60 Minutes:

-

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, Attention: Office of the Secretariat. Comments may be sent by facsimile to 202.418.5521, or by e-mail to secretary@cftc.gov.

Reference should be made to the “Concept Release on the Appropriate Regulatory Treatment of Event Contracts.” Comments may also be submitted through the Federal eRuleMaking Portal at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Fekrat, Special Counsel, Office of the Director (telephone 202.418.5578, e-mail bfekrat@cftc.gov), Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581.

-

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.

- The definitive proof that FOR-PROFIT prediction exchanges (like BetFair and InTrade) are the best organizers of socially valuable prediction markets (like those on global warming and climate change).

- Analysis of the HedgeStreet’s comment sent to the CFTC.

-

BACKGROUND INFO:

- 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 BusinessWeek news article about the CFTC’s concept release.

- The Arnold & Porter lawyer’s take. — (PDF file)

- The Schulte, Roth & Zabel lawyers’ take. — (PDF file)

- The Sullivan & Cromwell lawyers’ take. — (PDF file)

- Michael Giberson’s economic take.

- Chris Hibbert’s libertarian take.

- Tom W. Bell’s libertarian take.

- The American Enterprise Institute’s proposals to legalize the real-money prediction markets in the United States of America

-

COMMENTS TO THE CFTC

- Very soon, two prediction market organizations and one VIP will submit their comment to the CFTC.

- What Vernon Smith told the CFTC. — (PDF file)

- Jed Christiansen’s pragmatic take. — Final draft – (PDF file) – His comment to the CFTC – (PDF file)

- The International Swaps and Derivatives Association‘s comment to the CFTC – (ISDA) — (PDF file)

- Jason Ruspini’s comment to the CFTC — (PDF file)

- Tom W. Bell’s petition, which will be sent to the CFTC. — (Jonathan Gewirtz is in.)

- HedgeStreet’s comment to the CFTC. — (PDF file)

- A young economist rebuts the American Enterprise Institute. — (MO mirror) — Comment to the CFTC – (PDF file)

- Tom W. Bell rebuts the American Enterprise Institute.

- Robin Hanson’s comment to the CFTC. — (MO mirror)

-

APPENDIX:

Paul Wolfowitz’s profile at the American Enterprise Institute

- How the neo-cons drove the United States of America into the unecessary Iraq war

-

-

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, Attention: Office of the Secretariat. Comments may be sent by facsimile to 202.418.5521, or by e-mail to secretary@cftc.gov.

Reference should be made to the “Concept Release on the Appropriate Regulatory Treatment of Event Contracts.” Comments may also be submitted through the Federal eRuleMaking Portal at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Fekrat, Special Counsel, Office of the Director (telephone 202.418.5578, e-mail bfekrat@cftc.gov), Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581.

-

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.

- The definitive proof that FOR-PROFIT prediction exchanges (like BetFair and InTrade) are the best organizers of socially valuable prediction markets (like those on global warming and climate change).

- Analysis of the HedgeStreet’s comment sent to the CFTC.

-

BACKGROUND INFO:

- 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 lawyer’s take. — (PDF file)

- The Schulte, Roth & Zabel lawyers’ take. — (PDF file)

- The Sullivan & Cromwell lawyers’ take. — (PDF file)

- Michael Giberson’s economic take.

- Chris Hibbert’s libertarian take.

- Tom W. Bell’s libertarian take.

- The American Enterprise Institute’s proposals to legalize the real-money prediction markets in the United States of America

-

COMMENTS TO THE CFTC

- Very soon, two prediction market organizations and one VIP will submit their comment to the CFTC.

- What Vernon Smith told the CFTC. — (PDF file)

- Jed Christiansen’s pragmatic take. — Final draft – (PDF file) – His comment to the CFTC – (PDF file)

- The International Swaps and Derivatives Association‘s comment to the CFTC — (ISDA) — (PDF file)

- Jason Ruspini’s comment to the CFTC — (PDF file)

- Tom W. Bell’s petition, which will be sent to the CFTC. — (Jonathan Gewirtz is in.)

- HedgeStreet’s comment to the CFTC. — (PDF file)

- A young economist rebuts the American Enterprise Institute. — (MO mirror) — Comment to the CFTC – (PDF file)

-

APPENDIX:

Paul Wolfowitz’s profile at the American Enterprise Institute

- How the neo-cons drove the United States of America into the unecessary Iraq war

-

CFTC’s Concept Release on the Appropriate Regulatory Treatment of Event Contracts

-

SUMMARY:

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission or CFTC) is soliciting comment on the appropriate regulatory treatment of financial agreements offered by markets commonly referred to as event, prediction, or information markets. \1\ For ease of reference and to avoid classification issues, these financial agreements are referred to herein as event contracts. In general, event contracts are neither dependent on, nor do they necessarily relate to, market prices or broad-based measures of economic or commercial activity. \2\ Rather, event contracts may be based on eventualities and measures as varied as the world’s population in the year 2050, the results of political elections, or the outcome of particular entertainment events. \3\ The Commission’s staff has received a substantial number of requests for guidance on the propriety of trading various event contracts under the regulatory rubric of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA or Act). Given the substantive and practical concerns that may arise from applying federal regulation to event contracts and markets, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to solicit and consider the public’s comments in advance of issuing any definitive guidance.

\1\ See Michael Gorham, Event Markets Campaign for Respect, Futures Industry Magazine (Jan./Feb. 2004); Justin Wolfers and Eric W. Zitzewitz, Prediction Markets, 18 J. Econ. Persp. 107 (Spring 2004); Robert W. Hahn and Paul C. Tetlock, Using Information Markets to Improve Public Decision Making, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies Working Paper 04-18 (March 2005); Hal R. Varian, Can Markets Be Used to Help People Make Nonmarket Decisions?, The New York Times (May 8, 2003).

\2\ The term event contract is not intended to encompass contracts that generate trading prices that predictably correlate with market prices or broad-based measures of economic or commercial activity, or contracts which substantially replicate other commodity derivatives contracts, such as binary options on exchange rates or the price of crude oil. The aforementioned contracts are unambiguously subject to CFTC regulation.

\3\ See, e.g., Retired claims list at the Foresight Exchange

-

DATES: Comments must be received by July 7, 2008.

-

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581, Attention: Office of the Secretariat. Comments may be sent by facsimile to 202.418.5521, or by e-mail to secretary@cftc.gov.

Reference should be made to the “Concept Release on the Appropriate Regulatory Treatment of Event Contracts.” Comments may also be submitted through the Federal eRuleMaking Portal at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Fekrat, Special Counsel, Office of the Director (telephone 202.418.5578, e-mail bfekrat@cftc.gov), Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581.

