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
INFORMATIONAL
Fingerprint Processing Fees
Implementation Date: July 15, 2003
SUGGESTED ROUTING
KEY TOPICS
Legal & Compliance
Registered Representatives
Senior Management
Fingerprint Processing Fees
NASD By-Laws
Executive Summary
This Notice supersedes NASD Notice to Members 03-39. NASD is issuing this Notice to
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.
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
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
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
The provisions of Rule 2220 shall be applicable to communications to customers regarding index warrants, currency index warrants, or currency warrants. The term "option" as used therein shall be deemed to include such warrants for purposes of this Rule and the term "The Options Clearing Corporation" shall be deemed to mean the issuer of such warrants.
Amended by
FINRA, its employees, and any mediator named to mediate a matter under the Code shall not be liable for any act or omission in connection with a mediation administered under the Code.
Amended by SR-FINRA-2008-021 eff. Dec. 15, 2008.
Renumbered from Rule 14107 by SR-NASD-2006-109 eff. Dec. 24, 2007.
Renumbered from Rule 10408 and amended by SR-NASD-2007-022 eff. April 16,
