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
Simplified Arbitrations
The simplified arbitration rules apply to arbitrations involving $50,000 or less, exclusive of interest and expenses.
Expedited Proceedings for Seniors & Seriously Ill Parties
Dispute Resolution may expedite arbitration proceedings in matters involving seniors or seriously ill parties.
Expungement
Brokers may seek to have a reference to allegations or involvement
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
I use leveraged funds to hedge my accounts in volatile markets. They are a particularly efficient and inexpensive way to do that in a short-term way. Regulations make short-selling as a hedge very difficult and cumbersome; the ability to access leveraged ETFs levels the playing field for retail investors who do not use brokers. I understand the risks and decay of the instruments, but those are
my previous submission got out before it was finished. Inverse and leveraged funds provide an essential tool for retail investors to balance and hedge a portfolio at reasonable cost. It is impractical - and in some cases impossible - to effect short sales in a retail broker account. Having a ready tool to be able to reduce the market exposure in a portfolio is an essential part of investing for a
I am horrified and appalled that such a scam would even be suggested. There are trillions of dollars invested in leveraged and inverse etfs. In a bear market the inverse funds are the only things going up, as well you know. You cannot manipulate the market higher by effectively banning short selling, which is what this does. It will not work. As for me, if you institute these rules or anything
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
It is easy to understand that, in the long run, markets go up and that, therefore, an inverse fund that shorts an index is not a profitable long-term investment.
But it is also obvious it can be used to hedge long investments and limit the impact of a catastrophic downturn. And since it is related to an index, it is much less volatile and risky than many individual stocks.
Therefore, I don&#
It seems clear that any regulations on investment instruments like these are strictly to deny the general public from access to investment tools, and further the division between the ruling and working class. If FINRA really cared about the people you would be investigating dark pools, selling order flows, and limiting the way that short sellers are allowed to manipulate the market. I dare say
