Investor Rights in Hedge Funds: Qualified Investors, Risk Disclosure and the Liability of the Selling Institution

Qualifying as a qualified investor in order to buy a hedge fund does not show that the investor knew all the risks or waived the rights arising from inaccurate information. In a legal review, the conditions for buying the fund and the disclosure and diligence obligations of the bank or selling institution are assessed separately. In particular, the financial thresholds changed at the end of 2025, the status-preservation decision of 2026, the test exemptions for TEFAS funds and the content of the risk documents signed affect the outcome. In the face of losses in value and problems with access to cash in hedge funds, the core issue is what status the investor held on which date, what the investor was told, and what relationship exists between the alleged loss and the sales process.

What risks and rights come with buying a hedge fund?

A hedge fund is not the equivalent of a deposit or a guaranteed product

A hedge fund is a fund structure set up so that its participation shares are sold only to qualified investors. The word “free” (serbest) in the fund’s title describes the manager’s ability to apply certain investment strategies with a wider room for maneuver. It does not mean that the sale is open to everyone or that the manager can act independently of legal rules. The fund’s investment strategy, the applicable restrictions and the disclosed risk limits remain binding. [1, Arts. 6 and 25] [7, section 4.3]

A fund shown on the same screen as deposits in a bank’s mobile application therefore does not turn into a deposit. The value of a participation share is linked to the fund’s assets and liabilities; there is no general assurance that the amount invested will be repaid in full. Approval by the Capital Markets Board (SPK) does not mean investment advice or a guarantee of principal either. What matters for the investor is understanding the product itself as much as the channel through which the investor can access it. [1, Art. 11/5] [20]

For example, the needs of a person investing savings in order to pay the price of a home in a few months are not the same as those of a person investing money that will not be used for a long time while accepting high volatility. The fact that the same fund can be bought by both persons does not lead to the conclusion that it is equally suitable for both. The condition for being able to buy, the capacity to absorb a loss and a properly informed decision are separate matters.

Why do the current fund problems in Türkiye also call for an examination of the sales stage?

SPK’s statement of September 18, 2026 describes the regulatory process concerning transactions in certain funds involving shares with low actual free float, borrowings between related parties and valuation problems. The liquidation decisions in September, for their part, started a process different from normal operation for the funds within their scope. These statements provide a concrete context that may make it necessary to examine how the risk was explained at the time of sale; on their own, they do not prove that the same fault or offense occurred with respect to every investor. [16] [17]

Measuring investor harm solely by the negative return on the screen falls short. Being unable to access money set aside for medical expenses, an education payment or a business’s day-to-day expenses makes visible the gap between the intended use of the investment and the liquidity of the product. However, it must also be investigated whether this need was communicated to the institution before the sale and what the institution said in response. A difficulty that arises later does not automatically show that the sale was flawed from the outset; disregarding a need known in advance, on the other hand, calls for a separate assessment.

Is a qualified investor the same person as a professional client?

Being a qualified investor concerns access to products; the client category concerns the service regime

Communiqué No. III-39.1 classifies clients as retail and professional. A professional client is determined through the institutional categories in the regulation or through the conditions for acceptance on request. The concept of a qualified investor, by contrast, is linked to whom certain capital market instruments may be sold. Professional clients may fall within the definition of a qualified investor; in addition, a person who satisfies only the financial asset condition may also be accepted as a qualified investor. This second person does not become a professional client for all services merely for that reason. [2, Arts. 30–32] [5]

This distinction directly affects the scope of rights. It cannot be assumed that every obligation applicable to a retail client falls away because the institution says “you are a qualified investor.” The file should contain both the qualified status record and the client category at the institution concerned. Documenting one does not in itself prove that the conditions of the other have also been met.

The table is based on reading Communiqué No. III-39.1 together with the current Investment Services Guide. The client’s profession, level of education or apparent wealth does not replace the classification conditions in the legislation. [2] [4]

What conditions apply to a request to be accepted as a professional client?

