I am an individual investor and I have been taking advantage of leveraged ETFs for some time. I limit use of leveraged ETF to one of the 3 major stock market indexes, where my portfolio has diversification. I understand leveraged ETFs may be volatile, but theres a lot of individual securities that are more volatile. Regulators should not place more restrictive rules on leveraged ETFs. All
I would suggest that if you are considering stiffer regulations on leveraged investments, you should take a look in other places where there is nothing but hot air underneath. Netflix, Rivian and hundreds more highly inflated stocks. The problem with that is given your belief that more government is better government would drive you there without that suggestion. These investments give the little
This is business in America. If you regulate trading in inverse and leveraged investment vehicles, you also need to regulate the buying of all stocks. Especially in times of bubbles which has been created by our monetary decision makers! Business does NOT only increase in value, it also goes down and if I wish, I believe a person should also be able to profit from poorly run businesses and also
I have been investing in the stock markets for over 50 years and am quite capable of making my own considered evaluations about a particular investment. I also study competent outside advice. I do not need or want your interference in my right to make those decisions, thank you very much! In other words, just bug off, Nanny, and stick to your job of rooting out the fraudulent practices in your
I oppose restrictions to my right to invest in leveraged and inverse funds/ETFs. I am a middle-class American and have educated myself to understand different investment strategies - including the usage of leveraged ETFs. In my specific case I use leveraged ETFs to enhance my overall growth strategy - which is a mix of bonds, index funds, and individual company stock investments. For one I am
This proposed rule is a bad idea. Making any investments is inherently risky - even the "blue chip" stocks have periods when they don't do well. Some people have a higher tolerance for risky investments than others. If they are willing to take the risks involved in buying into an investment, and they have the wherewithal to afford it, they should not be limited.
Also
This is disgusting!! once again, you limit the options for the average american and give even more advantage to the rich in the stockmarket! Obviously, your motive is to prevent declines in stock prices,90% of which are owned by the top 10% of the population. Leveraged and inverse funds are easier to trade and safer than options and futures. The rich don't need any more advantages than they
If I want to short a stock, or use a regular or inverse ETF, that is my choice. Americans are supposed to be equal, and have to the same opportunities that the more wealthy have. A lot of leveraged funds provide tremendous opportunities for the active investor, and do exactly what they're meant to do. I don't need to attend university or work for Goldman Sachs to have access
We do not need further regulations on funds which can be invested by normal people. Further limiting parties who can invest in these funds removes opportunities for investment equality as well as potential economic growth. Any stock market investment should be considered for risk. There is already significant notifications as to the additional risks involved in a leveraged fund. Please do not
Comments:
I have been investing in the stock market for almost 39 years including 29 years working as a financial advisor.
I have traded leveraged and inverse ETFs
in my own account and understand the risks of same. Fidelity has provided ample warnings of the risks associated with these
Instruments. I would be supportive of FINRA efforts to protect investors for whom these ETFs would be