-

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Purpose of the Release

Since 2005, the Commission’s staff has received a substantial number of requests for guidance on the propriety of offering and trading financial agreements that may primarily function as information aggregation vehicles. These event contracts generally take the form of financial agreements linked to eventualities or measures that neither derive from, nor correlate with, market prices or broad economic or commercial measures. Event contracts have been based on a wide variety of interests including the results of presidential elections, the accomplishment of certain scientific advances, world population levels, the adoption of particular pieces of legislation, the outcome of corporate product sales, the declaration of war and the length of celebrity marriages. In response to the various requests for guidance, and to promote regulatory certainty, the Commission has commenced a comprehensive review of the Act’s applicability to event contracts and markets. To further its review, the Commission is issuing this release to solicit the expertise of interested persons, including CFTC-registered markets, exempt markets, over-the-counter derivatives dealers, capital market participants, legal practitioners, state and federal regulatory authorities, academicians and research institutions with respect to the practical and regulatory issues relevant to regulating event contracts and markets.

Broadly speaking, the Commission must determine:

1. Whether event contracts are within the Commission’s jurisdiction and if so, why (or why not)?

2. If event contracts are within the Commission’s jurisdiction, should there be exemptions or exclusions applied to them and if so, why (or why not)?

3. How should the Commission address the potential gaming aspects of some event contracts and the possible pre-emption of state gaming laws?

The Commission urges interested persons to provide detailed and comprehensive comments that will assist the Commission in conducting its review and analysis of the Commission’s regulatory purview over event contracts, the interests that may appropriately underlie Commission-regulated transactions, and the appropriate regulatory treatment of markets that may offer event contracts.

B. CFTC Experience With Event Contracts

The Iowa Electronic Markets (IEM), an electronic trading facility that functions as an experimental and academic program, is one of the better known and oft discussed real-money event markets currently in operation. \4\

The IEM operates in part pursuant to a 1993 no-action letter issued by Commission staff which, without asserting jurisdiction or describing the potential parameters of the Commission’s regulatory purview over the market, allows the IEM to list various event contracts subject to certain conditions and limitations for covered contracts. \5\

\4\ The IEM is run by the University of Iowa Departments of Accounting and Economics and the University’s College of Business Administration.

\5\ CFTC Staff Letter No. 93-66 [1992-1994 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ] 25,785 (June 18, 1993). This no-action letter superseded the operative terms of a more limited letter issued to the IEM in 1992. The 1993 letter’s relief extends to IEM contracts based on political elections, economic indicators, and certain currency exchange rates. The letter requires that the IEM limit access to any one submarket to between 1,000 and 2,000 traders. The letter also sets the maximum amount that any single participant can risk in any one submarket at five hundred dollars. The letter makes clear that relief is premised on, among other factors, the IEM’s representations concerning the market’s specific manner of operation and academic purpose, and the assurance that the IEM will not receive any profit or other form of compensation from its activities.

The IEM continues to be most recognized for its presidential election contracts. The IEM offers a vote share contract and a winner-take-all contract for the 2008 U.S. presidential election cycle.

Its vote share contract is ultimately associated with the candidates that will be nominated by each party. Each vote share contract has a maximum value of $1 and a contract payout that is directly based on the percentage of the popular vote received by each of the two major party candidates. For instance, a contract for a candidate who receives 40% of the popular votes cast for both candidates will be worth $.40 at settlement.

In contrast, the IEM’s 2008 presidential election winner-take-all contract will have a value of either $1 or $0 at settlement. The IEM’s winner-take-all-contract is also associated with a specific candidate, but instead of having a payout that is tied to a particular percentage of the popular vote received by each candidate, the contract will distribute a fixed payout of $1 to its holder if and only if the candidate referenced by the contract receives a greater percentage of the popular vote cast.

Although the IEM’s presidential election contracts are imperfect vehicles for the discovery of information, there is some consensus on the question of whether the IEM’s contracts can function capably as predictive tools. \6\ Indeed, trading data generated by some IEM presidential election contracts arguably have produced better predictive indicators than data obtained from professional polling organizations. \7\

\6\ See, e.g., Michael Abramowicz, Information Markets, Administrative Decision Making, and Predictive Cost-Benefit Analysis, 71 U. Chi. L. Rev. 933, 950 (2004).

\7\ See Cass R. Sunstein, Group Judgments: Statistical Means, Deliberation, and Information Markets, 80 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 962, 1029-31 (June 2005).

II. Commodity Options and Futures and the Attributes of Event Contracts

The Commission, with some exceptions, has exclusive jurisdiction over two relevant types of derivative instruments —commodity options and commodity futures contracts.

Section 4c(b) of the Act gives the Commission plenary jurisdiction over commodity options, and provides that “[n]o person shall * * * enter into * * * any transaction involving any commodity regulated under this Act which is of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, an option * * * contrary to any rule, regulation or order of the Commission[.]”

Section 2(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that the Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to accounts, agreements, and transactions (including options) involving contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery.

Event contracts, depending on their underlying interests, can be designed to exhibit the attributes of either options or futures contracts.

A significant number of event contracts are structured as all-or-nothing binary transactions commonly described as binary options. \8\ Binary event contracts typically pay out a fixed amount when an outcome either occurs or does not occur. The trading of such contracts can facilitate the discovery of information by assigning probabilities, through market-derived prices, to discrete eventualities. For example, a binary contract based on whether a particular person will run for the presidency in 2012, can pay a fixed $100 to its buyer if and only if that individual runs for the presidency in 2012. If the contract’s traders believe that the likelihood of the individual’s candidacy in 2012 is around 17 percent, the price of the contract will be around $17, and will approximate the market’s consensus expectation of the individual’s candidacy.

\8\ See, e.g., Intrade Prediction Markets, Current Events Contracts

In addition to binary event transactions, the term event contract has also been used to identify transactions, based on interests other than market prices, which resemble futures contracts. For instance, these types of event contracts can price consensus estimates of moving values, such as the number of hours the average U.S. resident spends in traffic or the share of votes that a particular candidate for political office may receive. Unlike binary transactions, and similar to any commodity futures contract, this type of contract creates continuous and ongoing obligations that are linked to moving measures or levels, as opposed to being dependent on the outcome of a single discrete occurrence.

III. The Commission’s Regulatory Purview

As discussed above, with some limited exceptions, the regulatory purview of the Act extends to and includes transactions that are either structured as options or futures when such transactions involve interests that constitute commodities under the Act.

Section 1a(4) of the Act defines commodity in two distinct ways. First, Section 1a(4) specifically enumerates certain articles or goods as commodities. \9\

Second, Section 1a(4) defines the term commodity as including those articles or goods, and services, rights or interests, “in which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in.” Therefore, an underlying interest that is not enumerated in Section 1a(4) may be a statutory commodity under the Act if it reasonably can underlie a futures contract on a forward looking basis. \10\

\9\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(4). Section 1a(4) of the Act enumerates the following commodities: wheat, cotton, rice, corn, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed, grain sorghums, mill feeds, butter, eggs, Solanum tuberosum (Irish potatoes), wool, wool tops, fats and oils (including lard, tallow, cottonseed oil, peanut oil, soybean oil, and all other fats and oils), cottonseed meal, cottonseed, peanuts, soybeans, soybean meal, livestock, livestock products, and frozen concentrated orange juice.