For acceptance as a professional client on request, an account with a high balance alone is not sufficient. In addition to the client’s request, at least two of the following criteria must be met: the specified transaction frequency and volume, the size of financial assets, and relevant professional experience or licensing. The transaction condition is assessed on the basis of the volume in each three-month period of the last year and at least ten transactions. The professional condition requires certain managerial or specialist experience in the field of finance or the licenses specified in the regulation. [2, Art. 32] [4, sections Y and BB]

The institution must inform the professional client of the protections the client cannot benefit from and must also explain the right to change category. A written request by a client who does not wish to be treated as a professional cannot be disregarded. Its effect on the qualified investor record and on subsequent access to products must be assessed separately; the change does not automatically erase all consequences of transactions carried out in the past. [2, Arts. 30–31]

What amount is required to become a qualified investor in 2026?

The financial asset threshold differs from the amount to be invested in a single fund

Principle Decision No. i-SPK.37.7 of December 18, 2025 raised the financial asset amount, for those acquiring the relevant status for the first time from December 19, 2025, from 1 million Turkish lira (TL) to 10 million TL. The condition in the Communiqué is that the total financial assets exceed the specified amount. The transaction volume criterion for acceptance as a professional client on request was also increased from 500,000 TL to 5 million TL. The number of transactions and the other conditions remain in place. [3] [2, Art. 32]

Cash deposits and capital market instruments are taken into account in calculating financial assets. Owning a house, a car or a plot of land does not make it possible to add the estimated value of these assets directly to the total financial assets. On the other hand, documenting the person’s relevant financial assets at different institutions is important so that the assessment is not reduced to the balance at the bank making the sale. [2, Art. 32/1-b]

Ten million TL does not mean that at least this amount must be invested in every hedge fund. The minimum investment that a person meeting the qualified status condition will make in a specific fund is determined separately according to that fund’s purchase terms. Likewise, a fund balance below 10 million TL does not by itself show that the investor is not qualified. What must be examined is on which legal basis and on which date the status was acquired.

The current amounts for legal entities treated as professional by reason of certain financial sizes have also changed. The Guide sets total assets at 500 million TL, annual net sales at 1 billion TL and equity at 50 million TL; the condition in the Communiqué of exceeding at least two of the criteria remains in place. Registration of a company in the trade registry does not on its own satisfy this category. [4, section BB] [2, Art. 31/1-d]

What is the position of existing investors and those who later fall below the threshold?

The status of persons who acquired professional client or qualified investor status before December 19, 2025 under the financial conditions applicable at that time has been preserved. In addition, Principle Decision No. i-SPK.37.8 of March 10, 2026 provided that status acquired by reason of financial amounts continues even if the person later falls below those amounts. It therefore cannot be said, on the basis of an account balance that looks low today, that a past sale was necessarily contrary to the legislation. [3] [5]

For example, the situation of a person who duly became a qualified investor in 2025 and is left with financial assets of 3 million TL in 2026 differs from that of a person shown as qualified for the first time in 2026 despite having assets of only 3 million TL. In the second case, reliance on the rule preserving the earlier status requires that an earlier status actually existed. A screen record added later does not retroactively complete a missing condition.

The 2025 decision also contains a separate exemption for real estate investment funds and venture capital investment funds: the previous financial amounts continue to apply to qualified investors in these funds. However, this special exemption cannot be used as if there were a general threshold of 1 million TL for all hedge funds. The product for which, and the ground on which, the investor’s record was created must be assessed together with the product to be newly purchased. [3] [4, section BB]

How should the selling institution verify qualified investor status?

A declaration, a document and an electronic confirmation do not serve the same purpose

The institution selling hedge fund shares is obliged to obtain and keep in good order the information and documents showing that the investor is qualified. It must also ensure that the sale is carried out by personnel with sufficient knowledge and experience. The March 2026 decision further explains that the documents verifying qualified status must be requested from the investor and retained; an electronic environment may be used in this process. [1, Art. 25/4] [5]

There is also a special practice for sales on TEFAS. Section 6.8(ğ) of the Fund Guide requires that the qualified status record at MKK be checked before the transaction. In addition, the distributor may also fulfill its obligation under the first sentence of Art. 25/4 through a written or electronic declaration that the fund’s prospectus and investor information form on KAP have been read and understood and that the risks have been grasped. This facility should not be confused with the obligation in the second sentence to document and retain qualified status. [7, section 6.8(ğ)]

Accordingly, the fact that a box has been ticked in a mobile application does not show that the documentation requirement has been met in every case. Which declaration was submitted, the date of the account or document supporting it, who carried out the transaction and the consistency of the records are examined together. On the other hand, an electronic confirmation cannot be considered invalid merely because it is electronic. The legal issue is whether the method used and the records verify the specific transaction. [12, Art. 5] [5]

The definition of a qualified investor in Sales Communiqué No. II-5.2 and the related record-keeping system are important. Nevertheless, Article 2/2 of that Communiqué excludes the issuance of investment fund participation shares from its scope of application. For this reason, a provision on the sale of other instruments should not be transferred wholesale to hedge fund shares without assessing its scope. The special regulations on funds and the current principle decisions should be taken as the basis. [6] [1]

What is the effect of an untrue client declaration?

