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
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
Transparency is essential to our “free” markets and recently implemented rules & regulations mean NOTHING without enforcement. I am sickened by the lack of accountability of our government officials and how naked short-selling and other egregious behaviors have continued for far too long by Hedge Fund institutions with ZERO considerations “paid” to retail investors.
Reporting needs to be more than monthly, weekly at latest. It also needs to be changed so that it 100% accurately identifies short interest and delineates between real and synthetic borrowed shares for short interest. Fines should also be such that they accumulate to a point that a rule breaker will not be able to just choose to keep paying the fine and committing the crime.
FINRA Requests Comment on a New Academic TRACE Data Product
(a)(1) Unless otherwise permitted by FINRA, a member shall not enter into an agreement for the carrying, on an omnibus or fully disclosed basis, of any customer account in which securities transactions can be effected ("customer account" or "account"), unless such agreement is with a carrying firm that is a FINRA member. An introducing firm that acts as an intermediary for
FINRA is reminding firms that the requirement for each ATS to acquire and use a single, unique MPID when reporting information to FINRA will become effective on February 2, 2015.
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 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
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