\10\ See United States v. Valencia, No. H-03-024, 2003 WL 23174749 at *8 (S.D. Tex Aug. 25, 2003) (noting that the determination of whether West Coast natural gas is “a commodity in which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in,” is a fact question, and that “there is no evidence that West Coast gas could not in the future be traded on a futures exchange.”).

In addition to Section 1a(4), Section 1a(13) of the Act identifies certain interests as excluded commodities and thereby gives further shape to the statutory definition of commodity. \11\ The Section 1a(13) definition of excluded commodity is composed of four subsections. The third subsection defines the term to include any economic or commercial index that is based on prices, rates, values, or levels not within the control of any party to the relevant contract. The fourth subsection of Section 1a(13) provides that an excluded commodity includes an occurrence, extent of an occurrence, or contingency associated with a financial or economic consequence that is not within the control of the parties to the relevant transaction.

\11\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(13). Section 1a(13) of the Act provides that:

The term “excluded commodity” means–

(i) an interest rate, exchange rate, currency, security, security index, credit risk or measure, debt or equity instrument, index or measure of inflation, or other macroeconomic index or measure;

(ii) any other rate, differential, index, or measure of economic or commercial risk, return, or value that is–

(I) not based in substantial part on the value of a narrow group of commodities not described in clause (i); or

(II) based solely on one or more commodities that have no cash market;

(iii) any economic or commercial index based on prices, rates, values, or levels that are not within the control of any party to the relevant contract, agreement, or transaction; or

(iv) an occurrence, extent of an occurrence, or contingency (other than a change in the price, rate, value, or level of a commodity not described in clause (i)) that is–

(I) beyond the control of the parties to the relevant contract, agreement, or transaction; and

(II) associated with a financial, commercial, or economic consequence.

For the purpose of discussion and analysis, the types of event contracts that Commission staff has reviewed can be categorized, albeit imperfectly, as contracts that are based on narrow commercial measures and events, contracts based on certain environmental measures and events, and contracts based upon general measures and events.

Narrow commercial measures quantify and reflect the rate, value, or level of particularized commercial activity, such as a specific farmer’s crop yield.

Narrow commercial events, on the other hand, are events that might, in and of themselves, have commercial implications, such as changes in corporate officers or corporate asset purchases.

Environmental measures can be characterized as quantifications of weather phenomena, such as the volatility of precipitation or temperature levels, that do not predictably correlate to commodity market prices or other measures of broad economic or commercial activity.

By comparison, environmental events can include the formation of a specific type of storm, within an identifiable geographic region, the likelihood of which will not predictably correlate to commodity market prices or measures of broad economic or commercial activity.

General measures can be described as measures that are not commercial or environmental measures. As such, general measures do not quantify the rate, value, or level of any commercial or environmental activity and can, for example, include the number of hours that U.S. residents spend in traffic annually or the vote-share of a particular presidential candidate.

Similarly, general events, such as whether a Constitutional amendment will be adopted or whether two celebrities will decide to marry, can be described as events that do not reflect the occurrence of any commercial or environmental event. The category of general measures and events can be further divided into a multitude of subcategories, such as political or entertainment measures or events.

Since 1992, Commission-regulated exchanges have listed for trading a variety of commodity futures and options contracts with payout terms based on interests other than price-based interests. These contracts involve interests as diverse as regional insured property losses, the count of bankruptcies, temperature volatilities, corporate mergers, and corporate credit events. \12\

While not strictly price-based, the interests underlying these contracts have been viewed by Commission staff as having generally-accepted and predictable financial, commercial or economic consequences.

In other words, unlike the interests that event contracts cover, these underlying interests have been viewed as measures and occurrences that reasonably could be expected to correlate to market prices or other broad-based commercial or economic measures or activities.

\12\ For example, the Chicago Board of Trade’s catastrophe single event insurance option contracts (which are no longer listed) paid out a fixed amount if and only if insured property damage exceeded $10 billion for a specific region during a specified interval of time.

IV. Further Statutory Background

Federal regulations were initially applied to commodity derivatives trading in 1921. \13\ At that time, Congress acknowledged that commodity futures markets could benefit commerce by facilitating the hedging of commercial risks and the discovery of reliable commodity prices. \14\ The Grain Futures Act of 1922, the forerunner to the CEA, consequently was enacted to promote the financial vitality of futures trading by limiting price manipulations and other disturbances that were prevalent at the time and widely perceived to result from excessive speculation. \15\

\13\ See, e.g., Hearing on Futures Trading Before the House Committee on Agriculture, 66th Cong., 3rd Sess. 1043 (1921); Hearings on H.R. 5676 Before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 67th Cong., 1st Sess. 452 (1921); Hearings on Futures Trading Before the House Committee on Agriculture, 67th Cong. 1st Sess. 7-9 (1921); 61 Cong. Rec. 4761 (1921) (remarks of Senator Capper, the sponsor of the Senate bill which became the Futures Trading Act of 1921 (later restyled as the Grain Futures Act of 1922 when found to be unconstitutional for its use of taxation to penalize off-exchange futures trading)).

\14\ See S. Rep. No. 871 (August 23, 1922). The Congressional record is replete with discussion of the commercial importance of commodity futures trading. The record suggests that commercial interests must be able to look to properly functioning commodity futures markets for market information and products that facilitate the making of marketing, financing, and distribution decisions. S. Rep. No. 93-1131, at 12 (1974). The Congressional record also indicates that an initial purpose behind regulating commodity futures trading was to secure fair and orderly markets for producers and other commercial participants who used the markets for price basing and hedging. Hearings on S. 2485, S. 2578, S. 2837 and H.R. 1311 before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. at 234 (1974); see also 80 Cong. Rec. 10739 (April 11, 1974).

\15\ E.g., 61 Cong. Rec. 4761-4763 (1921) (remarks of Senator Capper); 61 Cong. Rec. 1379 (1921) (remarks of Rep. Bland); 61 Cong. Rec. 1313-1314 (remarks of Rep. Tincher, the sponsor of the House bill which became the 1921 Act); 61 Cong. Rec. 1376 (1921) (remarks of Rep. Gensman).

In identifying the national public interests that render federal regulation necessary, the Act focuses on the commercial benefits that well-functioning derivatives markets can provide by broadly expressing their critical functions. Customarily, hedging and price basing have been identified as two critical functions of the commodity derivatives markets. \16\ For instance, Section 3 of the Act, as amended by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA), \17\ finds that transactions subject to the CEA are affected with the national public interest because they provide a means for “managing and assuming price risks.” Section 3 of the Act also identifies price discovery and price dissemination as separate public interests warranting Federal regulation. \18\

\16\ Hedging occurs when positions acquired are economically appropriate to the reduction of risks in the conduct and management of a commercial enterprise. See, e.g., 17 CFR 1.3(z) (definition of bona fide hedging). Price basing, a function of price discovery and dissemination, can occur when commercial entities enter into transactions in a particular commodity based upon commodity futures prices for that or a related commodity, oftentimes at a differential.

