Dear SEC, How dare you go after these instruments. Focus more of your energy on companies which do insider trading and when you do give fines they cannot be less than the money made. Inverse funds and short selling and leveraged funds give some advantages to average investors that institutional investors dont need. Please reconsider thiese "rules". Banks should not trade FDIC leveraged
It's called a hedge. I want to be able to do the same thing the big institutions do. If I'm smart enough to buy long positions, I'm smart enough to short. As per usual, you are dumping on small investors and helping big banks aka: your donors. This isn't just stupid, it's anti American. It's my money, if I want to hedge, it's my business. Stay out of my business
Finra, thanks for giving us a way to input our thoughts on 22-08. Leveraged etfs offer the retail investor opportunities to take positions, both long and short, that in the past were only available to large asset managers. While warning labels are justified, we should be able to make up our own decisions on when and if to use leverage and or inverse etfs. Taking a monetary loss on a losing trade
Dear Regulators, I've been investing for over 20 years. I've used inverse funds in my IRAs when the market was pulling back because I'm not allowed to sell short in those accounts. I've used leveraged funds to increase the opportunity to make good profits at times. To limit me from doing either of these two investment vehicles hampers my ability to compete fairly. That's
Leverage etfs do not represent any more risk than the basic inherent nature of stock market. How does a market pricing of NFLX at 600 and going down to $180 in a short order ( or price of AMC going up and down without rhyme and reason) present less risk than a leverage ETF. The whole premise of SEC is wrong. Stock market is a manipulated market and a by product of so many countervailing forces.
Leveraged and inverse funds are highly valued-liquid trading instruments that I find very useful for quickly getting long and or short the market and are frequently used for hedging purposes. These products provide a very effective means to manage capital at market risk and there are no other inexpensive-scalable alternatives available to retail investors. These leveraged products provide
Dear Regulators, (FINRA)
I understand my investments and the risk involved in my trads. I should not have to go through any special process before investing in public securities. The fund I am in allows trades for up markets and down markets which allows me to make up my loss if any by shorting different funds. Like today's market, I have been able to make money for my IRA instead of
It does not make sense to limit leveraged investments as long as I can get a mortgage for 20% or less down payment in an asset which can lose 50% in the matter of months during a recession. How can that be safer than using leveraged and inverse investments? I'll tell you that it's not, in fact is significantly less safer. What harm is it to limit inverse investments when
Frankly, I find this federal overreach. This regulation would be taking away my ability to hedge long positions in my portfolio with leveraged short positions, thus allowing me to reduce execution costs, margin costs etc. Frankly it also props up the buy side dealers in their offering of more expensive hedging products. These types of ETF's are a simple way to hedge and do not need any
This smells like a rat to me. I have seen leveraged ETFS taken away prior to large moves like the Natural Gas ETF UGAZ and USLV right before silver went up. It seems everyone is fine when a vehicle is a one way street to wall street pockets shorting them but as soon as the regular guy has a chance it is taken away. The risks to these are clearly spelled out and no action is required or warranted
