For those who are just surfacing from an Afghan cave: Tom W. Bell is a law professor at Chapman University (in California) and Jason Ruspini is a Wall Street professional (in New York).
It seems that both will, independently of each other, write to the CFTC about the legalization of the “-event markets”- (here are the comments to the CFTC) —-a bad term for the “-non-hedgeable event derivative markets”- (which is also, probably, a term that is quite awful to your ears ). What to expect from them? (WARNING: This is highly speculative.)
TOM W. BELL
- He will state the libertarian point of view —-laissez faire, laissez aller. – [DISCLOSURE: I am a mid-core libertarian myself, so I like that.]
- Overall, he will try to put up a basket of legal hacks —-to establish that the real-money prediction markets should be as free as possible.
- In particular, he will try to make the point that “-event markets”- should be covered by the laws governing “-notes”- —-not by the laws governing “-contracts”-.
- By doing so, he will tell the CFTC to go fugging themselves —-since the CFTC is allegedly about “-contracts”-, not about “-notes”-.
- He will state that all the real-money prediction markets should be covered by the CFTC.
- He will navigate within the legal framework that the CFTC has established in their “-concept release”-. – [See this document from the Arnold &- Porter lawyers, if you wanna know what’s a “concept release”, in the mind of the CFTC regulators. – PDF file.]
- He will be very careful not to offense those bureaucrats.
TOM W. BELL vs JASON RUSPINI
- It’-s great that the libertarian point of view is elaborated and disseminated to these bureaucrats. However, the CFTC is an agency, not the US Supreme Court Of Justice —-and the fact that Tom W. Bell is right does not mean that he will prevail.
- Jason Ruspini’-s approach is extremely reasonable: he adopts the enemy’-s point of view, and, from within, tries to maneuver the regulatory barriers to create as much room as possible. Also, Jason Ruspini will address only the CFTC questions which he grasps well. (Contrast that with some who spread themselves too thin, and answer all the CFTC questions, even those where they have no expertise or experience. Their answers are, and, will be totally ignored. It’-s not what you say that is important- it’-s what you say in relation with who you are to say that.) I’-m pulling for Jason Ruspini’-s approach.
- If Jason Ruspini does not fuck it up, he has the potentiality to influence positively the CFTC, and to become one of the great leaders of the field of prediction markets. Let’-s wish for that. Our field needs courageous men (and women) with the right political compass and the sense of pragmatism.
THE MIDAS ORACLE TAKES:
– CALL TO ACTION: Let’-s fight so that the CFTC allows the FOR-PROFIT prediction exchanges to deal with “-event markets”-.
– In the for-profit vs not-for-profit debate, our prediction market luminaries, doctored by Bob, are on the wrong side of the issue.
– A young economist rebuts the American Enterprise Institute.
– CFTC’s Concept Release on the Appropriate Regulatory Treatment of Event Contracts…- notably how they define “-event markets”-, how they are going to extend their “-exemption”- to other IEM-like prediction exchanges, and how they framed their questions to the public. Here are the comments sent to the CFTC.
– The Arnold &- Porter lawyers explain the meaning of the CFTC’-s concept release on “-event markets”-. —- (PDF file)
– The Schulte &- Roth &- Zabel lawyers’- takes. —- (PDF file)
– The Sullivan &- Cromwell lawyers’- takes. —- (PDF file)
– What Vernon Smith told the CFTC.
– The American Enterprise Institute’s proposals to legalize the real-money prediction markets in the United States of America
Paul Wolfowitz’-s profile at the American Enterprise Institute
– How the neo-cons drove the United States of America into the unecessary Iraq war