\17\ Appendix E, section 108, Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763.

\18\ The hedging and price basing purposes of commodity futures trading are emphasized in other provisions of the Act as well. See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. 6a, 6b, and 6c. As a matter of background, the provision in the Grain Futures Act that was the forerunner of current CEA Section 3 provided that:

Transactions in grain involving the sale thereof for future delivery as commonly conducted on boards of trade and known as “futures” are affected with a national public interest; that such transactions are carried on in large volume by the public generally and by persons engaged in the business of buying and selling grain and the products and by-products thereof in interstate commerce; that the prices involved in such transactions are generally quoted and disseminated throughout the United States and in foreign countries as a basis for determining the prices to the producer and the consumer of grain and the products and by-products thereof and to facilitate the movements thereof in interstate commerce; that such transactions are utilized by shippers, dealers, millers, and others engaged in handling grain and the products and by-products thereof in interstate commerce as a means of hedging themselves against possible loss through fluctuations in price; that the transactions and prices of grain on such boards of trade are susceptible to speculation, manipulation, or control, which are detrimental to the producer or the consumer and the persons handling grain and products and by-products thereof in interstate commerce, and that such fluctuations in prices are an obstruction to and a burden upon interstate commerce in grain and the products and by-products thereof and render regulation imperative for the protection of such commerce and the national public interest therein.

Grain Futures Act, ch. 369, 42 Stat. 998 (Sept. 21, 1922). In 1936, Congress restyled the Grain Futures Act as the Commodity Exchange Act and amended this provision to substitute the word “commodity” for “grain.” Pub. L. 74-675, section 2, 49 Stat. 1491 (June 15, 1936).

Although repealed by the CFMA, former Section 5(g) \19\ of the Act may be relevant to analyzing the findings and purposes discussed in Section 3 of the Act. Former Section 5(g) provided that the Commission could not designate a board of trade as a contract market unless the board of trade demonstrated that transactions for future delivery in the commodity for which designation as a contract market was sought “will not be contrary to the public interest.” \20\ The public interest test of Section 5(g) included an “economic purpose” test, subject to a final test of the public interest. \21\ The economic purpose test applied under former Section 5(g) was used to prohibit the trading of certain contracts. Notably, the economic purpose test regarding contracts appropriate for trading on a futures exchange was not necessarily congruent with the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, while futures contracts that failed the economic purpose test were prohibited from trading on futures exchanges and thus illegal because of the on-exchange trading requirement, they (and any instrument with identical terms) remained futures contracts, fully subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction.

\19\ 7 U.S.C. 7(g), as amended by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-463, 88 Stat. 1389 (1974). In 1992, Section 5(g) was redesignated Section 5(7) of the Act. See Futures Trading Practices Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-546, 106 Stat. 3590 (1992). The CFMA repealed all of former Section 5 of the Act, including Section 5(g) (redesignated as Section 5(7)), and replaced it with current Section 5. Section 5 was radically restructured by the CFMA to provide for designation criteria and core principles with which a DCM must comply. Appendix E of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000).

\20\ The House Committee on Agriculture stressed that contracts that could be expected to be used almost entirely for speculation would be against the public interest. H.R. Rep. No. 975, 93 Cong., 2d Sess. 29 (1974).

\21\ See H.R. Rep. No. 1383, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 36 (1974).

By enacting the CFMA, Congress sought “to promote innovation for futures and derivatives and to reduce systemic risk by enhancing legal certainty in the markets for certain futures and derivatives transactions[.]” \22\ As demonstrated by the IEM, innovative event markets have the capacity to facilitate the discovery of information, and thereby provide potential benefits to the public. Subject to certain exceptions, Section 4(c)(1) of the Act gives the Commission the authority to “promote responsible economic or financial innovation and fair competition” by exempting any transaction or class of transactions from any of the provisions of the Act, including the requirement that they trade on Commission-regulated markets, where the Commission determines that such action would be consistent with the public interest. Pursuant to Section 4(c), Congress gave to “the Commission a means of providing certainty and stability to existing and emerging markets so that financial innovation and market development can proceed in an effective and competitive manner.” \23\ Under Section 4(c), the Commission has the discretion to grant an exemption to certain classes of transactions without having to make a determination that such transactions are subject to the Act in the first instance. \24\ Notably, the Commission can use its Section 4(c) exemptive authority not only on a case-by-case, or product-by-product basis, but may also use the authority to establish a set of regulatory provisions applicable to a defined class of products.

\22\ House Report No. 106-711(III) September 6, 2000.

\23\ House Conference Report 102-978, 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3179, 3213.

\24\ With respect to the exercise of this discretion, the House-Senate Conference Committee responsible for the review of Section 4(c) stated that:

The Conferees do not intend that the exercise of exemptive authority by the Commission would require any determination beforehand that the agreement, instrument, or transaction for which an exemption is sought is subject to the Act. Rather, this provision provides flexibility for the Commission to provide legal certainty to novel instruments where the determination as to jurisdiction is not straightforward. Rather than making a finding as to whether a product is or is not a futures contract, the Commission in appropriate cases may proceed directly to issuing an exemption.

Conf. Report at 3214-3215. Although Section 4(c) only speaks to futures contracts, Section 4c(b) of the Act, the Commission’s plenary authority to regulate transactions that involve commodity options, provides the Commission with comparable exemptive authority for options.

V. Issues for Comment

A. Request for Comment

The following questions consider the Commission’s regulatory purview over event contracts, the interests that may appropriately underlie Commission-regulated transactions, and the appropriate regulatory treatment of event contracts. The Commission encourages comments on the specific questions posed, as well as the broad range of issues raised in this concept release. In providing comments, please describe your relevant experience and discuss in detail the facts and legal provisions that support your conclusions. Furthermore, please consider the Commission’s mandate to protect commodity futures and options markets and customers, and ensure the integrity of the commodity derivatives marketplace, as well as the expected effects of any Commission action on competition, efficiency, innovation and the financial integrity of transactions. Any recommendation with respect to the regulatory treatment of event contracts and markets should be consistent with and supported by the Act, practical, and amenable to effective and efficient implementation.

B. Public Interest

1. What public interests are served by event contracts that are designed and will principally be traded for information aggregation purposes and not for commercial risk management or pricing purposes?

2. How are these interests consistent with the public interest goals embodied in the Act?

3. What calculations, analyses, variables, and factors could be used to objectively determine the social value of information to the general public that may be discovered through trading in event contracts? Should this be a factor in determining whether the Commission plays a role in regulating these markets?

C. Jurisdictional Determinations

4. What characteristics or traits are common to or should be used to identify event contracts and event markets?

5. How do these characteristics and traits differ from those of commodity futures and options contracts that customarily have been regulated by the Commission? How are they similar?

