I used leveraged funds as a very small part of my investment portfolio. I understand the risk associated with them, have talked with financial advisors and explored the risk on my own and use it as part of a diversified approach. I do not need government or regulatory oversite to make a financial decision. Public options should be available to the public, not just those who a select group can
I would like to oppose this rule. In my opinion, investors who are investing in these complex products know the risks already. Also brokerage companies let us informed of the risks. Whenever i try to buy a leverage fund, my broker shows warnings at multiple places in big bold red letters during the transaction. I suspect if someone "accidentally" bought these leveraged funds. I
It is my understanding that you are considering restrictions to leveraged and/or inverse investments... I sincerely disagree with this proposed policy. As a retired Naval Officer (pilot) with 2 Engineering degrees and an MBA -- I think I'm capable of evaluating risks within my investment portfolio. Moreover, all investment involves risk and every investor knows it and Public investments
I want to express that I oppose any additional regulation on my ability to invest in leveraged ETFs. My investment company, Fidelity Investments, already has a screen to limit investors options in investing based on their investment experience. I also had to sign additional documents with them stating I knew the risk of leveraged funds. I have invested in leveraged funds for over 10 years. I
I oppose putting restrictions on investing in inverse or leveraged ETFs. Just like any stock investment, I clearly understand the the risks involved and under certain market conditions, I need a hedge to decrease my risk. I am the best person to be making my own investment decisions and not relying on others to be making choices for me that are not in my best interest. You should also not be
I should have the same rights and privileges as any other company or individual with regards to ALL stock market investment choices, including leveraged and inverse funds. First and foremost, the stock market is there for the public good, not the privileged few. I am fully capable of understanding the risks of investing and it is my responsibility to bear those risks. It is FINRA's
I should be able to invest based on what I am able to invest and where I choose to invest it. There is no need for a special process for this. I can make my own risk assessment based on my earnings etc. Many of the funds I use as a hedge against a market crash in order to protect my earnings. It makes no sense to remove these types of investments. When used within your individual risk profile
Leveraged and inverse funds are important to my investment strategies. They are no different than other basic public stock investments. They further allow me to hedge the risks associated with individual stock purchases. I am fully capable of understanding leveraged and inverse funds and their risks. Once again it appears such rulings are meant to intrude on my ability to freely trade and invest
This is an unconscionable infringement on my rights as a free person and an unwarranted and irresponsible interference in the marketplace. Learning to manage risk is the first lesson learned by an investor. Those techniques are just as effective for 'complex' trades as for 'non-complex' trades. This is an attempt to create a distinction where there is no significant difference
Independent investors see that markets go up and markets go down and need to have the ability to invest in inverse funds without the cost of expensive advisors and with the same freedoms as large institutions. We do not need the nanny state protecting us from our own assessment of risk. This is a basic freedom versus big-state control issue. I am capable of understanding leveraged and inverse