In the conclusion of their introduction, Robert Hahn and Paul Tetlock wrote that they want their readers to contemplate the idea that prediction markets could make a “big” difference and “revolutionize public- and private-sector decision-making”. Well, 4 years later, it is clear that those big dreams didn’t pan out. Not a single mass media outlet has praised the public prediction markets for their work on the 2008 US presidential election (I am taking about a post-mortem analysis about Election Day, not the primaries). Not a single one. (Not even Justin Wolfers.) And the number of corporations using enterprise prediction markets is still minute. The thinkers who wrote this book (“Information Markets”) all made the mistake to put the emphasis on accuracy instead of efficiency. That was the foundation flaw. We should reset and reboot the field of prediction markets.

Previously: The truth about prediction markets

Given the political implications of the rise in commodity prices, this is not the best environment in which to begin regulating markets like election contracts, but the consensus that seems to be building on the relevant questions is rather auspicious. Hedgestreet and I have presented similar legal and regulatory frameworks to allow for at least the types of election contracts we are familiar with through sites like Intrade. Given Hedgestreet’s vigorous and incisive comments, I regret not having argued more for the desirability of non-intermediated exchanges.

In their focus, however, Hedgestreet steered clear of the gaming pre-emption questions and did not present a comprehensive and general framework for event markets. In that respect, their broaching of the CFTC’s plenary option authority opens more questions than it answers, but several interesting and important markets could perhaps be traded without answering all such questions.

I encourage Hedgestreet to begin working with the NFA to develop the infrastructure necessary for the types of trading prohibitions that we each described in our comments. I encourage the CFTC to act decisively in light of the self-evident and massive value of certain event markets — even with the current political pressures, which are mainly relevant to event markets on a superficial level. Perhaps if the CFTC deems that an exercise of emergency powers is necessary at some point, that would be an appropriate day to also make a decision on event contracts public.

We are at a specific point where a little bit of additional regulation might cause an explosion in legal prediction markets, and possibly soon. As a libertarian, I generally dislike regulation, and of course it’s true, pretty much by definition, that over-regulation is bad, but I don’t believe that to be the most effective message for this comment process and the unique opportunity it presents.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st St. N.W.
Washington DC 20581
Attention: Office of the Secretariat

Re: Concept Release on the Appropriate Regulatory Treatment of Event Contracts

JURISDICTION AND EVENT MARKETS IN GENERAL

Given the explicit statutory definitions of “excluded” and “exempt” commodities, it is reasonable to conclude that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) has jurisdiction over all exchange-traded event markets. That is, if an “occurrence, extent of occurrence or contingency” does not meet the additional “beyond the control” and “economic consequence” criteria, then contracts on such events should be considered exempt commodities. While currently all exempt commodities are associated with a deliverable other than cash, the open-ended definition of “exempt commodity” considered alongside the definitions of “commodity” and “excluded commodity” in 7 U.S.C. § 1a imply that contracts on events that are not beyond the control of participants or do not involve an outcome of economic consequence are exempt commodities.

This conclusion presents enforcement issues that the CFTC may wish to avoid, such as being obligated to pursue actions against exchanges offering contracts based on the outcome of sporting events. Unfortunately, without further statutory clarification, this conclusion seems like the most defensible one, based on the letter, if not the intent, of the law.

That said, until statutory clarification is attained, given the purposes and history of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), it would be appropriate for the CFTC to only assert jurisdiction over those event contracts satisfying “economic consequence” criteria, which would include the price discovery aspect of the former economic purpose test. An interpretation to this effect by the CFTC would not be inconsistent with the text of the CEA, and would best serve to minimize the burden on interstate commerce. This policy decision would effectively reconstitute the pre-Commodity Futures Modernization Act economic purpose test for event contracts in a way that avoids unwanted enforcement issues. Such a decision would be unlikely to meet significant resistance until such time that further statutory certainty is forthcoming.