6. Are there criteria based on the provisions of the Act that could be used to make jurisdictional determinations with respect to event contracts and markets?

7. Given the purposes and history of the Act, would it be appropriate for the Commission to apply a test premised on commercial risk management or pricing functions to demarcate the Commission’s jurisdiction over particular contracts? If so, what factors could be used to make such a determination?

8. Given the purposes and history of the Act, would it be appropriate for the Commission to apply any test premised on the economic purpose of certain types of transactions to demarcate the Commission’s jurisdiction over particular contracts? If so, what factors could be used to make such a determination?

9. What calculations, analyses, variables and factors would be appropriate in determining whether the impact of an occurrence or contingency will result in a financial, commercial or economic consequence that is identified in Section 1a(13) of the Act?

10. What calculations, analyses, variables, and factors would be appropriate in determining whether an economic or commercial index that is based on prices, rates, values, or levels should or should not qualify as an excluded commodity under Section 1a(13) of the Act?

11. What identifiable factors, statutorily based or otherwise, limit the events and measures that may underlie event contracts when such contracts are treated as Commission-regulated transactions?

12. What objective and readily identifiable factors, statutorily based or otherwise, could be used to distinguish event contracts that could appropriately be traded under Commission oversight from transactions that may be viewed as the functional equivalent of gambling?

13. The Commission notes that Section 12(e) of the Act generally provides that the CEA supersedes and preempts other laws, including state and local gaming and bucket shop laws, with respect to transactions executed on or subject to the rules of a Commission-regulated market, or with respect to transactions exempted from the Act pursuant to the Commission’s exemptive authority under Section 4(c) of the Act. What are the implications of possibly preempting state gaming laws with respect to event contracts and markets that are treated as Commission-regulated or exempted transactions?

14. Should certain underlying events or measures –such as those based on assassinations or terrorist activities– be prohibited altogether due to the social perception and impact of such events? What statutory or other legal basis would support this treatment?

15. Are there event contracts, such as political event contracts, that should be prohibited from trading under the Act, or that deserve separate treatment or consideration, due to the nature and importance of their outcomes? What statutory or other legal basis would support this treatment?

D. Legal Implementation

16. Is it appropriate for the Commission to direct certain or all event contracts onto markets that are regulated differently from and perhaps less stringently than DCMs? For example, it may be warranted or necessary to treat event markets that aggregate information solely for academic or research purposes, event markets set-up for internal corporate purposes, or event markets that offer exceedingly low notional value contracts to traders differently than markets that possess the attributes of traditional DCMs.

17. Is it appropriate for the Commission to use the Section 4(c) exemptive authority of the Act for implementing a regulatory scheme for event contracts and markets? In this regard, the Commission notes that it has the discretion to grant an exemption under Section 4(c) to certain classes of transactions without having to make a determination as to whether such transactions are subject to the Act in the first instance.

18. Is the issuance of staff no-action relief, such as the relief issued to the IEM, an appropriate or preferable means for establishing regulatory certainty for event contracts and markets? Is a policy statement appropriate or preferable?

19. What are the benefits and drawbacks of permitting certain event markets to operate pursuant to Commission established conditions that are similar to the conditions under which the IEM operates?

E. Market Participants

20. Would it be appropriate to allow market participants, and in particular, retail customers, to trade on Commission-regulated event markets with the knowledge that the Commission may not be able to effectively monitor the measures or events that underlie certain event contracts?

21. What unique protections and prophylactic measures are appropriate or necessary for the protection of retail users of event contracts and markets?

22. What are the implications of permitting the intermediation of event contracts, including intermediation on behalf of retail market participants, both with respect to trade execution and clearing?

23. Are there any types of trader or intermediary conduct, peculiar to event contracts and markets, that should be prohibited or monitored closely by regulators?

24. What other factors could impact the Commission’s ability, given its limited resources, to properly oversee or monitor trading in event contracts?

-

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2008 by the Commission.

David A. Stawick,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. E8-9981 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Last Updated: May 7, 2008

-

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.

- COMMENTS TO THE CFTC: What to expect from Tom W. Bell and Jason Ruspini

- A young economist rebuts the American Enterprise Institute.

-

BACKGROUND INFO:

- How the CFTC 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

-

APPENDIX:

Paul Wolfowitz’s profile at the American Enterprise Institute

- How the neo-cons drove the United States of America into the unecessary Iraq war

-

Check that CFM page for updates. And contact me so I can make additions to the list. (I’ll then re-publish that updated list on Midas Oracle.)

