Displaying 411 - 420 of 1654 Results
It's my family's money at risk. We are perfectly capable of understanding leveraged and inverse funds. Let us decide which vehicles we use. This proposal will only help the large institutions by once again handicapping the private investors even more with so called rules designed to "protect" them.
This is troublesome. Privatizing public investment resources is not a reasonable measure. There is literally no precedence in place to support the proposal, much less to enact it. Steering anyone who wants to choose their own investment path, over to brokerage is evidence of foul play among the elite. This wont go well, not will it hold up in the legal process.
No where in the Bill of Rights does it allow the federal government, or any of its derivative agencies, to insert themselves whatsoever into the personal investment decisions of private citizens. This proposed regulation overreach and others like it have and will errode trust in government institutions, and lead to law suits asserting constitutional rights violations in federal court.
I strongly object to any FIRNA curbs on my ownership of "complex" public exchange traded Products, when the vendor has made adequate disclosure of the product's operation and risks. There are far more useful actions that FIRNA can take in other areas to protect investors, eg. SPACs, private equity marketing, etc.
It's time for the government to stay out of private citizens business. I have no money to invest thanks to government high taxes because the people running this country have no common sense that American s should come first. It needs to stop already. Keep your nose out of investments and everything else that is not governments busines
I believe that these regulations do less to protect the "safety" of the average consumer then they do provide a considerable advantage in the markets for high net worth persons who have the resources to replicate these investments with their private money managers. If you want more equitable and safe markets then merely provide a education warning when trading these securities.
Comments: Please do not limit investors' ability to trade "complex products" including leveraged and inverse funds. These products are not confusing. If you want to make sure investors are aware of what they are investing in then have them read a waiver in advance. Otherwise, there should be no restriction on what a private investor should be able to invest in in this manner.
These types of securities are no more complex than calls & puts that have been a mainstay of public markets for decades. I have been in the investment & private equity businesses for about 4 decades and these should be allowed to be purchased by the general public just the same way SPAC's (blind pools) have been able to purchased by small investors.
The proposed regulations would unnecessarily infringe on my freedoms to contract privately on financial matters based on my own discretion. Leveraged and inverse funds are an important component of my trading strategies, and I should not have to disclose or satisfy any particular financial means or investment knowledge tests to enter into financial transactions in these products.
A democratic government should not second-guess the competency or plans of private citizens in their financial strategy. Are we going to be told how to dress and what we can eat next? Money is involved - people know they need to be careful. Any restriction will be government overreaching. We are not a totalitarian state - what other rights have become "negotiable"?