First let me say that I am a Roosevelt supporter (Teddy and FDR), not anti-government.
I have traded ProFunds, which offers shorts and leverage, for about ten years. ProFunds is my favorite fund family.
I do not have an advisor or broker, and I never have or will. Common knowledge is that advisors underperform markets by the amount of their fees.
What regulators should do, if our bribed Congress would require it, is restore Glass-Steagall, forbid dark pools and high-frequency trading, audit and regulate hedge funds, curtail or at least register derivatives, enforce the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts, police the rating agencies, and require financial advisors to give refunds for underperformance.
US regulators currently allow a wild West of ignoring the previous paragraph, whereas mutual funds have been under a microscope since 1940. (Actually peering into the microscope, however, requires an Eliot Spitzer--the SEC did not take the lead in exposing and rectifying the most recent round of fund scandals.)
If an investor does not want to own a fund that leverages an index by a factor of two, she or he can invest half as much money. Why is this do-it-yourself remedy not obvious to the SEC? If the SEC wants to enhance the protection of investors, mandate a lower minimum initial investment.
The ability to short is morally equivalent to free speech.
If the SEC would like to protect incompetent or unlucky investors, require fund managers to provide more and better explanations and examples of leverage and shorting.
This SEC proposal suggests a vendetta against ProFunds and of underhanded price supports for CEOs and other large shareholders.
My financial condition is none of the SEC's business and is akin to the unconstitutional questions one must currently answer to open a bank account. The SEC's job is to find and help prosecute lawbreaking, not examine investors' ability to withstand adversity.
Hunter Greer Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08
First let me say that I am a Roosevelt supporter (Teddy and FDR), not anti-government.
I have traded ProFunds, which offers shorts and leverage, for about ten years. ProFunds is my favorite fund family.
I do not have an advisor or broker, and I never have or will. Common knowledge is that advisors underperform markets by the amount of their fees.
What regulators should do, if our bribed Congress would require it, is restore Glass-Steagall, forbid dark pools and high-frequency trading, audit and regulate hedge funds, curtail or at least register derivatives, enforce the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts, police the rating agencies, and require financial advisors to give refunds for underperformance.
US regulators currently allow a wild West of ignoring the previous paragraph, whereas mutual funds have been under a microscope since 1940. (Actually peering into the microscope, however, requires an Eliot Spitzer--the SEC did not take the lead in exposing and rectifying the most recent round of fund scandals.)
If an investor does not want to own a fund that leverages an index by a factor of two, she or he can invest half as much money. Why is this do-it-yourself remedy not obvious to the SEC? If the SEC wants to enhance the protection of investors, mandate a lower minimum initial investment.
The ability to short is morally equivalent to free speech.
If the SEC would like to protect incompetent or unlucky investors, require fund managers to provide more and better explanations and examples of leverage and shorting.
This SEC proposal suggests a vendetta against ProFunds and of underhanded price supports for CEOs and other large shareholders.
My financial condition is none of the SEC's business and is akin to the unconstitutional questions one must currently answer to open a bank account. The SEC's job is to find and help prosecute lawbreaking, not examine investors' ability to withstand adversity.