-

• Michael Abramowicz – Michael B. Abramowicz – (Law School, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Bernd H. Ankenbrand – Bernd Ankenbrand – (Lecturer, Witten/Herdecke University, Germany, E.U.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• James Annan – (Global Environment Modelling Research Program, Frontier Research Center for Global Change, Japan)
• Werner Antweiler – (UBC Election Stock Market, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada)
• Kenneth J. Arrow – Kenneth Arrow – (Economics Department, Stanford University, California, U.S.A.)
• Tom W. Bell – Tom Bell – (Law School, Chapman University, California, U.S.A.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Joyce E. Berg – Joyce Berg – Profile – (Iowa Electronic Markets, Accounting, Henry B. Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa, Iowa, U.S.A.)
• Richard Borghesi – (Finance, Texas State University at San Marcos, Texas, U.S.A.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Kay-Yut Chen – (Information Services & Process Innovation Lab, HP Labs, HP, California, U.S.A.)
• Yiling Chen – (Micro-Economic and Social Systems, Yahoo! Research Labs, New York, U.S.A.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Eric Crampton – (Department of Economics, University of Canterbury, New Zealand) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Ely Dahan – (Marketing, Anderson School, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.)
• Anita Elberse – (Marketing, Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Massachusetts, U.S.A.)
• Leslie R. Fine – Leslie Fine – (Information Dynamics Lab, HP Labs, California, U.S.A.)
• Gary William Flake – Gary W. Flake – Gary Flake – (MicroSoft, U.S.A.)
• Robert Forsythe – (Dean, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida, Florida, U.S.A.) — Previously: (Economics, Iowa Electronic Markets, Henry B. Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa, Iowa, U.S.A.)
• Lance Fortnow – Lance J. Fortnow – (Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, McCormick School of Engineering, Northwestern University, Illinois, U.S.A.)
• Keith Jacks Gamble – Keith Gamble – (Economics (University of California at Berkeley) – California, U.S.A. — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Michael Gorham – (IIT Center for Financial Markets, Stuart School of Business, Illinois Institute of Technology, Illinois, U.S.A.) — Previously: (CFTC)
• Thomas S. Gruca – Thomas Gruca – Profile – (Iowa Electronic Markets, Marketing, Henry B. Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa, Iowa, U.S.A.)
• Refet Gurkaynak – (Department of Economics, Bilkent University, Turkey)
• Friedrich August Von Hayek — R.I.P. — The market as an information aggregation tool: The Use of Knowledge in Society —
• Robert W. Hahn – Robert Hahn – (Executive Director, Reg-Markets Center, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• James D. Hamilton – James Hamilton – (Department of Economics, University of California at San Diego – California, U.S.A.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Robin Hanson – Robin D. Hanson – (Economics, James M. Buchanan Center, George Mason University, Virginia, U.S.A.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• M. Todd Henderson – (Law School, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.)
• Chris Hibbert – (Software Architect, Zocalo Project Manager, California, U.S.A.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Charles Holt – Charles A. Holt – (Department of Economics, University of Virginia, Virginia, U.S.A.)
• Bernardo A. Huberman – Bernardo Huberman – (Social Computing Lab, HP Labs, California, U.S.A.)
• Frédéric Koessler – (Economics, Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, France, E.U.)
• Anthony M. Kwasnica – Anthony Kwasnica – (Business Economics, Department of Insurance and Real Estate, Smeal College of Business Administration, Penn State University, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.)
• Nicolas Lambert – (Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, California, U.S.A.)
• John O. Ledyard – John Ledyard – (Economics and and Social Sciences, Division of Humanity and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, California, U.S.A.)
• Andrew Leigh – (Economics, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Australia)
• Steven Levitt – Steve Levitt – Steven D. Levitt – (Economics, Director of the Becker Center on Chicago Price Theory, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.)
• Saul Levmore – (Law School, University of Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.)
• Robert E. Litan – Robert Litan – (Vice President for Research and Policy, Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A.)
• Thomas W. Malone – Thomas Malone – Tom Malone – (MIT Center for Collective Intelligence, Management, MIT Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, U.S.A.)
• Charles F. Manski – Charles Manski – (College of Arts and Sciences, Norwestern University, Illinois, U.S.A.)
• Adam Meirowitz – (Department of Politics, Princeton University, New Jersey, U.S.A.)
• Paul Milgrom – (Department of Economics, Stanford University, California, U.S.A.)
• Tracy Mullen – (Information Sciences and Technology, Penn State University, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.)
• Forrest Nelson – Profile – (Iowa Electronic Markets, Economics, Henry B. Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa, Iowa, U.S.A.)
• George R. Neumann – George Neumann – Profile – (Iowa Electronic Markets, Economics, Henry B. Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa, Iowa, U.S.A.)
• Ryan Oprea – Profile – (Director of the LEEPS laboratory, Economics, University of California at Santa Cruz, California, U.S.A.)
• Gerhard Ortner – (University of Applied Sciences, Austria, E.U.)
• Marco Ottaviani – (Management and Strategy, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Illinois, U.S.A.) – Formerly: (Economics Department, London Business School, United Kingdom, E.U.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• David Paton – (Industrial Economics, Business School, Nottingham University, United Kingdom, E.U.)
• David M. Pennock – David Pennock – (Principal Research Scientist, Micro-Economic and Social Systems, Yahoo! Research Labs, New York, U.S.A.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Charles R. Plott – Charles Plott – (Economics and and Social Sciences, Division of Humanity and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, California, U.S.A.)
• David Porter – (Economics and Finance, Chapman University, California, U.S.A.)
• Todd Proebsting – Todd A. Proebsting – (Microsoft & University of Arizona, U.S.A.)
• Russ Ray – (Finance, College of Business, University of Louisville, Kentucky, U.S.A.)
• Daniel Reeves – (Micro-Economic and Social Systems, Yahoo! Research Labs, New York, U.S.A.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Paul W. Rhode – Paul Rhode – (US Economic History, College of Management, The University of Arizona, Arizona, U.S.A.) – Formerly: (University of North Carolina, North Carolina, U.S.A.)
• Thomas A. Rietz – Thomas Rietz – Profile – (Iowa Electronic Markets, Finance, Henry B. Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa, Iowa, U.S.A.)
• Richard Roll – (University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.)
• Thomas W. Ross – Thomas Ross – (UBC Election Stock Market, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada)
• Rahul Sami – (School of Information, University of Michigan, Michigan, U.S.A.)
• Sam L. Savage – Sam Savage – (Consulting Professor, Stanford U., California, U.S.A.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Thomas C. Schelling – Thomas Schelling – (Economics, School of Public Affair, University of Maryland, Maryland, U.S.A.)
• Emile Servan-Schreiber – (NewsFutures, New York City, New York, U.S.A. & Paris, France, E.U.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Robert J. Shiller – Robert Shiller – Profile – (Economics, Yale University, Connecticut, U.S.A.)
• Bernd Skiera – (Electronic Commerce, Goethe University, Germany, E.U.)
• Vernon L. Smith – Vernon Smith – (Economics, Economic Science Institute, Chapman University, California, U.S.A.)
• Erik Snowberg – (Stanford University, California, U.S.A.) — Soon at CalTech
• Peter Norman Sorensen – (Finance, Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, E.U.)
• Martin Spann – (Marketing and Innovation, University of Passau, Germany, E.U.)
• Koleman Strumpf – Koleman S. Strumpf – (Economics, School of Business, University of Kansas, Kansas, U.S.A.) – Formerly: University of North Carolina, North Carolina, U.S.A.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Cass Sunstein – Cass R. Sunstein – (Law School, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.)
• James Surowiecki – (The Wisdom Of Crowds) – (New York, U.S.A.)
• Paul C. Tetlock – Paul Tetlock – (Finance, Business School, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, U.S.A.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Philip Tetlock – Philip E. Tetlock – (Leadership, University of California at Berkeley, California, U.S.A.)
• Hal R. Varian – Hal Varian – (Chief Economist, Google, California, U.S.A.) — Formerly: (Haas School of Business, Department of Economics, University of California at Berkeley, California, U.S.A.)
• Dorina Tila – (Economics, George Mason University, Virginia, U.S.A.)
• Leighton Vaughan-Williams – (Economics and Finance, Business School, Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom, E.U.)
• Michael Wellman – Michael P. Wellman – (Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan, Michigan, U.S.A.)
• Justin Wolfers – Justin J. Wolfers – (Business and Public Policy, Wharton Business School, University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Eric Zitzewitz – Eric W. Zitzewitz – (Economics, Dartmouth College, Massachusetts, USA) – Formerly: (Stanford University, California, U.S.A.) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle

-

-

-

Inkling – URL: Inkling Markets – (Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.)

• Adam Siegel — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Nathan Kontny

-

NewsFutures – (Maryland, U.S.A. & Paris, France, E.U.)

• Emile Servan-Schreiber — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Maurice Balick

-

Xpree – (U.S.A.)

• Mat Fogarty — Post Archives at Midas Oracle

-

HP Services – HP Labs – (U.S.A.)

• Predicting the future –with games — Introductory article
• Information Dynamics Lab — Internal prediction markets
• BRAIN – (Behaviorallly Robust Aggregation of Information in Networks) — Scoring Rules (i.e., non-trading technique)
• Bernardo A. Huberman – Bernardo Huberman – Senior Fellow & Director
• Kay-Yut Chen -
• Google Search for “prediction markets”

-

Hollywood Stock Exchange (HSX) & HSX Research – (L.A., California, U.S.A.)

