Displaying 3691 - 3700 of 9026 Results
I oppose restrictions to my right to buy leveraged and inverse funds
I should be 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 shouldn't have to go through any special process like passing a test before I can invest in public securities, like leveraged and inverse funds. I am capable of
Dear Finra,
I am absolutely opposed to regulation on leveraged ETFs. I have been using them for years and they are part of my long term strategy for growth in my Roth IRA. I know the risk I am taking and I have a long time horizon for these investments. I have studied the markets for 20 years and learned about economics and even technical analysis of the price charts on my own through all
I'm not god's gift to investing, but these funds figure prominently in my portfolio, and I was up about 50% last year - and this year I'm doing just a little worse than the S&P. Not bad overall.
The idea that I could have been prevented from achieving these returns because I don't have a high enough net worth or because I couldn't pass
I strongly oppose restrictions and limitations on inverse and leveraged investment products.
Too many of the tools available to protect, preserve and increase a lifetime of savings are restricted to professionals and the wealthy. I have spent a lifetime working hard to save, and I should have the power to invest as I see fit. Special processes and tests are simply gates to further limit access
Funding is extremely challenging. Additional regulations are not the answer. I deal with "sophisticated" high net worth investors every day for fundraising for my biotech company. Most have less knowledge about pharmaceuticals than my special needs seven-year old son. These individuals would undoubtedly pass the proposed test, but they still won't have a clue.
More
I urge FINRA not to further regulate the ability of investors to purchase complex funds including leveraged and inverse funds. Investors should have the freedom to choose their investments without judgment or approval from government regulators. The current regulations and disclosures of risk are sufficient. I am capable of understanding risks without government judgment of me.
Proposed rules
I, the investor, and not you, the regulators, should be the one to choose the public investments that are right for me.
This is a matter of basic principle, and therefore of first importance: PUBLIC investments should be available to ALL the public, not just the privileged, who are already more than privileged enough.
What you propose is part of an insulting trend: the "Nanny State
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. I shouldn't have to go through any special process like passing a test before I can invest in public securities, like leveraged and inverse funds. I am capable of understanding leveraged and inverse funds
I believe that retail leveraged funds, accessible to the public, are important to keep alive and available without additional regulation. If we take these away, normal citizens will be at a disadvantage compared with institutional investors (who will still have access to these, even if in different ways).
I do not believe that we should impose additional tests or hurdles for public citizens to
It's just come to my attention that there is a proposal to impose restrictions on my ability to trade publicly traded securities that may come in the form of testing, having a certain net worth, getting special approval from my broker, having read certain materials or being subject to "cooling off periods" while investing.
I am an intelligent, volitional human being who