions to my
