I am not an institution, but I believe that if the power of options and futures is available to retail investors, so too should leveraged funds. Im sure there was opposition to index funds when the first came out, and Im sure this is a similar situation. I agree one should check a box stating they understand that the fund they are about to buy is leveraged and subject to volatility decay; but
I oppose restrictions to my right to invest. I should be able to choose the public investments that are right for me. I shouldnt have to go through any special process like passing a test before I can invest in public securities, like inverse or leveraged funds. I am capable of understanding leveraged and inverse funds and their risk. Leveraged and inverse funds are important to my strategies
Like my husband posted as well, I share his sentiments exactly:
I am an experienced investor who is aware of how ETFs and inverse type funds work. Like any other investment there is due diligence and risk, which I accept. I dont think FINRA should over reach and and limit availability and access to these instruments. Instead, they should focus more in investor education, especially to younger
I recent got the citizenship. In the civic test I learn that the freedom is one of the core value of American. I should have the freedom of choose what public investments I want and take the risk I am willing to take. This should include the inverse funds. The inverse funds is a very important in my portfolio. I have long term investment which are regular funds. But at a high position, instead of
Me, not regulators should be able to choose my own investments that are right for me and my family. Never should anyone have to go through a special process in order to invest in public securities. I am capable on my own of discerning the risks. Leverage and inverse funds are an important way to enhance investment strategies and I want them to remain available. Please do not make changes to
Leveraged and inverse funds are not hard to understand, even for the average investor like myself. We live in a country that is supposed to allow us freedom of choice. I choose what to invest in, good or bad, right or wrong. The current notifications provided by the brokerages as to the inherent market risks associated with these type of investments are sufficient to make an informed choice
Comments:
As an individual investor who relies on leveraged and inverse ETFs to actively monitor and manage short term trading strategies, these instruments are critical to compliment more conventional products while providing desired exposure to targeted segments of the market. Notably, leveraged and inverse ETFs also provide an effective means to hedge other more conventional positions. The
This punishes older investors in two ways. First, selling covered calls is an established source of income for retirement accounts. Why punish those who want to use this conservative approach? Secondly, the older investor who is behind on their savings and intelligently want to increase risk to catch up to have a nest egg that will support a self-sufficient retirement will be punished.
Since this is a free country (USA) we should be able to make our own choices for investments. I do not need someone to test me to see if I am capable of understanding these risks. In fact I have purchased some of these and have been restricted from further purchases when I have tried to average down thereby locking in bigger losses rather than turning them into profits. They will go up and why
I already despise the Jobs Act for limiting investing, and I am concerned with the further use of limiting who can invest based on net worth (or income).
Investing is a risk, of various levels, but it should not be relegated to only the wealthy, or middle class. Else, it is easier to be stuck at low income when a savings account does not even keep up with inflation. The concept of nanny-state