The client is responsible for the accuracy of the information provided. Presenting a non-existent asset as if it existed, or misstating professional experience, may be assessed against the investor in a dispute. However, the client’s responsibility does not remove the institution’s own duty to obtain documents and keep records. An institution continuing with a transaction despite a contradiction known to it and an institution acting on apparently consistent documents cannot be assessed in the same way. [2, Art. 30] [4, section BB]

If it is alleged that the client was steered with statements such as “all clients sign this form” or “you must choose the answers this way to be able to buy the fund,” it must be established who made the statement and when. The allegation should be based not only on the resulting score on the form but on the relationship between the answers given to the questions and the actual financial and professional situation. Even if fault on the part of the client is accepted, the relationship of that fault to the institution’s conduct and to the occurrence of the loss is assessed separately. [11, Arts. 52 and 114]

Are the appropriateness test and the suitability test mandatory in every hedge fund sale?

The TEFAS exemption in the appropriateness test should not be overlooked

The appropriateness test is aimed at assessing, within the scope of intermediation in buying and selling, whether a retail client has the knowledge and experience to understand the risks of the product. However, the application of the test varies according to the type of product and the sales regime. The current Investment Services Guide provides an exemption for investment funds traded on TEFAS and the other instruments listed, on condition that the client is informed that there is no obligation to carry out the test. The Guide does not require, for this practice, that the product necessarily be offered at the client’s own initiative. [2, Art. 33] [4, section A/4]

For this reason, an assessment along the lines of “no test was carried out, so the sale is certainly unlawful” is incomplete. First, the fund’s TEFAS status on the transaction date, the client’s category and whether the required notification was made must be established. The existence of a test exemption does not remove the requirement of being a qualified investor or the need for accurate information. These questions may have separate answers for the same hedge fund.

Here, the same article number in two different Communiqués should not be confused. Article 33, which Article 25/6 of Fund Communiqué No. III-52.1 states will not apply, concerns the upper limit of the fund’s total expenses. This reference does not remove, for all hedge funds, Article 33 of Communiqué No. III-39.1, which governs the appropriateness test. Whether the test applies is determined on the basis of its own regulation and the current Guide. [1, Arts. 25/6 and 33] [2, Art. 33]

Is a bank’s fund recommendation always considered investment advisory?

Article 45/6 of Communiqué No. III-37.1 is of particular importance. Guiding comments and recommendations given according to clients’ risk and return preferences concerning the relevant funds traded on TEFAS or BEFAS, and concerning money market and short-term debt instrument funds, are not considered to fall within the scope of investment advisory. For this reason, an obligation to carry out a suitability test cannot be inferred in every case solely from the fact that “the client representative recommended this fund.” [8, Art. 45/6] [9]

Nevertheless, the same provision reserves the principles in the second paragraph of Article 48, other than subparagraph (a), and the conflict-of-interest rules in Article 50. The obligations to avoid misleading or exaggerated statements, not to promise a specific return, to present forecasts together with their assumptions and to disclose significant conflicting interests remain important. The advisory exemption is not a license for misleading sales. [8, Arts. 45/6, 48 and 50]

For which services does the suitability test apply?

If an individual portfolio management or investment advisory service is actually being provided, the suitability test comes into play. Here, the compatibility of the investment objective, the financial situation, and the knowledge and experience with the service is assessed. A service that is not suitable according to the test cannot be offered; failure to provide the necessary information, or providing information that is clearly incomplete or out of date, may also prevent the service from being offered. This outcome differs from the situation in the appropriateness test where a transaction can be carried out at the client’s own request despite a warning. [8, Arts. 40 and 48]

The exemption relating to professional clients is also limited. For professional clients other than those accepted as professional on request, obtaining certain financial situation and knowledge/experience data is not mandatory. This facility does not automatically apply to a professional client on request; the examination of investment objectives does not fall away either. [8, Art. 40/4]

These distinctions apply together. A single “risk profile” score does not answer all four questions in the table. In assessing the sales process, the legal nature of the fund and of the service takes precedence over the name of the document. [1] [2] [4] [8]

Does signing the risk disclosure form eliminate the right to compensation?

