I do not support FINRA Regulatory Notice 25-05 and Proposed Rule 3290. Prohibiting a financial advisor who holds a FINRA license from personally investing in any crypto asset without first getting written approval from their broker/dealer as well as applying this rule to the advisor’s spouse, partner, children and anyone else living in the household is ridiculous and backwards thinking.I'm
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) a proposed rule change to modify the implementation schedule of amendments adopted in SR-FINRA-2024-019 with respect to fees for filing documents pursuant to the securities offering rules under Section 7 of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws.
Monday, May 12, 2025 Ms. Jennifer Piorko Mitchell Office of the Corporate Secretary FINRA 1735 K Street Washington, DC 20006 RE: Request for Comment on Regulatory Notice 25-05 Dear Ms. Mitchell, As an owner of a Registered Investment Advisory (RIA) firm having registered representatives at a member firm
To Whom It May Concern at FINRA,I’m writing as a long-time trader in the OTC markets to share my honest concerns about how Rule 15c2-11 has impacted retail investors like myself.This rule may have been created with good intentions — to protect investors and clean up bad actors — but the way it’s been enforced has done real damage to people who’ve spent years trading these markets responsibly.
Dear Ms. Mitchell,As an owner of a Registered Investment Advisory (RIA) firm having registered representatives at a member firm that is independent and not affiliated in any manner with my RIA firm, I strongly object to the newly proposed Rule 3290 in Regulatory Notice 25-05.This proposed Rule would subject certain independent RIA/IAs to an additional layer of corporate and regulatory oversight
FINRA Regulatory Notice 25-05 and Proposed Rule 3290 - I'm writing to strenuously object to the adoption of this rule as being oppressive and a major step back in the bureau's efforts to be more pro-business and progressive. I deal with several advisers that would be negatively impacted by the adoption of 3290. This would cause them to leave their firms as I don't believe they
Absolutely the worst rule proposal I could imagine hearing. Please vote no on this.This rule would certainly cause a major disruption to advisor's and their clients, especially,to smaller clients who may not qualify for RIA status.
I oppose Rule 3290. It is serious over reach into both the professional and personal lives of Financial Advisors. As I read elsewhere, this is akin to not allowing Real Estate Agents and there families from owning a home. Do not pass this rule!
I just don't see the benefit of this rule change requirement. Especially after the fact. If it were a requirement originally OK, but not afterwards. Maybe make it a requirement for new RIA's or post date it to a future date requirement. If FINRA interferes with Crypto investments at this stage it will just hurt all investors. FA's wiil just go to the alternative route, therefore
I completely and totally oppose such a useless and tyrannical rule. It's gross overreach and does not benefit the people of this country its industries or our institutions. I'm ok with FAs having crypto without your knowledge. Again this rule proposal is overreach
