I'm confused about why these funds should be an issue for regulators. They have been just fine for the past several years, and now they become a problem? This issue makes me suspect, and probably correctly so, that there is "money" behind the regulation concerns. Someone is not getting their "fair share" someway or somehow, and therefore we need to
PLEASE do not take away ordinary retail investors' right to trade these products. There is an inherent risk in any investment. People who participate in the market should be able to assess for themselves what level of risk they want to take on. If they don't want the risk, there are plenty of other vehicles to trade. Most importantly, these products are the only way ordinary
Leveraged and inverse funds should be available to everyone, not just the privileged. We started buying leveraged and inverse funds in 2011 and over the course of the last 11 years, we have continued to invest more in those funds as we've seen our best returns from these investments. They have also gone down in value but we do not sell when it's down. Leveraged and inverse
I oppose having restrictions placed on leveraged ETF;s for the following reasons: 1. There are many individual securities (stocks and funds) that are more volatile than leveraged ETFs 2, Volatility is not risk and more meaningful is the trend of its moving average. e. Volatility provide investors an opportunity to achieve their objective in a shorter time period. Rather than impose restrictions
These proposed regulations are outrageous. In a time when markets are posed to melt down, what other hedge does the average investor have but leveraged and inverse funds? These funds are not difficult to understand, certainly no more difficult than the average vastly overvalued equity or byzantine mutual fund.
This seems like a way of preventing normal investors from protecting ourselves in
Dear FINRA,
Restricting access to leveraged and inverse funds only serves to tip the investing playing-field more in the favor of the wealthy and institutional investors. Moreover, while unconventional, not all inverse funds necessarily carry greater risk of ultimate loss than the general market does. I am a frequent investor in SVXY in particular, and depriving me of this investment opportunity
I have my own right to decide which product I want to invest. 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 you can invest in public securities, like leveraged and inverse funds. I got a PhD majored in computational finance and I understand leveraged and inverse funds and
I believe it would be a mistake to reduce access to these popular and useful short to medium term trading funds. There is more than enough information in the market web sites on how to use a x3 fund. Extreme risk lies only on a " black swan" event and these events pose similar risks to all investors. I believe that I have benefited from my use of x2 & x3 funds on the SP500. It
I understand that youd like to restrict my ability to invest in certain investment products, namely leveraged mutual funds. I invest in these risky products only with money that I could afford to lose. I invest more than enough in broadly diversified, low cost index funds to cover a comfortable retirement. The money I use to invest in atypically risky ways is above and beyond what I need to meet
If regulators want to prevent people from gambling, then restrict the worst first. start be preventing online sports betting. then prevent sports betting at casinos. Then prevent slot machines at casinos.
and if the wish to help small investors, make Robinhood and others disclose how much they are paid for "pay for order flow"
And if they wish to help all investors, make