The signature matters; the scope and timing of the disclosure are also examined

For retail clients, the general risk disclosure and the transaction-specific risk explanation are different obligations. The market, counterparty and liquidity risks of the product, as well as its costs, must be explained in an understandable way. Communiqué No. III-39.1 takes as its basis explanation through concrete or numerical examples as far as possible instead of vague expressions; it places on the institution the burden of proving that the disclosures and updates were made. Professional clients also have the right to request an explanation of product risks. [2, Art. 25]

The signed form may be an important document in the institution’s favor. However, whether a general text merely listing all investment instruments explained the long exit period of the specific fund or a particular return promise used in the sale is examined separately. A form being accessible before the transaction and one sent after the sale, or a form filled in with genuine answers and one where pre-filled answers were approved, do not have the same evidentiary value.

The investor’s statement “I did not read it” does not on its own remove all the effects of the signature either. The alleged breach must be made concrete: Which risk was not disclosed, which statement created false confidence, which documents contradicted one another, and how was the investment decision affected by this? A sound assessment takes into account both the institution’s disclosures and the investor’s conduct.

Accepting the risk differs from waiving in advance the institution’s fault

Accepting that a fund’s price may fall does not mean waiving all rights arising from the institution’s inaccurate information or unauthorized conduct. Article 115 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) prevents agreeing in advance on exemption from liability for gross fault; it also limits an exemption agreement relating to slight fault in services requiring expertise that are carried out under a permit. Pre-formulated standard contract terms may additionally be assessed within the framework of Articles 20–25 TBK. [11]

These rules do not lead to the conclusion that every risk form is invalid. The form may serve its function through the part explaining the genuine market risk; a clause alleged to remove the institution’s own obligations, however, is subject to separate review. A finding that a clause has no effect does not make the examination of loss, liability and causation unnecessary either.

What does the Court of Cassation’s decision on a hedge fund sale show?

In the case underlying the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 11. Hukuk Dairesi) dated April 20, 2021, E.2019/4445, K.2021/3866, the investor alleged that, despite expecting a risk-free, fixed-return instrument, the investor had been steered into a hedge fund that was not adequately explained. However, the courts assessed, on the basis of the specific documents and the investor’s level of knowledge, that the information and supervision obligations had been fulfilled; the dismissal was upheld by the Court of Cassation. The absence of a legal relationship and of a role in the sale with respect to the other defendant was also assessed separately. [15]

The decision does not support the view that every hedge fund loss can be recovered from the selling institution. On the other hand, it does not establish a general rule that “no action can be brought if there is a signature on the risk form” either. The outcome of the dispute from the 2013–2014 period cannot be transferred, without examining the documents, to the sale of a different fund in 2026. Its significance for the reader is that it shows the claim must be built on the investor’s actual state of knowledge, the explanations given and the correct counterparty. The official UYAP full text of the decision has been assessed within these limits.

How should a fund’s risk value, liquidity and past return be read?

A low risk value is not an assurance of payment on the day it is needed

A fund’s risk value is an important indicator; however, on its own it does not show all the risks or the investor’s personal needs. A classification related to past price movements cannot be regarded as an undertaking that a cash need on a particular date can be met. Alongside the risk level, the investment strategy, portfolio concentration, counterparties, valuation frequency and exit conditions should also be read. [20] [1, Art. 25]

In hedge funds, the calculation of the share price and payment to the investor may be tied to different dates. While the Communiqué provides for the price to be calculated at least once a month, it also allows longer periods to be set for redeeming participation shares to the fund. Accordingly, the fact that a price appears in the account does not prove that conversion into cash at that value is possible on the same day. The trading principles of the specific fund announced on KAP should be examined. [1, Art. 25/9 and 11]

Is an investor information form always mandatory for hedge funds?

