I am totally opposed to the Proposed Rule #S7-24-15 for the following reasons: 1. I am a small investor that has invested in leverage funds for greater than 20 years and am quite capable of understanding the risks of using leverage funds. In fact, I find it offensive that a regulator would question my knowledge of the market by using some gimmick like passing a special test related to my
As an investor who has made use of inverse funds, including leveraged funds, over a period of approximately 20 years, I strongly oppose the restrictions and regulation described in this rule with respect to such funds. I am a seasoned investor and am fully capable of evaluating the characteristics, risks, advantages and disadvantages of inverse funds, leveraged or otherwise. I do need a nanny
The last several years have seen a growth in funds that help individual investors seek targeted exposure to investments and strategies previously only accessible to high net worth individuals. Use of funds including leveraged funds, inverse funds, commodities funds, real-estate funds including global real estate, high-yield bonds, currency strategies, emerging markets stock, bond and currency
Leveraged and inverse funds allow me to gain exposure to leveraged and short positions without having to take on leverage myself. I use inverse ETFs to hedge my long positions and to express a bearish view on the market. QQQ is down roughly 20% YTD, but I have been able to hedge my long stock positions and profit from this decline through the PSQ, the inverse of QQQ. I do not want to take on
This rule is absolutely unfair and limits the ability for average retail investors to earn outsized gains in the stock market. It makes it an un-level playing field with these products available to only large institutions and wealth managers, who in turn will charge extra fees to access these products. Putting a small allocation on my portfolio in an Leveraged and Inverse ETFs has personally
Inverse and leveraged funds are a valuable tool for an investor. Some brokerage firms have already refused to trade these in order to "protect the investor". I am a 76 year old retired teacher/mathematician/programmer. I have enough fixed income to retire comfortably. But I have lots of savings that can not earn a reasonable income in the current market and low interest rates. Over my
I think this marks one of your last chances to be on the right side of the fight. On the one side you have the institutions that collapsed the entire economy back in 2008 and are looking to do it once again simply for their own greed, using ILLEGAL practices in the forms of float dilution via synthetic shares and PFOF routing to darkpools, and on the other side you have the retail players who are
FINRA’s NAC Revises the Sanction Guidelines
INFORMATIONAL
Continuing Education
Effective Date: January 1, 2004
SUGGESTED ROUTING
KEY TOPICS
Continuing Education
Legal & Compliance
Registration
Senior Management
Regulatory Element
Executive Summary
Effective January 1, 2004, the fee for the Regulatory Element of Continuing Education will be reduced from $65
SUGGESTED ROUTING
Legal & ComplianceSystems
Executive Summary
On March 14, 1994, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved an amendment to Section 4 of the OTC Bulletin Board (OTCBB®) rules that requires OTCBB market makers to indicate, by a fifth-character geographic indicator appended to their market-maker identifier (MMID), that the firm's trading desk for a
