Displaying 3421 - 3430 of 9026 Results
I would like to make my point why this regulation does not benefit or protect consumers the way FINRA might think:
Leveraged ETF's:
Getting a loan for a mortgage by putting % as down payment is also a leveraged product, not complex at all, are you going to regulate that too? Should people read or pass a test to buy a house? Even more, this is all my MY MONEY not the banks', let
I use leveraged and inverse funds sometimes to hedge or balance positions or respond to geopolitical changes: it is difficult enough to profit in the market without more unnecessary regulatory hurdles I have not encountered any of these ETFs that were especially opaque, hard to understand, or misleading: these products' labels do not need to be any clearer than they already are, nor
I OPPOSE RESTRICTIONS TO MY RIGHT TO INVEST
* I am able to choose the public investments that are right for me. Public investments should be available to all of the public, not just the privileged.
* I don't need to go through any special process like passing a test before I can invest in public securities, like leveraged and inverse funds. I'm capable of understanding
Public investments should be available to all of the public, not just the privileged. I not regulators should be able to choose the public investments that are right for me and my family. I shouldn't have to go through any special process like passing a test before I can invest in public securities, including cryptocurrency funds such as BITO. I am capable of understanding cryptocurrency
Regulators need to stop dictating what we as investors can and cannot due. The proposed regulations in rule 22-08 are akin to discriminatory voting test or other suppression tactics which have been used to disenfranchise broad demographic groups. All investments should be open to all. Regulations cannot protect us from ourselves. Restricting certain investments to high-wealth individuals or other
If Finra is going to enact such extreme regulations why have registered representatives? Why would customers even need a licensed registered representative to help them with investing if the only thing they can invest in are simple investments unless they take a test. There are already more than enough regulations and compliance tools to keep registered representatives accountable. This may sound
I've been using leveraged ETFs as well as ETNs for years. Why should I suddenly be subject to restrictions on products that I understand the risks for. Investing in these products isn't actually inherently riskier than simply investing in an individual stock, even a popular and widely-owned one (and indeed often is LESS risky, depending on the specifics of the stock).
Should
As an investor for more than 27 years, I oppose restrictions to my right to invest in public investments.
I not regulators should be able to choose the public investments that are right for me and my family. Public investments should be available to all of the public, not just the privileged few.
I shouldn't have to go through any special process like passing a test before I
NASD has filed with the SEC a proposed rule change to (1) amend NASD Rule 3010(g)(2) to revise the definition of the term "branch office"; and (2) adopt IM-3010-1 to provide guidance on factors to be considered by a member firm in conducting internal inspections of offices. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to facilitate the creation of a branch office registration system
Dear sir or madam, Individual investors, such as myself should be able to make the investments we want that are right for our families. We should not have to pass tests to invest in leveraged and inverse funds and trade in options. These strategies are critical to my families overall investment strategy as we near retirement age. I depend upon the returns I am able to make by trading in ETF funds