Hi FINRA,
I'm mildly opposed to a regulation banning "complex" financial products if it ends up covering things like 2x or 3x index funds (or even inverse funds). I can imagine folks getting themselves into trouble with these, but no more so than they already can with options and futures. I guess it's a bit worse insomuch as someone get get these funds in a
To whom it may concern: I have an MBA in Fnanace - 1984, and have been investing for the past 40 years. Your proposal to start testing investors before allowing to invest in whatever you deem risky is arbitrary, vicious ans smaks of communism! I do not need your [REDACTED] to tell me what to invest in!!!!! Leveraged and / or inverse funds are no more risky than non-inverse funds! They are
Hello - thank you for addressing this and making it a priority. I am primarily invested in AMC but also have shares in other shorted stocks like GME and NAKD. The pricing is being manipulated by market makers and hedge funds in and out of dark pools. Based on what we know as fact, they should have had margin calls multiple times but skirt the rules to push the proverbial can down the road. The
This is copy and pasted from a Reddit post but outlines exactly what I want to see to ensure all the cards are on the table. I also want something done about payment for order flow and people like Robinhood being able to sell me shares for more than NBBO. Rule 1. All short sale shall be reported to finra by end of each settlement day. Rule 2. Finra shall make public report the day to day short
I used to day trade, buying and selling options and penny stocks. I specifically quit those risky behaviors because I saw a more stable opportunity in leveraged ETFs. It allows me to gain the most out of my investments, which I make with my hard-earned money.
I always thought that this country was built on the principle that *anyone* could work hard and live free. I'm a grown adult who
I find it very concerning that FINRA is proposing to interfere in my usage of leveraged or inverse funds and ETFs. My investment firm's websites already give me ample warning about my risks using these investments, and they do it every time I consider making such a purchase. So your heavily burdensome proposed requirements would only be an unnecessary intrusion into my process of
While agree with the spirit of this proposed rule, in that investors who are at risk of being taken advantage of must be protected. I am concerned that the implementation and interpretation of this rule may negatively impact retail investors who are investing for themselves away from retirement accounts. I personally know many individuals who opened a Robinhood account during the pandemic and
I tried to purchase AMC stock in January, I was denied and frozen by Robinhood. I put in the money and tried to purchace below 10$, they refuse to execute my order...then wouldn't let me cancel it. They finally filled it after it hit the high around 18$ I have screenshot and email. Then, all of my friends were limited to buying power of a few shares a day! The economic impact is drastic as
Investors should be allowed to invest in all types of securities. Investors should not be discriminated against based on investment balance or net worth and should not have to pass a test to be eligible for certain investments. Brokers, such as Schwab, Fidelity, and Robinhood, and investment product providers, such as Proshares, all do a great job of informing investors of the risks associated
ENFORCE YOUR RULES. These rules don't mean anything if they're not enforced. And I'm not talking about giving Robinhood a 70m lawsuit, that's just the cost of doing business. The penalties need to be crippling to ensure that the rules are followed. Reduce the reporting period to daily. We live in the digital age, there is absolutely NO reason that this information isn't
