I'm contacting you to oppose the potential additional regulation applied to certain "complex" investments.
First, what I choose to invest in, public or private securities or other instruments, is my sovereign choice. I educated myself on e.g. leveraged and inverse funds, and have an understanding in how they work and their risk/benefit equation as it applies to me. Also notably, public investments should be available to everyone, not just those willing to jump through artificial and arbitrary hoops. A person with $100 to invest has just as much a right to do so as one with a thousand or a million times this amount.
Leveraged and inverse funds are currently an essential part of my diversified investment strategy. I intend to continue to use them as appropriate for my personal circumstances and within my understanding and risk appetite. It's key to have a wide variety of instruments available to the public, as new commodities and other assets of interest and their derivatives become available for trading purposes. Restricting these ultimately makes the market in which these types of securities are offered net less valuable, and would only drive people like me to other markets altogether, regarding such regulation as heavy-handed and itself an additional source of risk.
More regulation isn't the answer. What's the justification anyway for trying to take away my choice? Investing is by nature "risky" and no one is hurt if I make a bad choice - only me. Hands off, please.
David Black Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08
I'm contacting you to oppose the potential additional regulation applied to certain "complex" investments.
First, what I choose to invest in, public or private securities or other instruments, is my sovereign choice. I educated myself on e.g. leveraged and inverse funds, and have an understanding in how they work and their risk/benefit equation as it applies to me. Also notably, public investments should be available to everyone, not just those willing to jump through artificial and arbitrary hoops. A person with $100 to invest has just as much a right to do so as one with a thousand or a million times this amount.
Leveraged and inverse funds are currently an essential part of my diversified investment strategy. I intend to continue to use them as appropriate for my personal circumstances and within my understanding and risk appetite. It's key to have a wide variety of instruments available to the public, as new commodities and other assets of interest and their derivatives become available for trading purposes. Restricting these ultimately makes the market in which these types of securities are offered net less valuable, and would only drive people like me to other markets altogether, regarding such regulation as heavy-handed and itself an additional source of risk.
More regulation isn't the answer. What's the justification anyway for trying to take away my choice? Investing is by nature "risky" and no one is hurt if I make a bad choice - only me. Hands off, please.