Section 9.5 of the current Fund Guide draws a distinction on this point: for funds belonging to a hedge umbrella fund, preparing an investor information form is generally optional. However, for hedge funds traded on TEFAS, it is mandatory to prepare a suitable investor information form and announce it on KAP. For this reason, the absence of the form cannot be treated directly as a breach without investigating the fund’s TEFAS status. Its being optional does not mean that material information may not be disclosed at all either. [7, section 9.5]

In hedge funds, some basic information may appear on the KAP page instead of in a simplified prospectus. For this reason, carrying out the examination on the basis of a single downloaded PDF alone may be insufficient. For changes in strategy, risk, exit conditions and fees that affect the investment decision, the relevant announcements and effective dates should be compared. The obligation of accuracy, currency and consistency in the fund’s KAP disclosures continues. [1, Art. 25/14–16]

How do past returns and the performance fee affect the investor?

The fact that a high return was achieved in the past does not guarantee that the same return will continue. Highlighting only a successful short period in a presentation, or creating an impression of “safe earnings” without stating the dates and costs on which the comparison was made, is a separate subject for examination. The regulation on performance presentation prohibits misleading chart scales and exaggerated expressions of reliability; it requires the basis of the presented performance to be shown. [10, Arts. 13–14] [20]

The investor should learn not only the return percentage but also how the management fee and, where applicable, the performance-based fee are calculated. The fact that a fee was charged during a period in which the fund made gains in the past does not mean that a subsequent loss is automatically a ground for a refund. On the other hand, a deduction that was not disclosed or that was calculated contrary to the contract and fund documents may be examined independently of the fund’s market performance. [10] [1]

Can a hedge fund manager create unlimited leverage or concentration?

Although hedge funds have a different room for maneuver than general funds, the disclosed strategy and risk limits, custody and valuation obligations and special regulations apply. The Fund Guide, updated in August 2026, also contains special restrictions for hedge funds concerning concentration and certain transactions. The approach that “any transaction can be carried out because it is a hedge fund” is not compatible with the current regulation. [7, section 4.3] [16]

What matters is not merely that the loss occurred in a fund using leverage. The materialization of a risk disclosed within the scope of the permitted strategy is assessed differently from the exceeding of an announced limit or the concealment of a significant risk. Nor can it be said that a later regulation automatically renders every past transaction unlawful; the rule in force on the date of the transaction and any transitional provision should be taken as the basis.

Why can the legal position of investors who bought the same fund differ?

The short-term cash need of a retiree who became qualified earlier

As a hypothetical, consider a retiree who duly became qualified in 2025 and in 2026 invests money set aside for education expenses in a hedge fund. The fact that the balance today is lower than the new threshold is not, on its own, a defect in the sale. The real examination concerns whether the payment need was communicated to the institution and what explanation was given to the effect that exiting the fund was compatible with this need. [3] [5]

If the correct terms were explained to the investor and the investor accepted them, a later liquidity problem is assessed differently. By contrast, if it was said that the money would certainly be available on a specific payment date even though the long exit period was known, the effect of this statement on the investment decision is investigated. Being retired is not, on its own, a presumption of lack of capacity or inexperience; personal circumstances must be made visible through documents.

The situation of a business owner shown as qualified for the first time

In another hypothetical, suppose a person who did not previously hold the relevant status had financial assets of 8 million TL in 2026 and was shown as qualified solely on the basis of the financial asset criterion. If the new threshold for general hedge fund access is not met, the classification process is examined separately. No definitive conclusion can be reached without determining whether the person satisfies another professional client category. [2] [3]

Even if a lack of documents or an incorrect classification is established in this example, it must be shown why the amount to be claimed results from that breach. The current value of the investment, the payments received, the alternative available at the time of sale and the conduct that would have been followed had accurate information been given are important. The outcome of a lawsuit brought by another person who bought the same fund does not fill the gaps in this investor’s file. [11, Arts. 49–52 and 112]

Which documents should the investor request, and how should an application be prepared?

A document file linked to the transaction date should be compiled

The investor should not settle for keeping only the latest balance screen. The documents useful for assessing the sales stage are as follows:

• The qualified investor declaration, the date on which the status was acquired and the supporting financial documents.
• The retail or professional client classification, any request to be treated as professional and the information on protections.
• If carried out, all questions, answers and results of the appropriateness and suitability tests; if not, the exemption relied on and the notification.
• General and product-specific risk disclosures; the times at which the documents were provided and approved.
• The prospectus on the transaction date, the relevant version of the investor information form, if any, and KAP announcements.
• Correspondence relating to the sale, existing voice recordings, presentations sent, fee disclosures and account movements.

