I strongly oppose your these unnecessary regulations on inverse and leveraged etf's. Today's investors are very well informed of these and similar investment vehicles and we do not need your meddling in our choices!
You should be looking into ways to better regulate news driven, high speed algorithmic trading where computers key in on pre programed key phrases and can spike or
Dear FINRA,
I feel that there is already too much regulation with respect to what FINRA considers complex investments. In fact, these products allow investors to protect and hedge their investments in market downturns. Moreover, these products allow investors to learn about markets in the least expensive way. For example, the inverted and/or leveraged ETFs cost less and are way more preferred
I oppose the proposed regulations to limit access to leveraged and inverse funds. I regularly use such investments to take advantage of key trends and, most importantly, to help manage risk in my investment portfolio. With uncertain times and high inflation ahead, having access to these investments for everyone is more important than ever. Public investments should be available to all of the
I am writing to oppose the radical limitations on my investments proposed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Under the long-standing disclosure-based system, investors have the right to decide which public equities, bonds, and funds they want to buy. The freedom to access a broad range of investment products help me build better portfolios and limit my risks in the market.
Dear Sirs,
I'm concerned about the proposal of "Regulatory Notice 22-08". Indeed, it might be a must for regulators to take certain action on new financial products, but I don't think this restriction can solve the problem. The reason is listed below:
1.What serves as complex product is too ambiguous, that means, investors can’t figure out what investment tools
Rather than imposing arbitrary restrictions or adding more silly click-thrus, how about a focus on making education and training available, giving retail investors and traders the SAME information that institutional investors see. Perhaps the reason retail traders lost money on some of these things is because institutional investors have an artificial advantage created by current rules, and not
ProShares, a purveyor of leveraged ETFs among other "complex products", is canvassing its shareholders to submit public comments here. I am one such shareholder, but personally I'm glad that FINRA is helping to protect investors from the pitfalls of complex products, which, as the notice rightly states, can be dangerous to the uninformed. Increasing the barrier of entry to these
FINRA 21-19 is something this country has needed for a long time -- financial institutions, hedge funds and the like need to be better regulated. I didn't know a lot about the market before this year, but what I have learned is that there are too many loopholes, and a lack of enforcement of existing regulations, that allows big players to make money at everyone else's expense. Synthetic
Proposed Rule Change to Revise the Series 17 Examination Program
As a newer investor, I am appalled at the lack of transparency in the market. The information I have discovered involving dark pools, naked shorting of shares, and hiding FTD's within options is the most blatant forms of manipulation in any field that I have been a part of. How this has been allowed for all these years with only a slap-on-the-wrist penalty is disgraceful. The sad part is
