# kaal:claim:1428387-040

**Claim.** Regulating on the basis of retailization would not currently be justifiable, because retailization cannot be quantified with any degree of certainty and regulation premised on speculation without proof or data validation would probably produce inadequate results.

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

**Holds when.**

- as of 2009, absent data quantifying retail participation in hedge funds

**Source quote.**

> Using a form of regulation that is premised on speculation without any proof or form of validation through data analysis would probably produce inadequate results and therefore would not be justifiable. (The SEC has not yet raised the

**From.** Kaal, *Hedge Fund Valuation Retailization, Regulation, and Investor Suitability* (2009), VII. Conclusion, footnote 253, page 56

**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.** speculation-based-regulation  (family: measurement-and-metric-failure)

**Topics.** empirical-evidence

**Keywords.** retailization, evidence-based-regulation, data-gap, regulatory-justification

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