Qualified status can be viewed in MKK’s e-YATIRIMCI application. However, seeing the current record does not explain with which documents the record was created in the past. It is therefore useful to request separately from the relevant institution the initial record, the changes and the supporting information. The MKK record and the bank’s own client classification should also be compared. [19]

The annex to MKK announcement No. 2594 of October 5, 2026 explains the definitions of general or limited qualified investor in the system and, in the case of a change of type, the removal of the earlier record and the definition of the new type. This record distinction is not the same as the retail/professional client category. Accordingly, not only the existence of today’s record but also the type on the purchase date and, if any, the dates of removal or redefinition should be requested. [21]

The document and record-keeping regulations impose obligations concerning the preservation of records that must be kept. Preserving disputed records until the dispute is concluded is also particularly important. In an application, specifying which meeting or confirmation between which dates is requested is more conducive to examination than a general request to “send all my records.” [12, Arts. 20 and 27]

The claim should show the relationship between the disclosure deficiency and the loss

In the application, instead of the statement “my fund fell,” it should be explained how the alleged error affected the investment decision. For example, the claim that “a long-term product was presented as suitable and definitely liquid for money I said I would use two weeks later” can be examined together with the date of the relevant meeting, the notification of the need and the fund’s exit conditions on that date. Proof should rest not only on an explanation prepared afterwards but also on records created before the dispute. [13, Arts. 190 and 194]

Electronic correspondence and records may be important in the legal assessment; however, not every screenshot is conclusive evidence on its own. The integrity, attribution and date of the content must be verified. The production to the court of certain documents held by the institution, or the preservation of evidence at risk of being lost, may be requested through procedural law instruments where the conditions are met. [13, Arts. 199, 219–221 and 400]

How does an SPK complaint differ from a compensation claim?

An application to SPK may lead to an examination of breaches of classification, documentation, risk disclosure or other capital market obligations. However, as also explained on SPK’s complaints page, this administrative examination does not mean that a decision will be made to compensate the investor’s loss. A private law claim should be assessed separately in terms of the specific legal relationship and the applicable application conditions. [18]

If not being bound by the contract is to be asserted on grounds of mistake or fraudulent misrepresentation, the one-year period and its starting conditions under Article 39 TBK are also particularly important. This period is not the sole statute of limitations for all fund compensation claims. Waiting for the end of every kind of application on the ground that the liquidation or administrative examination is ongoing may lead to a loss of rights. [11, Art. 39]

If a special compensation claim based on Article 32 SPKn is asserted on account of false, misleading or incomplete information in the prospectus or other public disclosure documents, the six-month statute of limitations in the sixth paragraph of the same article should also be checked separately. Its starting point is linked to the date on which the loss referred to in the fourth paragraph occurred. This special period cannot be applied as a single period to all allegations of improper fund sales; the legal ground of the claim and its relationship with other routes of recourse should be distinguished. [14, Art. 32]

The allocation of liability among the portfolio management company, the custodian and the selling bank, as well as the procedure for a compensation action, are addressed separately in the series’ article titled “Compensation Action for Investment Fund Losses.” The focus of the examination here is to whom, and with what explanations, the product was sold; the documents relating to this aspect of the sale are the starting point for determining the subsequent legal route.

Related articles: How Are Inherited Shares and Investment Funds Taken Over? MKK and Brokerage Firm Procedures; Statute of Limitations and Preclusive Periods: How Is the Time Limit for Bringing an Action Determined?; Damages Actions for Investment Fund Losses: Liability of the Portfolio Management Company, the Custodian and the Bank; How to File a Complaint with the Capital Markets Board (SPK): Procedure, Required Documents and Legal Consequences.

Conclusion

The rights of a hedge fund investor cannot be reduced to the “qualified” record in the account or to a single signature on the risk form. The examination should start from the date on which the status was acquired and proceed through the client’s service category, the fund’s trading regime, the applicable test exemptions and the specific sales explanations. In particular, distinguishing the threshold change of December 19, 2025 from the status-preservation decision of March 10, 2026 prevents incorrect retrospective assessments. [3] [5]

What strengthens the investor’s legal position is not merely the size of the loss. Records showing which information was missing or misleading, how accurate disclosure would have changed the investment decision and which conduct of the institution is connected to the loss are decisive. For the institution, too, genuine and timely information, correct classification and auditable records form the core of the dispute. When the test exemptions and the sales-related obligations are assessed together, both the genuine market risk and wrongful conduct giving rise to liability can be addressed within their own legal framework.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does being a qualified investor mean I know all the risks?

