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 have already been aware of the disclosures and risks involved with leverage etfs. I have been trading for several years. It is obvious that you people do not work for the American people and instead work for your cronies. Keep making america corrupt is your goal. I can make my own decisions and if I lose money, so be it thats on me. With GME, it is obvious your protection isnt meant to help the
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
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
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
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
Bill St. Louis is an Executive Vice President and Head of Enforcement. In this role, Mr. St. Louis manages and directs FINRA’s Enforcement national operations. He also leads the development of FINRA’s national enforcement policies and procedures, and oversees the prosecution of firms and individuals for disciplinary action.
Before his appointment as Head of Enforcement, Mr. St. Louis led FINRA’s
Comments: As a retired Registered Investment Advisor of 38 years without a single complaint, I highly recommend you NOT change investor's access or ability to trade complex products, including and especially leveraged and inverse ETFs. Retail investor's net purchases of such leveraged ETFs have been rising steadily over the past few years, with the 10-day rolling sum recently exceeding
I am writing to ask that you do not put investment restrictions on individual investors with regards to leveraged funds and inverse funds. These funds are safer than taking out margin in my brokerage account to leverage up my positions. Inverse funds are great for portfolio management at times like this when the stock market is over valued and the federal reserve is raising interest rates. It is