I find the very premise that in the largest capital market system in the world, there are regulators that are attempting to not allow inverse or leveraged ETFs. To say this is disingenuous would be taking it easy. Lazy is another word. Brokers, and financial advisors exist for reason as does compliance departments. The reality is the average investor is not going to know how to short or buy futures effective, don't have the time to do so, and/or will wind up paying much larger fees by buying the futures/options or utilizing a margin account. This appears to be in direct violation of Regulation Best Interest as leveraged & inverse make it more attainable for the average investor, more costly, and lastly more time demanding. How is this in any way beneficial to the end consumer? This is the definition of overreaching at its core.
Jeremy Walker Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08
I find the very premise that in the largest capital market system in the world, there are regulators that are attempting to not allow inverse or leveraged ETFs. To say this is disingenuous would be taking it easy. Lazy is another word. Brokers, and financial advisors exist for reason as does compliance departments. The reality is the average investor is not going to know how to short or buy futures effective, don't have the time to do so, and/or will wind up paying much larger fees by buying the futures/options or utilizing a margin account. This appears to be in direct violation of Regulation Best Interest as leveraged & inverse make it more attainable for the average investor, more costly, and lastly more time demanding. How is this in any way beneficial to the end consumer? This is the definition of overreaching at its core.