It poses a severe threat towards market fairness. It further discriminate retail traders or investors from choosing the financial products that fit their trading needs because institutional investors are free of using high leverage in their trading. We, as retail investors, are fully aware of conditions, fees and risks of leveraged index ETF. They should NOT be made available only to a small rich
I have been successfully investing in leveraged ETFs for over 10 years now. I currently hold a significant position in TQQQ with unrealized capital gains that I can't afford to pay taxes on until after I retire. I need the liquidity of of an active options market on this leveraged ETF to be able to sell options against my position in times of excess volatility. I cannot afford to change
We should be able to find and invest in what is best for us and our families. We shouldn't have to go through any type of special process Or take any type of test before being able to invest in what we feel is best . We are fully capable of understanding our investments and the risks involved. This is supposed to be a free county to choose what is in the best interest of us and our families
Investing in leveraged and inverse funds should be available to anyone regardless of net worth, special approvals, "cooling off" periods, or broker approvals - however, I am in favor of people having to sign off on disclosures to ensure investors are aware of the greater risk some of these assets pose. While you can lose money in any investment, the fact that your exposure can
I've invested in closed-end municipal bond and infrastructure mutual funds for 30-years that use a small amount of leverage to enhance performance. They give me much better and more stable returns than any government bond without the individual stock risk of owning only a few individual stocks. Your new rule would not only potentially lock me out of investing in what I want, totally
It makes NO sense to require testing and other regulatory restrictions on the use of inverse and related funds. I utilize them in hedging activities when risk within the market becomes excessive without the need to sell securities at short-term taxable gain. I have a brain and am perfectly capable of understanding and determining when to use such securities. I do NOT need PERMISSION from ANY
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
When it comes to retirement savings, even the most adventurous seniors may consider something routinely described as "plain vanilla": a fixed immediate annuity. With an immediate annuity, the investor pays an insurance company a lump sum in exchange for regular income payments. Both fixed and variable immediate annuities deliver income quickly, but there are differences.
I am highly concerned about FINRA Regulatory Notice #22-08 because it could negatively impact the time and effort I have put into managed my leveraged portfolio. By imposing rules that restrict the freedom of my financial decisions, the regulation will make generalizations about who is sufficiently knowledgeable about leveraged products to use them properly. Adding special hoops to jump through
This proposed rule restricting my right to invest as I please seems a clear violation of my right to control and administer my own resources. I try to diversify my investments, for my holdings as a retiree are quite meager and I cannot afford to take big risks. At present I own only one fund involved partially in cryptocurrencies, and regard it as just a normal part of my portfolio. Why would
