I am writing today to express my view that investors, not regulators, should be able to determine the appropriate investments for their accounts. In particular, leveraged and inverse ETF funds should be acceptable investments for all investors. I have used these types of funds personally to help hedge my portfolio and feel that they have provided me with some great alternatives to traditional
Hello, I am writing to voice my objection to proposed legislation which seeks to restrict our right to invest in inverse and leveraged funds.
These types of investments are a very important part of our investment strategy and help in reducing overall portfolio risk, when used appropriately, like most other investment classes, including options.
They are simple and easy to understand asset
I am a retail investor with approximately $1M in investments, spread over several accounts. I routinely trade leveraged and inverse ETFs as a small portion of my overall investment as part of my overall risk management strategy. Though these ETFs are a small percentage of my total assets, they sometimes form a larger percentage of an individual account, as I concentrate all these trades in a
Dear Sirs,
I'm concerned about the proposal of "Regulatory Notice 22-08". Indeed, it might be a must for regulators to take certain action on new financial products, but I don't think this restriction can solve the problem. The reason is listed below:
1.What serves as complex product is too ambiguous, that means, investors can’t figure out what investment tools
I agree with the proposals as listed. I believe this would prevent or reduce the manipulation many believe the market is subject to at present. As such it would promote confidence within retail investors many of whom believe that institutional investors have made the market inherently unfair to them and as such retail may begin to disengage with investing. These proposals I believe would also
FINRA should not impede retail traders. FINRA should instead regulate institutions to prevent them from taking too large positions all on one side as seen with so called "meme stocks". Institutions all have the same information, they all bet on the same side of futures and create volatility far in excess of their ability to cover positions. Through this practice of
I understand that FINRA is considering putting additional restrictions and / or eliminating a whole range of ETF products. This greatly concerns me.
From the list of products that are under consideration, I frequently use some of them, and currently have positions using these ETF's. I do strategically use some leveraged funds, but the funds that I am particularly concerned about are the
I oppose this restriction to my right to invest. Those with a high net worth have traditionally been able to invest and greatly increase their wealth. Having more wealth to invest also means that they have a lot more to lose which often applies to complex investments. These restrictions would also force the public to utilize a broker which not only incurs a cost, but often results in a much more
Leveraged ETFs currently provide some of the cheapest forms of leverage available to retail investors at a cost of less than 100 basis points above the daily fund rate. Furthermore, they provide inherent tax advantages in rebalancing when compared to alternative leverage methods such as opening box spreads, obtaining effective leverage through options chains, or managing futures contracts.
Not to
FINRA requests comment on a concept proposal regarding the application of FINRA rules to security-based swaps (SBS) following the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) completion of its rulemaking regarding SBS dealers and major SBS participants. Current FINRA Rule 0180, which will expire in September 2021, provides a temporary exception from the application of FINRA rules to SBS, with