Comments: FINRA is misplaced with this indicated intent on leveraged ETFs. All financial instruments and transactions have complexity. All people have brains and they can use them - to make their own choices, do their own research, and get help and advice where they deem it necessary. Transactions with these and any ETF are purely voluntary and disclaimers are clear and numerous. No new rules or
TO: All NASD Members and Other Interested Persons
The following are NASD Notices to Members issued during the third quarter of 1987. Requests for copies of any notice should be accompanied by a self-addressed mailing label and directed to: NASD Administrative Services, 1735 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006-1506.
Notice Number
Date
Topic
87-42
July 1, 1987
NASDAQ National Market
I oppose the attempt to restrict the rights of investors to invest in leveraged and inverse funds. While I see that it is an attempt to prevent possible loss by inexperienced investors, failure is sometimes a necessary learning tool. Rules made to avoid the odds of failures are simply crutches for the inexperienced and unnecessary barriers to those attempting to learn. There are already limits in
As a small retail investor, I think it is outrageous that FINRA should arbitrarily decide what retail investors can invest it by restricting access to inverse and leveraged funds to only high net worth individuals, and impose others barriers like 'cooling off periods' and getting special permission from brokers. Such rules and restrictions are elitist, unfair, and paternalistic. Please
It is important to continue to allow individual investors to freely invest in inverse and leveraged ETF's and similar. Although it may be true that uninformed investors may cause great harm to themselves because the do not understand, the brokerage industry has provided significant notices and warnings to investors of the potential negative results of their decisions. As always, "caveat
I am opposed to a plan which makes restrictions on being able to buy and sell inverse funds without jumping through a variety of hoops to get permission. However, it would be good to have rules on the prospectus documents explaining in very clear language what the unusual risks are from using the funds. The special coverage of risks could be put right at the beginning of the prospectus and
Hello, I vehemently object to the proposed rule. I should have the full right to choose 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 object to any requirement that requires going through any special process before investing in complex products. Leverage and inverse funds are important tools for my
I oppose the proposed Rule#S7-24-15 for the following reasons: 1. You have no right to decide for the public into what vehicle the public can invest their own funds. 2. You have no right to decide which individuals are allowed the right to invest. 3. You are creating a discriminatory system for investors decided by agencies on what is available. You are basically creating a secret system
Please do not proceed with SEC Proposed Rule #S7-24-15. I am a long standing private investor and have used leveraged funds to enhance returns on my investment portfolio. I have a good understanding of the risks involved in leveraged and inverse funds, how they can be used to hedge my portfolio or to provide leveraged returns on the underlying securities, and request that you do not restrict my
December 1999
SEC—Year 2000 Recordkeeping Rule
Effective August 31, 1999, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted SEC Rule 17a-9T (the Rule) relative to Year 2000. The Rule, which was originally proposed in March 1999, is intended to assist broker/dealers, the SEC, self-regulatory organizations (SROs), and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) in identifying all
