Dear FINRA, I am dismayed to hear of your plans to impose restrictions on the types of public investments that I can invest in. I am an adult and you are not my parents. I am capable of making my own decisions about what I buy and understanding what I buy. Even if I weren't, it is still wrong for regulators to try and decide who is able to participate and who is not. I urge you to
I have seen warning provided by the broker website on each buy trade. In addition I had to go through a risk signup document to confirm that I understand the risk.
Above steps are good way to provide disclosure on every trade.
However if the changes are being planned to make an investor go through certain tests then I think that is excessive, and would not appreciate putting such restrictions.
I have held these type of investments in my portfolio for many years.These funds are a limited percentage of my portfolio. However, they have enhanced my bottom line significantly. Regulators have absolutely no business restricting me on my investment decisions. What makes you think that you can make better financial decisions than I can? Further, I make all of my own investment choices and
Testing And Continuing Education Scheduling Procedures Revised
To provide a better level of service to members, NASD Regulation, Inc., and the Sylvan Technology Center Network (Sylvan) have agreed that certain appointment scheduling activities regarding testing and continuing education sessions will become the direct responsibility of NASD RegulationSM. Effective June 1, 1998, NASD Regulation
I use my own money for my public investments. So I should be able to choose the public investments that align with my financial planning and risk level. I therefore oppose all restrictions to my freedom.
We all need a license to drive, but that's because other people's lives depend upon our driving skills. Investing is different, because only I get affected by my investment
In times where corporate pension plans are not existent anymore and the future of social security is questionable achieving high returns in up and down markets and the possibility to hedge are becoming even more important. Leveraged funds allow for potentially higher returns after expenses in cyclical bull markets, while inverse funds can offer protection to the downside during corrections and
I want the ability to make my own decisions on what investments to make and when to make them. Timing can be everything. A "cooling off period" could miss the opportunity. You don't have to take a test to invest in the market, go to Vegas, or buy expensive cars and toys, so why single this out? Some people aren't good at tests but are capable of incredible knowledge and
I strongly oppose limiting access to public securities for the select few who pass unnecessary tests. The public is perfectly capable of reading and understanding a prospectus and the associated risks and making wise investment decisions for themselves and their families. The securities under consideration for additional regulation such as leveraged and inverse funds are a key strategy to my
I write to oppose any rule or regulation that limits leveraged ETF positions to one day or access to leveraged ETFs. I am a retail investor that has done a lot of research on leveraged ETFs, am comfortable with the risk, and have invested a portion of my portfolio that I am comfortable with in leveraged products and plan to hold long term. If positions were limited to a single day, I would be
FINRA Requests Comment on FINRA Rule Amendments Relating to High-Risk Brokers and the Firms That Employ Them
