February 19, 2020
I'm a 26-year-old investor. I've been investing in mutual funds since I was 11 and my dad taught me to invest my paper route money stocks since about 19 when I decided to read Joel Greenblatt's book about value investing, and leveraged ETFs in my early 20s as a means of taking advantage of our great post-2008 market (after a rather harrowing experience as a 12-year-old losing half of his paper route savings as a result of the housing crisis.)
Needless to say, I've benefited greatly from our free-market economy, and in particular, capital investment. I believe S7-24-15 flies in the face of well-understood free-market principles and seems to overstep the original founding intent of the SEC.
Under what pretense is it believed that this is good or fair regulation of the free market? This appears to be a 113 page proposal effectively solving a non-existent problem. There's no exploitation involving leveraged funds, and individuals investing in them are already subject to leverage limitations (i.e. you cannot typically buy leveraged ETFs on margin.)
This current proposal on leveraged funds will limit free-market exchange, and government involvement in exchange (especially where there is no existing problem) is rarely a good thing for the American people or economy. Investors appreciate the oversight the SEC has on exploitation and corruption in stock exchanges, but ideally this oversight should be a "minimal effective dose." That does not appear to be the case with S7-24-15. It will be pointless overhead in what should ideally be a free market.
I urge you to consider not passing this regulation.