No. Being treated as qualified solely under the financial asset condition, in particular, does not show that the person is an expert on every product. The professional client category, product-related disclosures and the exemptions that may apply are determined separately. [2] [5]

Can a hedge fund be bought with 1 million TL in 2026?

For a person who will become qualified for the first time under the financial asset condition, the general threshold from December 19, 2025 is exceeding 10 million TL. Status acquired earlier, other grounds for qualified status and the GYF/GSYF exemption are examined separately. The minimum amount actually to be invested in the fund is a different matter. [3]

Does my qualified investor status end because my fund lost value?

Status duly acquired by reason of financial amounts does not automatically end when the person later falls below the relevant amount. The principle decision of March 10, 2026 governs this situation. The case where the conditions were never met at the outset is different. [5]

Must a bank always carry out an appropriateness test when it sells a hedge fund?

No. The client category and the fund’s trading regime are important. For funds traded on TEFAS, an appropriateness test exemption may exist if the required notification has been made. The qualified status check and the need to avoid misleading statements are independent of this. [2] [4]

Does a client representative’s recommendation of a fund make a suitability test mandatory?

Not in every case. Fund comments and recommendations within the scope of Art. 45/6 of III-37.1 are excluded from investment advisory. The scope of the service actually provided is examined; the restrictions on misleading statements and return promises still apply. [8]

Can I assert inaccurate information even though I signed the risk form?

You can; however, the signature is assessed together with the scope of the form and the other records. What the undisclosed risk or the incorrect statement was, and its effect on the investment decision, must be made concrete. The signature alone does not remove all liability claims. [2] [11]

Is the absence of an investor information form in a hedge fund always a breach?

No. Although it is generally optional, for hedge funds traded on TEFAS it is mandatory to prepare an investor information form and announce it on KAP. Even if there is no form, the prospectus and other disclosure obligations are assessed separately. [7]

Must a fund with a low risk value pay out my money immediately?

The risk value is not, on its own, a payment date or an assurance of principal. The price calculation frequency and the terms for redemption to the fund and payment may differ. The KAP trading principles on the transaction date and the explanations given at the sale should be examined together. [1] [20]

Where can I check my qualified investor record?

Current qualified status can be viewed through MKK’s e-YATIRIMCI web or mobile application. For the date on which the record was created and the supporting documents, an application should be made to the relevant investment institution. The current screen does not on its own explain the conditions of a past sale. [19]

If I complain to SPK, will a decision be made to pay my loss?

SPK may examine the application in terms of compliance with capital market legislation; in this examination it does not award private law compensation. A claim for the loss to be made good is pursued separately on the basis of the parties’ legal relationship and the applicable procedure. [18]

