Leveraged and inverse funds, like all nearly all investments, are risky. Adequate disclosure of risks should be sufficient for individual investor protection. If regulators do not believe that investors understand the risks from the prospectus, then what does this say about efforts to protect investors in domains beyond these funds? Moreover, what risks are unique to these funds that regulators
These are products that are used by sophisticated investors who understand the risks and are willing to take them as part of their overall strategy for their reward.
Restricting access or imposing onerous criteria to meet before an investor can trade/invest in them goes against every principle of a free-market economy.
The entire premise of this regulatory notice is false, and data mining is used
Government is supposed to be here to provide the services that the citizen can't provide, like military, international policies, etc. This government wasn't set up to be babysitters for its citizens. Citizen can make their own decisions, be they bad ones or good ones. Every day we make decisions about our lives without government intervention. Some of these decisions literally cost
I have previously submitted my thoughts but want to take a minute to reiterate them. Leveraged and inverse funds play a very important role in my personal investments along with our corporate investment strategy for clients. When used by professionals, for clients who understand them, they are very useful tools for actually reducing risk and enhancing returns. This should be left to the free
I am a retail investor, and have a small part of my IRA accounts that I manage myself, while placing the bulk of the funds into index funds and the like. However, I believe that I should have the right and access to all the same financial instruments that professional investors do for the portion that I manage myself. From time to time, I use leveraged and inverse funds. This are risky and
While I support education about so-called 'complex' investment products, imposing restrictions on purchasing such products is not the right approach. For many years, financial products have been plagued with excessive 'legalese' -- which is the biggest barrier to investors understanding the products in which they are investing. Even the SEC is guilty of obnoxiously wordy
Effective Date: December 15, 1997
SUGGESTED ROUTING
Corporate Finance
Institutional
Legal & Compliance
Syndicate
Training
Executive Summary
On October 29, 1997, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved amendments that clarify the application of Rules 2710 and 2720 of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD®) Conduct Rules to
SummaryFINRA has amended FINRA Rule 4210 (Margin Requirements) to establish a specified exception under the margin rules with respect to certain short option or warrant positions on indexes that are written against products that track the same underlying index. Referred to as “protected” option or warrant positions, the new exception conforms with similar provisions Cboe recently adopted. The
As a retail investor, I am concerned about the fairness of the current financial system. Having read many theoretical posts on r/Superstonk about the economy and doing my own research, I believe that more regulation on shorting is necessary in order to avoid the unfair devaluation of companies and protect smaller companies from its effects. In particular, more needs to be done about Fail-to-
FINRA 21-19 is a long overdue change. It is clear that the integrity of the United States market has been strained to the edge of disaster, in large part due to systemic risk developed under the regulatory authority of FINRA's outdated short interest reporting policy. While many of the policies mentioned in Regulatory Notice 21-19 address the general breadth of exploitable and ineffective
