A good argument can be made that sophisticated investors should have been more wary about FiT returns and built into models the potential of financially punishing retroactive changes to the rules.  It is likely that most investor groups did assume the possibility of these outcomes but unfortunately ranked changes to FiT programs so low (on a percentage basis) that the potential of a negative financial outcome did not weigh enough to effect the go/no go decision making model. This would indicate that the high potential of confirmation bias (the subconscious need to seek supporting evidence) was ignored.