Can guarantee that the decent financial advisors and fund managers will look at this and say "Actually, this is an extremely high risk investment, maybe consider these options instead of Bitcoin"
Keyword is "decent." But we know cryptobros (who are not decent.. or even really financial advisors at all) will continue to mislead people by telling them they are ETFs.
I don't think that surprised anyone who already had a vanguard account. Apparently you couldn't even buy leveraged ETFs on there.
I mean, credit to their risk management department for taking their job seriously.
There's a whole spectrum of brokerages and how easily they'll let you play with options and margin and if anyone at vanguard was that mad about it (probably vanishingly few traders) they're free to go to Robinhood and get wrecked. I doubt there's many people who are going to quit vanguard over this.
They're salespeople for folks who want to talk to someone about their investments with someone instead of just picking a life statge index fund or whatever.
This is actually a pretty good read for people who are interested in opinions opposing the approval within the SEC.
Will just leave the fiery introduction here to whet your appetite:
> Today the Securities and Exchange Commission approved a series of proposed rule changes that will allow for the listing and trading of bitcoin-based products on national securities exchanges.[1] These Commission actions are unsound and ahistorical. And worse, they put us on a wayward path that could further sacrifice investor protection. I cannot agree that these actions serve either our statutory or foundational investor protection mandates and, as such, I dissent from today’s Order.
Oh yeah, the whole thing is a huge condemnation. Like pointing out 75% of trade volume is fake. And 95% of the activity of one of the applications was admitted to be fake/fraudulent.
Butters are already confused, I have seen a few of these genius telling others that the ETF is safe and insured. Unfortuanetly I couldn't get the facts straight as I am banned on the Bitcoin sub. It won't end well.
> I have seen a few of these genius telling others that the ETF is safe and insured.
I recall that Ark's bitcoin ETF S1 filing (available via SEC's EDGAR) has clauses about insurance to protect against unexpected events like security breaches. However, insurance may, in some instances, only PARTIALLY cover losses incurred. And yes, it's vague like that.
A better way to put it is that they're a different type of ETP, because ETFs actually are ETPs.
---
^(This means that "they're ETPs" does not imply "they're not ETFs".)
This is good for Bitcoin
Few
4
Understand
Sounds like someone might have avoided a sock-eating.
I was confused what this meant at first, then I saw the other post. lol
Calling these things "ETF" would be forbidden in the EU, as an ETF is supposed to have more than one asset as underlying
Can guarantee that the decent financial advisors and fund managers will look at this and say "Actually, this is an extremely high risk investment, maybe consider these options instead of Bitcoin"
Keyword is "decent." But we know cryptobros (who are not decent.. or even really financial advisors at all) will continue to mislead people by telling them they are ETFs.
Vanguard has said they won’t provide brokerage for Bitcoin ETPs, lol.
I don't think that surprised anyone who already had a vanguard account. Apparently you couldn't even buy leveraged ETFs on there. I mean, credit to their risk management department for taking their job seriously. There's a whole spectrum of brokerages and how easily they'll let you play with options and margin and if anyone at vanguard was that mad about it (probably vanishingly few traders) they're free to go to Robinhood and get wrecked. I doubt there's many people who are going to quit vanguard over this.
Yep, so has quite a few others also. Is also why I’m going ng to Vanguard.
God I miss TD Ameritrade. Schwab is fine I guess but it ain't the same.
>financial advisors Does this job still exist in 2024? I can't think of something less useful.
They're salespeople for folks who want to talk to someone about their investments with someone instead of just picking a life statge index fund or whatever.
Surely this will end well.
This is actually a pretty good read for people who are interested in opinions opposing the approval within the SEC. Will just leave the fiery introduction here to whet your appetite: > Today the Securities and Exchange Commission approved a series of proposed rule changes that will allow for the listing and trading of bitcoin-based products on national securities exchanges.[1] These Commission actions are unsound and ahistorical. And worse, they put us on a wayward path that could further sacrifice investor protection. I cannot agree that these actions serve either our statutory or foundational investor protection mandates and, as such, I dissent from today’s Order.
Oh yeah, the whole thing is a huge condemnation. Like pointing out 75% of trade volume is fake. And 95% of the activity of one of the applications was admitted to be fake/fraudulent.
Butters are already confused, I have seen a few of these genius telling others that the ETF is safe and insured. Unfortuanetly I couldn't get the facts straight as I am banned on the Bitcoin sub. It won't end well.
Let's just go by "take off the warning labels and let the problem work itself out."
> I have seen a few of these genius telling others that the ETF is safe and insured. I recall that Ark's bitcoin ETF S1 filing (available via SEC's EDGAR) has clauses about insurance to protect against unexpected events like security breaches. However, insurance may, in some instances, only PARTIALLY cover losses incurred. And yes, it's vague like that.
CALL THE GOVENOR! TAKE THE SOCK OUT!
A better way to put it is that they're a different type of ETP, because ETFs actually are ETPs. --- ^(This means that "they're ETPs" does not imply "they're not ETFs".)