With a paternalistic misguided view that you are protecting retail, you are in fact restricting risk management actions that can be taken by retail. And in the middle of a correction! Inverse ETFs are liquid and can be sized appropriately while selling covered calls cannot be. And institutions are allowed to trade options during hours retail is not, further impeding my risk management efforts.
I do not support restrictions on peoples freedom to invest. While perhaps the intentions are good it is a slippery slope to start restricting trading on certain investments, such as leveraged and inverse trading vehicles. While these funds may indeed have higher risk, so do many individual stocks. Not all companies and their corresponding stocks are equal, people make investment choices all
Hello.
I don't want my rights removed. Its bad enough that the individual investors have less rights and access to funds than the industry insiders and professionals. I don't want any less access to any funds you are considering restricting. I invest in select funds that you are considering limiting. I use them to hedge my investments in other stocks and funds. They are a
As an individual investor, I should be free to choose which types of risks and investment strategies I want to use. While leveraged ETFs are more risky than some other types of investments, the same is true of regular equities compared to bonds, and options compared to equities, as commodities compared to precious metals compared to crypto currencies, and as a savings account compared to
I believe it would not be right to limit the use of inverse and leveraged funds only to specialized brokers or limit them to certain sectors. As a public investor I use leveraged and inverse funds on a daily basis as a way to seek enhanced returns. I am fully aware of the risk of these funds, going so far as to download 30+ years of historical market data and running my trading strategy against
While agree with the spirit of this proposed rule, in that investors who are at risk of being taken advantage of must be protected. I am concerned that the implementation and interpretation of this rule may negatively impact retail investors who are investing for themselves away from retirement accounts. I personally know many individuals who opened a Robinhood account during the pandemic and
Complex products (ex: leveraged ETFs) are already limited in several wise ways. Limiting the leverage available to 3x is a good policy. However, completely gatekeeping who can access these products would simply increase inequality and unnecessarily increase costs for consumers. Gatekeeping access to all these complex opportunities would be akin to providing the unearned rent seeking through
A SIMPLE SOLUTION I'm appreciative that FINRA and the SEC have considered the market implications of complex products and how they are offered to the investing community. There are certain products (i.e., leveraged and inverse ETF's) which investors should understand in more depth. That said, it is not appropriate for a third party to arbitrarily decide whether investors are capable of
Comments I, an educated and experienced investor for over 50 years, utilize Direxion leveraged and inverse ETFs for my portfolios. All Direxion leveraged and inverse ETFs are intended for investors as I, with an in-depth understanding of the risks associated with seeking leveraged investment results, and I do actively monitor and manage my positions. I am aware that there is no guarantee that
I'm a former registered investment advisor and was on the board of the National Futures Association as a CTA representative on the self regulatory body for the futures industry. I also served as an arbitrator on cases where clients were suing their futures brokers. In my experience over 45 years of trading, investors in the US have been handicapped in providing themselves strategies and