Subject: File No. S7-24-15
From: Adam Brook

February 20, 2020

I am writing to oppose the proposed regulation.
1. Such regulations would have a significant adverse effect on the US economy and would likely shave several points off of US GDP growth. Leveraged funds represent a highly cost-efficient vehicle for investors and promote efficient markets. The SEC's failure to present a detailed analysis of the economic effects of impeding the acquisition of leveraged exchange-traded funds is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law.
2. While leveraged ETFs are riskier than some investments, since they are generally based on underlying indices representing a basket of securities, they are often less risky than investments in a single company. Is the SEC going to proceed to restrict investments in "risky" companies?
3. It would be a strange regulation that restricted exchange-traded funds but did not restrict options trades and similar investment instruments. Exchange-traded funds are simply a cost-efficient way to achieve similar investments, except with the safety resulting from the diversification inherent in the instrument.
4. The proposed regulation would result in a significant loss of jobs in the financial sector. It would not prevent these instruments being invested in rather such funds would move their domicile to Jersey and similar offshore jurisdictions.
5. The proposed regulation would likely result in the closure of many of these funds, confronting present investors with significant tax liability due to forced sale of their securities.
6. The proposed regulation is not the least restrictive means by which the SEC could allay any concern that leveraged ETFs might disrupt markets. For example, the SEC could impose a "circuit breakers" akin to the security-specific circuit breaker system under the Limit Up Limit Down Plan. These would be a less restrictive means to ameliorate any possible risks relating to leverage exchange traded funds.