IMO this is excessive overreach by regulators. There is very little about leveraged or inverse funds that is any more complicated than their ordinary counterparts or mutual funds. I would venture to estimate that fewer than 1% of mutual fund owners could name the top three holdings in any mutual fund they have. Most of these inverse funds are even simpler: they have basically ONE holding. How is this somehow more confusing to investors?
Leveraged and, particularly, inverse funds play a crucial role in my asset management and in the investment world. They help manage risk quickly and with less complication than put options. I have often used them to protect assets during down markets and they have worked fantastically well. If they were limited to privileged investors by whatever means, people who want to manage their own financial life would actually be DIS-advantaged because their availability could only be accessed through the financail elite. IMO, these purported "protection" measures would do exactly the opposite of what is intended and further contribute to the disparity in wealth problem in this country.
Mark Newton Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08
IMO this is excessive overreach by regulators. There is very little about leveraged or inverse funds that is any more complicated than their ordinary counterparts or mutual funds. I would venture to estimate that fewer than 1% of mutual fund owners could name the top three holdings in any mutual fund they have. Most of these inverse funds are even simpler: they have basically ONE holding. How is this somehow more confusing to investors?
Leveraged and, particularly, inverse funds play a crucial role in my asset management and in the investment world. They help manage risk quickly and with less complication than put options. I have often used them to protect assets during down markets and they have worked fantastically well. If they were limited to privileged investors by whatever means, people who want to manage their own financial life would actually be DIS-advantaged because their availability could only be accessed through the financail elite. IMO, these purported "protection" measures would do exactly the opposite of what is intended and further contribute to the disparity in wealth problem in this country.
Please vote no on these proposals.