• Prediction market consultancy firm
• Movie business

-

Chris Hibbert – (California, U.S.A.)

• Chris Hibbert (Software architect / Zocalo project manager) — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Chris Hibbert’s personal website — Chris Hibbert’s personal blog —
• Chris Hibbert’s CommerceNet profile — (His stint there ended in mid-2006.)

-

Robin Hanson – (George Mason U., Virginia, U.S.A.)

• Robin Hanson — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Robin Hanson does prediction market consulting work, and have no exclusive arrangements.
• “I’m more interested in helping groups that want to add lots of value to big decisions, versus groups that just want to dabble in a new fad.”

-

Justin Wolfers – (U. of Pennsylvania’s Wharton business school, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.)

• Justin Wolfers — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Justin Wolfers takes on prediction market consulting work.
• The prediction market industry is “a case where the interaction between firm practice and academic research are reasonably close.”

-

Koleman Strumpf – (U. of Kansas, Kansas, U.S.A.)

• Koleman Strumpf — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Koleman Strumpf can be approached to consult on prediction market projects.
• “Prediction markets help harness the knowledge of diverse groups. They have great potential as a tool for industry.”

-

Michael Giberson – (Virginia, U.S.A.)

• Michael Giberson (energy economist, who is also an expert in prediction markets) — Post archives at Midas Oracle
• Knowledge Problem – Blog on economics, energy policy, more.

-

Robert Hahn – (American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

• Robert Hahn — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Robert Hahn does consulting focused on improving decision making in the private and public sector. “This work builds on our evolving understanding of prediction markets and other economic tools.”

-

IntelliMarket Systems – (L.A., California, U.S.A.)

• Charles R. Plott – Charles Plott – (CalTech Inst., California, U.S.A.)

-

Mercury Research and Consulting – (United Kingdom, E.U.)

• Jed Christiansen — Post Archives at Midas Oracle

-

Ask Markets – (Greece, E.U.)

• George Tziralis — Post Archives at Midas Oracle

-

Gexid – Global Exchange for Information Derivatives – (Germany, E.U.)

• Bernd Ankenbrand — Post Archives at Midas Oracle

-

Nosco – (Danemark, E.U.)

• Jesper Krogstrup — Post Archives at Midas Oracle
• Oliver Bernhard Pedersen

-

Qmarkets – (Israel)

• Noam Danon — Post Archives at Midas Oracle

-

ProKons – (Germany)

• Peter Gollowitsch

-

Hive Insight – (Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A. & London, U.K., E.U.)

• Robert Wilburn (ex-NewsFutures)

-

Foresight Markets – (??)

• BPH Technologies

-

NimaniX – (Israel)

• Elad Amir (CEO), Littal Shemer Haim (VP Business development), David Shahar (VP R&D)

-

PrediCom – (London, United Kingdom, E.U.)

• Mikael Edholm

-

Release: 5493-08
For Release: May 1, 2008

CFTC Requests Public Input on Possible Regulation of “Event Contracts”

Washington, DC – The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is asking for public comment on the appropriate regulatory treatment of financial agreements offered by markets commonly referred to as event, prediction, or information markets.

During the past several years, the CFTC has received numerous requests for guidance involving the trading of event contracts. These contracts typically involve financial agreements that are linked to events or measurable outcomes and often serve as information collection vehicles. The contracts are based on a broad spectrum of events, such as the results of presidential elections, world population levels, or economic measures.

“Event markets are rapidly evolving, and growing, presenting a host of difficult policy and legal questions including: What public purpose is served in the oversight of these markets and what differentiates these markets from pure gambling outside the CFTC’s jurisdiction?” said CFTC Acting chairman Walt Lukken. “The CFTC is evaluating how these markets should be regulated with the proper protections in place and I encourage members of the public to provide their views.”

In response to requests for guidance, and to promote regulatory certainty, the CFTC has commenced a comprehensive review of the Commodity Exchange Act’s applicability to event contracts and markets. The CFTC is issuing a Concept Release to solicit the expertise and opinions of all interested parties, including CFTC registrants, legal practitioners, economists, state and federal regulatory authorities, academics, and event market participants.

The Concept Release will be published in the Federal Register shortly; comments will be accepted for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Comments may also be submitted electronically to secretary@cftc.gov. All comments received will be posted on the CFTC’s website.

-

WOW.

-

UPDATE: Eric Zitzewitz tells me that comments are sought 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. So, the deadline for commenting will be somewhat around June 30, 2008.

-

-

As you all know:

• The SEC regulates the securities markets (which support capital formation).
• The CFTC regulates the futures markets (which exist to discover prices).
• The SEC is rules based, meaning it sets regulations that institutions must follow, while the CFTC is principles based, in that it sets broad parameters under which the regulated entities try to operate.

-

US Treasury’s Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure (PDF file).

The United States has the strongest and most liquid capital markets in the world. This strength is due in no small part to the U.S. financial services industry regulatory structure, which promotes consumer protection and market stability. However, recent market developments have pressured this regulatory structure, revealing regulatory gaps and redundancies. These regulatory inefficiencies may serve to detract from U.S. capital markets competitiveness.

In order to ensure the United States maintains its preeminence in the global capital markets, the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) sets forth the aforementioned recommendations to improve the regulatory structure governing financial institutions. Treasury has designed a path to move from the current functional regulatory approach to an objectives-based regulatory regime through a series of specific recommendations. The short-term recommendations focus on immediate reforms responding to the current events in the mortgage and credit markets. The intermediate recommendations focus on modernizing the current regulatory structure within the current functional system.

The short-term and intermediate recommendations will drive the evolution of the U.S. regulatory structure towards the optimal regulatory framework, an objectives-based regime directly linking the regulatory objectives of market stability regulation, prudential financial regulation, and business conduct regulation to the regulatory structure. Such a framework best promotes consumer protection and stable and innovative markets.

-

The CFTC is not that seduced by the idea (PDF file):

Statement of CFTC Acting Chairman Walt Lukken Regarding Department of Treasury’s Blueprint for Modernizing the Financial Regulatory Structure March 31, 2008 Washington, DC

Today, the U.S. Department of Treasury released a regulatory blueprint that includes recommendations to improve the U.S. financial regulatory structure with the goal of enhancing U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace. Some of the proposals include recommendations related to combining the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). CFTC Acting Chairman Walt Lukken made the following statement in response to the blueprint:

It is essential to examine ways to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. financial markets and seek improvements to the regulatory structure. Policymakers all strive for good government solutions that protect the public, reduce duplication and enhance competition and innovation. While I am still studying the Blueprint’s many recommendations, I applaud Secretary Paulson and the Treasury Department for their work on this critical undertaking and for recognizing the CFTC model of regulation as an advantageous one.

