I would like to oppose this rule. In my opinion, investors who are investing in these complex products know the risks already. Also brokerage companies let us informed of the risks. Whenever i try to buy a leverage fund, my broker shows warnings at multiple places in big bold red letters during the transaction. I suspect if someone "accidentally" bought these leveraged funds. I
TO: All NASD Members and Other Interested Persons
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has amended its net capital, recordkeeping, and quarterly securities-count rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding the treatment of repurchase (repo) and reverse repurchase (reverse repo) agreements entered into by registered broker-dealers.
The amendments to SEC Rule 15c3-l will
As a retired RIA (registered investment advisor) I have witnessed the effects of accredited investor rules first hand. From my experience with my clients those types of requirements do nothing to protect the investor, or ensure they understand the investments they are making. I have seen high net worth, high income individuals make horrible investment decisions. And I have seen individuals who
I clicked over to a website that does not support the proposed rule, but I *DO* agree with the limitations being proposed. I was Series 7 and Series 63 licensed, and have seen many people maneuvered into investments that neither they nor their financial advisors understood. The results can be devastating. I think it might be better to do a two-pronged approach with limits on the types of
NASD has filed with the SEC a proposed rule change to the Code of Arbitration Procedure to permit parties in an arbitration to communicate directly with the arbitrators if all parties and arbitrators agree, and to establish guidelines for such direct communication.
Hypothetical illustration required by state law does not constitute "sales literature" under Rule 2210.
Leveraged and inverse funds are important to my investment strategies. They are no different than other basic public stock investments. They further allow me to hedge the risks associated with individual stock purchases. I am fully capable of understanding leveraged and inverse funds and their risks. Once again it appears such rulings are meant to intrude on my ability to freely trade and invest
I oppose restrictions to my rights to invest. The game is already stacked against the small investors and these proposed rules will only make it more difficult for us. You are only creating a barrier to entry for individuals to protected the walled garden of the ultra-rich. Leveraged and inverse products give an opportunity to hedge and protect our investments and you are effectively taking away
Independent investors see that markets go up and markets go down and need to have the ability to invest in inverse funds without the cost of expensive advisors and with the same freedoms as large institutions. We do not need the nanny state protecting us from our own assessment of risk. This is a basic freedom versus big-state control issue. I am capable of understanding leveraged and inverse
I oppose the legislation in the proposed rule #S7-24-15. I like the ability to invest in leveraged funds, specifically SQQQ. When the market indicators show that the markets, in this case the Nasdaq Composite, is going to go through a contraction, funds like SQQQ allow me to realize a greater return with less capital. Funds such as SQQQ help level the playing field for other investors that do not
