I am writing in opposition to limiting, and/or curtailing, access to certain complex trades. Limiting access to the general public promotes a preferred class and thus discriminates. Mandating qualifications further promulgates class distinction, in the guise of evaluating financial literacy. It perpetuates an old-boy culture.
Free and open trade should be supported; not denied. Individual
In general:
- It's good to have people educated and understanding what they are dealing with.
- It's extremely bad to restrict people's right of making their own decisions.
Thus:
- Items 2d (required attestation), 2e (access restrictions), 7cii (mandatory quiz), 7d (reevaluations), and other items that are potentially can completely lock people out of certain choices
I strongly disagree. I do not believe that the government should be telling us how to invest our money. This is no different than having the government create a tax that we would pay and then entrusting legislatures to repay as an annuity. Please tell me how that has worked???
I use both bull and bear leveraged ETF's as a means to control losses (insurance for other investments).
I
Hi FINRA,
I'm mildly opposed to a regulation banning "complex" financial products if it ends up covering things like 2x or 3x index funds (or even inverse funds). I can imagine folks getting themselves into trouble with these, but no more so than they already can with options and futures. I guess it's a bit worse insomuch as someone get get these funds in a
The United States is a free capitalist country where people have freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. This should reflect from the freedom of investing too--people should have their freedom to choose what and how to invest their money. We save and invest to better our future lives. I diversify in my investments. Leveraged and inverse funds, though by no means of a large portion, are important
What gives u the right to determine who and who can't invest, and what they can & can't invest in. This is the USA. Home of the free. The freedom to spend our hard earned money in any manor we see fit. U already determine how much money I can invest per year, based on my income. U have no clue how much my bills are, or how much extra money I have after all my bills are paid, and
I have been investing since 1969. During that time, I have made many mistakes, some quite costly, but from each of them, I’ve learned something. I’ve never learned anything by being right. If regulation such as you are now proposing had been in effect then, I would have been prohibited from making the choices that taught me to be a better investor. People are not protected by this kind of
Hello, Public investments should be available to all of the public, not just the high net worth individuals. Despite their risk, Leveraged and inverse funds enhance returns when they are used as a limited part of my overall portfolio. It isnt right to only offer them to the rich under the assumption that they can afford to lose more. We, with less money care just as much about our money but want
Regulators should not be in the business of limiting our ability to invest. There are already so many rules that hurt the "little guy." This is not a good move. You should not limit people's abilities to trade leveraged or inverse ETF's. Inverse ETF's, for example, are invaluable in market downturns. Forcing smaller investors to just eat the loss of an economic downturn
As an investor and an advisor, it's interesting to watch how our representatives deem it necessary to place restrictions on how consumers can invest. In my world, we often talk about how so many people go to college, and they work to obtain a business degree from people who have never owned a business and lived it in the real world. I understand, the investment should be able to offer the
