It is important to continue to allow individual investors to freely invest in inverse and leveraged ETF's and similar. Although it may be true that uninformed investors may cause great harm to themselves because the do not understand, the brokerage industry has provided significant notices and warnings to investors of the potential negative results of their decisions. As always, "caveat
As a small retail investor, I think it is outrageous that FINRA should arbitrarily decide what retail investors can invest it by restricting access to inverse and leveraged funds to only high net worth individuals, and impose others barriers like 'cooling off periods' and getting special permission from brokers. Such rules and restrictions are elitist, unfair, and paternalistic. Please
I oppose the proposed Rule#S7-24-15 for the following reasons: 1. You have no right to decide for the public into what vehicle the public can invest their own funds. 2. You have no right to decide which individuals are allowed the right to invest. 3. You are creating a discriminatory system for investors decided by agencies on what is available. You are basically creating a secret system
I am opposed to a plan which makes restrictions on being able to buy and sell inverse funds without jumping through a variety of hoops to get permission. However, it would be good to have rules on the prospectus documents explaining in very clear language what the unusual risks are from using the funds. The special coverage of risks could be put right at the beginning of the prospectus and
I oppose the attempt to restrict the rights of investors to invest in leveraged and inverse funds. While I see that it is an attempt to prevent possible loss by inexperienced investors, failure is sometimes a necessary learning tool. Rules made to avoid the odds of failures are simply crutches for the inexperienced and unnecessary barriers to those attempting to learn. There are already limits in
Hello, I vehemently object to the proposed rule. I should have the full right to choose 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 object to any requirement that requires going through any special process before investing in complex products. Leverage and inverse funds are important tools for my
Please do not proceed with SEC Proposed Rule #S7-24-15. I am a long standing private investor and have used leveraged funds to enhance returns on my investment portfolio. I have a good understanding of the risks involved in leveraged and inverse funds, how they can be used to hedge my portfolio or to provide leveraged returns on the underlying securities, and request that you do not restrict my
Joint sales efforts by member firm and non-member real estate firm of private placements in real estate condominium complexes raise the question of whether the realtors or persons acting on behalf of the issuer would be required to register as broker/dealers.
1. Enforcement should be as immediate as possible. 2. Transparency : Give detailed numbers, company names and extended information on your investigation. 3. Bigger fines. Let's be real. The fines you're giving are symbolic. What's even the point exactly? 4. Kinda unrelated but maybe the best way to enforce those ruled is for finra to cease to exist? And be replaced by a public
(a) Unless the context requires otherwise, the terms used in the Rule 6200 and Rule 7100 Series shall have the meanings below. Terms not specifically defined below shall have the meaning in the FINRA By-Laws and rules and Rule 600 of SEC Regulation NMS.
(1) "Exchange Act" or "SEA" means the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
(2) "ADF-eligible security" means an NMS
