# kaal:claim:1428387-019

**Claim.** State Blue Sky investment adviser registration exemptions are not by themselves sufficient to explain retailization or to justify the absence of data on it; they only indicate theoretically how previously unqualified investors could gain access to hedge funds.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- as an explanatory account of the retailization phenomenon

**Source quote.**

> Investment adviser registration exemptions under state Blue Sky laws would probably not suffice to explain the phenomenon of retailization or justify any data insufficiencies.

**From.** Kaal, *Hedge Fund Valuation Retailization, Regulation, and Investor Suitability* (2009), IV.B.1 U.S. Blue Sky Law Exemptions for Investment Advisors, page 34

**Cite as.** Kaal, Hedge Fund Valuation Retailization, Regulation, and Investor Suitability (2009). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1428387

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `6aa3a280dc6750723be2389f3af2aabf3a16c4ce20e49fcdaddd7f2ea95a67aa` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20-%202009%20-%20Hedge%20Fund%20Valuation%20Retailization%2C%20Regulation%2C%20and%20Investor%20Suitability.pdf

**Failure mode.** insufficient-explanation  (family: research-design-limitation)

**Topics.** securities-law, empirical-evidence

**Keywords.** retailization, blue-sky-laws, evidence-gap, explanatory-limits

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.