I strongly oppose restricting access to any public investments to those who already have significant financial and/or social capital. This is the sort of self-dealing that gives the financial industry the reputation of rigging the game in its own favor at the expense of retail investors. I personally use 3X leveraged funds to potentially enhance returns on a small portion of my overall portfolio
FINRA,
A little bit of background:
I am self taught in the domain of investment finance. The extent of formal financial education were a handful of economics classes and an accounting class in college. Year to Day, I am beating the S&P500 in my self-directed brokerage account because I taught myself how financial markets work with various resources publicly available.
My comment:
I as
What FINRA is proposing is class discrimination. You want only the privileged and wealthy to have access to income earning instruments, while the “little” guy/gal is being stripped of their ability to access the same instruments the wealthy have to build wealth. I welcome more education on these products, but NOT bans. Honestly, every so called financial advisor has only tried to scam me. I have
To whom it may concern (FINRA Regulation):
I am writing regarding pending regulation(s) that are or may be under consideration that may restrict, limit or eliminate the ability of individual investors to buy and sell inverse and leveraged mutual/exchange traded funds. I am writing to voice my opinion on this matter.
I currently utilize inverse funds to diversify my portfolio. Inverse (and
TO: All NASD Members and Other Interested Persons
Following is a list of NASD Notices to Members issued during the third quarter of 1983. Requests for copies of any notice should be accompanied by a self-addressed label and may be directed to: NASD Administrative Services, 1735 K Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006.
Notice Number
Date
Topic
83-31
July 7, 1983
Adoption of Revised and
I am a Financial Advisor with LPL Financial and have been in the business for over 30 years. I have been using Proshare inverse ETFs with client portfolios purely as a hedge in accordance to LPL firm guidelines and limitations. My clients are generally pre-retired or retired folks, none of whom one would categorize as super rich. I comply with firm requirements and limitations related to the
Here's the deal, the claim of attempting to protect retail investors is not what will actually happen with your purported outline. By limiting the scope of exposure to "complex products" and other ETPs you are actually suffocating the ability for retail investors to gain the same access to investment strategies which specifically can facilitate the ability limit risks at the cost
Executive Summary
The Government Securities Act Amendments of 1993 (GSAA) eliminated the statutory limitations on NASD® authority to apply sales-practice rules to transactions in exempted securities, including government securities, other than municipals. On August 20, 1996, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved amendments implementing the expanded sales-practice authority
Memo to SEC/FINRA regarding the purchase of leveraged investments Proposed Rule #S7-24-15 I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed new rule/regulation. I have held ProShares in one of my portfolios since early 2016. Symbol USD. This investment is up 742.06% and has split once 3:1 which tripled my shares. It has performed well in up and down markets. It has enhanced my returns in
Inverse and leveraged securities are critical to an investor's ability to hedge portfolios and/or have an opportunity to make money in down or volatile markets, such as the one we are in right now. Without these ETFs, the only options we have for hedging are buying puts or short selling, which is infinitely more dangerous to the retail trader than owning an inverse/leveraged fund. By taking