Sources and legal bases

Legislation and official regulations

1. Capital Markets Board (Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu), Communiqué on Principles Regarding Investment Funds (III-52.1) (Yatırım Fonlarına İlişkin Esaslar Tebliği), in particular Arts. 6, 11, 12 and 25; Official Gazette, July 9, 2013, No. 28702; official text incorporating amendments. Full text.
2. Capital Markets Board, Communiqué on the Principles of Establishment and Operation of Investment Firms (III-39.1) (Yatırım Kuruluşlarının Kuruluş ve Faaliyet Esasları Hakkında Tebliğ), in particular Arts. 24, 25 and 30–33; Official Gazette, December 17, 2013, No. 28854; together with [3]–[5] as regards current amounts. Full text.
3. Capital Markets Board, Principle Decision No. i-SPK.37.7 (i-SPK.37.7 sayılı İlke Kararı), December 18, 2025, 65/2354; SPK Bulletin 2025/64, December 19, 2025. Bulletin.
4. Capital Markets Board, Guide on Investment Services and Activities and Investment Firms (Yatırım Hizmet ve Faaliyetleri ile Yatırım Kuruluşlarına İlişkin Rehber), i-SPK.37.9, version incorporating the update of June 17, 2026, 37/1118; in particular sections A, Y and BB. Full text.
5. Capital Markets Board, Principle Decision No. i-SPK.37.8, March 10, 2026, 14/492; SPK Bulletin 2026/14, E/1. Bulletin.
6. Capital Markets Board, Communiqué on the Sale of Capital Market Instruments (II-5.2) (Sermaye Piyasası Araçlarının Satışı Tebliği), in particular Arts. 2/2, 4 and 9; Official Gazette, June 28, 2013, No. 28691. Full text.
7. Capital Markets Board, Guide on Investment Funds (Yatırım Fonlarına İlişkin Rehber), version incorporating the amendments of decision No. 52/1589 dated August 28, 2026; in particular sections 4.3, 6.8(ğ) and 9.5. Full text.
8. Capital Markets Board, Communiqué on the Principles Regarding Investment Services, Activities and Ancillary Services (III-37.1) (Yatırım Hizmetleri ve Faaliyetleri ile Yan Hizmetlere İlişkin Esaslar Hakkında Tebliğ), in particular Arts. 40, 45/6, 48 and 50; Official Gazette, July 11, 2013, No. 28704; official text incorporating amendments. Full text.
9. Capital Markets Board, Announcement on the Communiqué Amending Communiqué No. III-37.1 (III-37.1 sayılı Tebliğ’de Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Tebliğ Hakkında Duyuru), April 7, 2022; explanation concerning III-37.1.c and fund recommendations. Announcement.
10. Capital Markets Board, Communiqué on the Principles Regarding Performance Presentation and Performance-Based Fees of Individual Portfolios and Collective Investment Undertakings, and Rating and Ranking Activities for Collective Investment Undertakings (VII-128.5) (Bireysel Portföylerin ve Kolektif Yatırım Kuruluşlarının Performans Sunumuna, Performansa Dayalı Ücretlendirilmesine ve Kolektif Yatırım Kuruluşlarını Notlandırma ve Sıralama Faaliyetlerine İlişkin Esaslar Hakkında Tebliğ), in particular Arts. 6, 8, 13 and 14; Official Gazette, December 17, 2013, No. 28854. Full text.
11. Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu), in particular Arts. 20–25, 30–39, 49–52, 112, 114 and 115; adopted January 11, 2011, Official Gazette February 4, 2011, No. 27836. Ministry of Justice text.
12. Capital Markets Board, Communiqué on the Document and Record-Keeping System for Investment Services, Activities and Ancillary Services (III-45.1) (Yatırım Hizmet ve Faaliyetleri ile Yan Hizmetlere İlişkin Belge ve Kayıt Düzeni Hakkında Tebliğ), in particular Arts. 5, 20 and 27; Official Gazette, August 1, 2015, No. 29432. Full text.
13. Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Arts. 190, 194, 199, 219–221 and 400; adopted January 12, 2011, Official Gazette February 4, 2011, No. 27836. Ministry of Justice text.
14. Capital Markets Law No. 6362 (6362 sayılı Sermaye Piyasası Kanunu), in particular Art. 32; adopted December 6, 2012, Official Gazette December 30, 2012, No. 28513; SPK’s official text incorporating amendments. Full text.

Court decision

15. 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, April 20, 2021, E.2019/4445, K.2021/3866; information in a hedge fund sale and the specific roles of the institutions concerned; upheld. Official UYAP full text, document No. 657284700. Official decision record; publicly available full text used for comparison.

Official statements and investor information

16. Capital Markets Board, Statement on the Regulatory Process for the Guide on Investment Funds (Yatırım Fonlarına İlişkin Rehber Düzenleme Süreci Açıklaması), September 18, 2026. Statement.
17. Capital Markets Board, SPK Bulletin 2026/61, September 17, 2026, fund liquidation list and implementation principles. Bulletin.
18. Capital Markets Board, Where and How Is a Complaint Filed? (Şikâyet Başvurusu Nereye, Nasıl Yapılır?) Official information.
19. Central Registry Agency (Merkezi Kayıt Kuruluşu), Frequently Asked Questions (Merak Ettikleriniz), explanations on e-YATIRIMCI and on viewing qualified investor status. Official information.
20. Capital Markets Board, Securities Investment Funds Introductory Guide (Menkul Kıymet Yatırım Fonları Tanıtım Rehberi), explanations on assessing the investment objective, risk, costs and past performance. Guide.
21. Central Registry Agency, Update of the Business and IT Application Principles and Rules Directive (İş ve Bilişim Uygulama İlke ve Kuralları Yönergesi Güncelleme), October 5, 2026, announcement No. 2594; section E.4 of the annex, qualified investor record types and change of type. Announcement and official annex.