Please find my official comment to FINRA Regulatory Notice #22-08. I oppose the contemplated restrictions for the following reasons (among other things):
1. Financial instruments available to retail investors (like myself) have to go through a rigorous disclosure/registration process before becoming available generally for investment. It thus seems unnecessary to impose further burdens which have the practical effect of limiting my ability to invest my capital as I see fit. It is incumbent on every investor to perform his/her due diligence before investing in a given product. That not every investor exercises this level of diligence is not a reason to hinder all investors from utilizing investment products that some may deem more complex.
2. As an investor, it is my obligation to educate myself as to the risks involved in investing in a particular financial instrument before committing my capital. I should not have to be subjected to further tests, processes, etc. because some investors choose to abdicate their responsibility to educate themselves before investing. It is, in a word, unfair.
3. As a retail investor, it can be difficult to find sophisticated instruments which allow me to hedge risk in the market or take advantage of unique situations. Rather than further restricting retail investor access to such instruments, you should be focusing on how to allow retail investors have access to more sophisticated financial instruments.
While I understand the impulse to protect investors, there comes a point where the costs of regulation outweigh the benefits. This is such a situation. Please do not further hamstring my ability to invest for the benefit of my family by limiting my ability to invest in instruments such as leveraged and inverse ETFs.
Thomas Egg Comment On Regulatory Notice 22-08
To Whom It May Concern:
Please find my official comment to FINRA Regulatory Notice #22-08. I oppose the contemplated restrictions for the following reasons (among other things):
1. Financial instruments available to retail investors (like myself) have to go through a rigorous disclosure/registration process before becoming available generally for investment. It thus seems unnecessary to impose further burdens which have the practical effect of limiting my ability to invest my capital as I see fit. It is incumbent on every investor to perform his/her due diligence before investing in a given product. That not every investor exercises this level of diligence is not a reason to hinder all investors from utilizing investment products that some may deem more complex.
2. As an investor, it is my obligation to educate myself as to the risks involved in investing in a particular financial instrument before committing my capital. I should not have to be subjected to further tests, processes, etc. because some investors choose to abdicate their responsibility to educate themselves before investing. It is, in a word, unfair.
3. As a retail investor, it can be difficult to find sophisticated instruments which allow me to hedge risk in the market or take advantage of unique situations. Rather than further restricting retail investor access to such instruments, you should be focusing on how to allow retail investors have access to more sophisticated financial instruments.
While I understand the impulse to protect investors, there comes a point where the costs of regulation outweigh the benefits. This is such a situation. Please do not further hamstring my ability to invest for the benefit of my family by limiting my ability to invest in instruments such as leveraged and inverse ETFs.
Thank you for your consideration.