Comments: More restrictions hurt; they do not help. The market is risky, as are many things in life. It is an individuals responsibility to do due diligence before investing. Limiting investment options based on wealth, experience, or any other subjective factor is wrong. An individual, and solely that individual, should have the ability and right to make unrestricted investment decisions on
To whom it may concern: I have an MBA in Fnanace - 1984, and have been investing for the past 40 years. Your proposal to start testing investors before allowing to invest in whatever you deem risky is arbitrary, vicious ans smaks of communism! I do not need your [REDACTED] to tell me what to invest in!!!!! Leveraged and / or inverse funds are no more risky than non-inverse funds! They are
Rather than imposing arbitrary restrictions or adding more silly click-thrus, how about a focus on making education and training available, giving retail investors and traders the SAME information that institutional investors see. Perhaps the reason retail traders lost money on some of these things is because institutional investors have an artificial advantage created by current rules, and not
As an AMC GME APE I demand market transparency! Same day reporting is doable with the technology. End PFOF and Ban Dark Pools! Citadel Securities Scandal CEO Ken Griffin should be arrested immediately ORTEX should be releasing information to the public for free Enforce the rules that you already have in order SEC Rule 304(a) (4): Suspension, Limitation, or Revocation to the Exchange Link to rule
I firmly object to the measures being proposed in this rule, particularly any steps to restrict what products I am able to procure through my brokers as a private (retail) investor. My concern especially applies to the purchase of leveraged ETFs. As a private investor or trader, the onus has been and always will be on me to acquire the necessary knowledge, experience, and trading acumen to be
This attempt at limiting my ability to invest and trade is outrageous. This is regulatory over reach that assumes we are unable to make our own informed decisions about our investment portfolios. Please consider that my family and I should be able to choose unfettered, which investments are best for us. We should not be burdened with a special and arbitrary process. Leveraged and inverse funds
It is common knowledge that markets are manipulated by large funds and privileged wealthy investors. Leveraged and inverse funds are the small investors way to level the playing field. People should have the right to make their own financial decisions. Information regarding risks is adequate to inform an investor who should take responsibility for their own actions. Passing a knowledge test does
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 the public, not just the privileged. I am capable of understanding leveraged and inverse funds and their risks. Leveraged and inverse funds are important to my investment strategies. I cannot buy puts in all my investment accounts. Inverse funds are
Dear Regulators, I STRONGLY APPOSE the proposed restrictions for my individual use of Leveraged and Inverse funds. By taking away our individual ability to trade these funds, you are handcuffing the people who need this most in the name of protection. We don't need your protection! Let us be responsible for ourselves. You will allow institutional investors to take advantage of all Leveraged
Rules 203(b) (Short sales) and 204 (Close-out requirement) of Regulation SHO provide exceptions for bona fide market making activity. The SEC has provided guidance on what constitutes “bona fide market making activities” as well as examples of what does not. Member firms must also confirm and be able to demonstrate that any transaction for which they rely on a Regulation SHO bona fide market making exception qualifies for the exception, consistent with Regulation SHO and guidance.