The CFTC utilizes a flexible and risk-tailored approach to regulation aimed at ensuring consumer protection and market stability while encouraging innovation and competition. [*] Congress gave the CFTC these powers with the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) in 2000, which shifted the CFTC’s oversight from a rules-based approach to one founded on principles. This prudential style is complemented by strong enforcement against market abuse and manipulation as evidenced by the $1 billion worth of penalties assessed by the CFTC since the CFMA. [**] The regulatory balance fostered by the CFMA has enabled the futures industry to thrive and gain market share on its global competitors with volumes on the U.S. futures exchanges increasing over 500 percent since 2000. During recent economic stress, these risk-management markets have performed well in discovering prices and providing necessary liquidity.

Although the creation of a new unified regulator for securities and futures could bring efficiencies, the tradeoffs of such a significant undertaking should be weighed carefully given these turbulent economic times and the competitive global advantage currently enjoyed by the U.S. futures industry. The CFTC is a world-class regulator because of its focused mission, market expertise, manageable size, problem solving culture and global outlook—all of which may be jeopardized with the creation of a larger regulatory bureaucracy. Any regulatory reform effort must preserve the benefits of the CFTC’s principles-based model and recognize the distinct functions of the futures markets and mission of the CFTC.

Many of the benefits of a unified regulator can be immediately gained through enhanced coordination and information sharing between agencies. In fact, the CFTC and SEC recently signed a cooperation agreement aimed at addressing cross-agency issues, including the approval of hybrid products that may have otherwise fallen between our jurisdictional divide. These sorts of agreements should be given time to bear fruit. As Treasury recognizes in its Blueprint, the laws that govern the securities markets should be modernized similar to the futures laws before unification is contemplated to improve its chances of success. Unless the securities laws are first rationalized with those governing the futures markets, a merger may ironically make the U.S. futures industry less competitive globally and run counter to the explicit goal of this important endeavor. I look forward to working with policymakers to ensure that these issues are properly debated and addressed.

[*] Quite true.

[**] Which includes the fining of InTrade.

-

CME Group

Chicago Tribune

The Wall Street Journal

Via mister Jason Ruspini

One of the speakers will be Emile Servan-Schreiber of NewsFutures —a true enterprise prediction market pioneer. (He has certainly a point.)

EU online gaming industry challenges US with charge of prosecutorial discrimination

Complaint under the EU Trade Barriers Regulation seeks to stop discriminatory practices against European operators

Brussels, 20 December, 2007

The Remote Gambling Association, a leading trade association based in London that represents dozens of European online gaming operators [including The Sporting Exchange's BetFair-TradeFair], announced that it is filing a formal complaint against the United States (US) for discrimination based on violations of World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. The complaint asserts that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) is in violation of international trade law by threatening and pressing criminal prosecutions, forfeitures and other enforcement actions against foreign online gaming operators while allowing domestic US online gaming operators, primarily horse betting, to flourish. Such actions violate WTO rules, enshrined in an international treaty signed by 150 nations, including the US, which prohibit its signatories from engaging in protectionism.

“We have been left with no choice but to pursue all legal avenues available to challenge the US Department of Justice for its discriminatory enforcement activities against European online gaming operators,” said Clive Hawkswood, the Chief Executive of the Remote Gambling Association.

The filing of the complaint by the Remote Gambling Association opens another front in a growing global trade battle over the discriminatory practices of the US toward online gambling. On Monday, the European Union and several other countries – including Japan, Canada, and Australia – agreed to accept compensation after the US announced earlier this year that it intended to withdraw from its WTO commitments to open its US$100 billion US gambling services market to international competition. That announcement followed the finding by the WTO that the US had violated these commitments in a separate case brought successfully by Antigua and Barbuda. While Monday’s agreement purports to offer compensation for the withdrawal of market access by the US, it does not address discriminatory and protectionist US practices against European and other foreign online operators in the form of selective prosecution related to trade in gambling services that took place before the withdrawal of the commitment. This is due to the fact that the withdrawal of the commitment, if and when it enters into force, only has effect for the future.

“If the US discrimination continues, a terrible blow will be dealt to free trade worldwide and the WTO process will be weakened to the detriment of all countries,” added Nao Matsukata, a trade analyst with Alston & Bird in Washington, DC, and a former Bush Administration trade official.

The DOJ has repeatedly stated that all forms of online gambling are illegal, yet it continues to enforce this view only in connection with non-US businesses. In October 2006, the US enacted a new law (the “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act”, or UIGEA) which effectively criminalised online gaming provided by foreign operators while providing exemptions for protected domestic suppliers. The UIGEA forced the largest and publicly listed EU online gambling companies out of the lucrative US market, despite the WTO commitment that the US had made to offer access to its own domestic gambling market. The stock market listed EU companies collectively lost billions in market value overnight when the UIGEA took effect, whilst US online gaming companies and unlisted US-facing companies continued to operate unperturbed.

Over and above the substantial monetary losses suffered by their withdrawal from the US market, non-US companies have had to contend with actual or threatened prosecutions, forfeitures and other enforcement actions from US prosecutorial authorities under pre-UIGEA penal laws. As a result, the RGA has asked the EU to investigate the discriminatory enforcement regime as an illegal barrier to trade for EU businesses.

“How would US investors and businessmen feel if they invested in a business in the United Kingdom based on international law commitments, and then suddenly the U.K. not only passed new laws forcing them to shut down their business, but then tried to throw them in jail for past activities while still allowing their domestic competitors to continue on doing the same thing?” Hawkswood asked.“That’s what is happening to our industry in the US,” he added.

In a recent hearing in the US Congress, a Department of Justice representative admitted that there has not been a single prosecution of a domestic online gaming operator, despite repeating the DOJ’s view that all forms of online gambling were illegal.

Testifying at the same hearing, Professor Joseph Weiler, a Professor of Law at New York University and noted expert on international law, said: “The US has been found to have made a commitment and its acts deemed illegal by the very dispute settlement process that the US itself set up and supports. The US has also signed up to complying with the WTO appellate body unconditionally. What is particularly troubling is that these prosecutions for past activity are still continuing. This is wrong and an abuse of the rule of law. To compound it by selecting only non-US targets is even more troubling. To clarify the situation for the future for all is one thing, but that does not seem to be the case here.”

The RGA complaint is filed under a provision of the EU’s Trade Barriers Regulation, which enables any EU company or association of companies to complain about obstacles to trade in third countries. The EU now has to investigate allegations in the RGA complaint and decide if it will pursue discussions with the US to find an appropriate solution to ending the discrimination. If such negotiations do not resolve the issue, the EU could later bring a WTO case directly against the US based on these claims.

About the Remote Gambling Association

The RGA represents most of the world’s largest, licensed, and stock market-listed remote gambling companies and provides the industry with a single voice on all the issues of importance to regulators, legislators, and key decision makers around the world. For more information, please visit www.rga.eu.com. Media contact: Michael Thaidigsmann (Brussels) Tel. +32 2 552 09 24 Mob. +32 485 86 95 84 Email: michael.thaidigsmann –at– stern.be