March 17, 2020
I strongly believe the proposed regulations are:
1. Meddlesome. If this proposal is adopted, investors like myself who choose to invest in leveraged and inverse funds to enhance returns and/or protect our portfolios could be prevented from buying them because of a qualification process designed to protect us from ourselves. Adopting this proposal could have the unintended result of brokerage firms electing to no longer offer access to these funds because of the burdensome hurdles imposed by the regulations.
2. Unnecessary. I see no evidence that it is problematic for individual investors to freely choose leveraged and inverse funds as part of their overall investment strategy. In the absence of evidence it appears that this is a solution in search of a problem. There is no convincing argument that these funds should be treated differently than other public securities. Individual investors are not stupid. We recognize that all public securities have their own characteristics and risks. We are capable of viewing opportunities within the context of our own risk tolerance. Therefore, the proposed regulations are unnecessary.
3. A Dangerous Precedent. Regulating to save investors from themselves is un-American. The proposed regulations defy the great tradition of individual investors and their advisors having the freedom to choose either wisely or foolishly in making investment decisions. Requiring investors to qualify to purchase a security in the public markets would be an unjustified break with how the SECs regulation of the sale of securities in the public markets has worked for nearly 90 years. Making wise men out of fools is not accomplished by regulation. But, once attempted, where would it stop?