The CFTC would be free to classify such contracts as either excluded or exempt commodities depending on their susceptibility to manipulation, before or after special trading prohibitions are in place. Although the anti-manipulation requirements that apply to exempt commodities are directed towards price manipulation, a fortiori they must also apply to outcome manipulation.¹

The CFTC is free to determine what qualifies as “economic consequence.” As with the economic purpose test, significant hedging and price discovery functions would comprise the principal criteria.² Regarding the latter, since event derivatives have no corresponding “cash” markets, the origination of prices that may improve economic decisions is all the more desirable in these cases. Furthermore, events that may only directly affect a group of private individuals may also have a strong bearing on commercial decision-making. Note that some general events and measures, as categorized and listed by the CFTC in its Concept Release, do in fact correspond to economic measures.³ Even if these events do not predictably correlate with asset prices, they may have predictable effects on market volatility. For example, from 1980 through present, the annualized weekly volatility of the S&P 500 in weeks in which a presidential or mid-term election took place was 19.97%, vs. 15.34% for all other weeks.⁴ It is difficult and ultimately undesirable to provide a quantitative recommendation for a bright-line demarcation between those markets that would satisfy an economic consequence criterion and those that would not. However, if a significant statistical test can easily be found that includes the price series of a more familiar asset, and has a logical basis, we can reasonably say that such events are associated with an economic consequence. In many cases the relevant time series may be unavailable, but in those cases the applicability of a proposed event market to other assets may be obvious. For example, consider a market predicting the likelihood of: (1) ethanol-related legislation, and its relationship to corn prices, or (2) offshore drilling legislation, and its relationship to oil prices, or (3) an attack on Iran, and its relationship to oil prices, or (4) future tax rates, and its relationship to municipal bond prices. In such cases, no quantitative test is necessary. In other cases, we may have moderately strong reasons to suspect that a given event or measure has an impact on asset prices, as we do with demographic trends, but those effects may be difficult to measure empirically.

Many potential markets may improve decision-making for a particular business, but have little bearing on the broader economy and asset prices in general. Examples of these markets include those predicting: (1) the revenue of a particular product, published title, film or performance series, (2) the launch or completion date of a particular product or project, and (3) the success of a particular approach applied to certain problem. The CFTC may find that only broad-based events or measures affecting an entire population, industry or significant percentage thereof would satisfy the economic consequence criteria. This would be nothing new, as commodity derivatives were not intended to be specialized insurance contracts. Such narrow questions also present issues from a manipulation and insider-trading perspective. In aggregate, these sorts of questions are quite relevant to the economy and will at times reflect broad trends, but may be more appropriately served by over-the-counter arrangements or riskless information aggregation, despite the obvious advantages of market incentives.

Contracts satisfying economic consequence criteria need not be approved for listing by the CFTC, though it is hoped that guidelines will be made public and remain flexible. At the limit, the CFTC will recognize that even a purely speculative market might serve an economic purpose in reducing portfolio variance.

Additionally:

The CFTC might levy a special fee on regulated event contracts to recoup expenditures related to a trading prohibition facility and other special demands on resources.

It may be required that exchanges pay interest on binary event contract collateral in order to reduce price distortions near extreme prices (100% and 0%). In illiquid markets, such distortions could be used to disguise transfers of money between anonymous participants.

The CFTC should welcome Securities and Exchange Commission opinion on contracts based on events like earnings and dividend announcements, a group of which might begin to replicate a security. Whenever a market is proposed that reflects the cash flow of a particular business or property, this opinion may be relevant.

To the extent that they subsequently conform to the CEA and CFTC policy, amnesty for any past violations should be considered with respect to Intrade and similar exchanges that have operated legally in their domestic jurisdictions.

ELECTION AND POLICY EVENT CONTRACTS

Election and policy event markets are within the jurisdiction of the CFTC based on the letter and spirit of the CEA. These markets represent the largest reasonably predictable yet unhedgeable risk facing businesses and the public. The regulation of such markets follows from the history of enlightened, flexible innovation exemplified by the CFTC. Because of their importance, election and policy event contracts naturally involve special consideration, although only in the course of satisfying the CEA.

Considering election contracts:

Trading prohibitions should be established such that candidates and proxies cannot participate due to their ability to determine the outcome of the contract. In addition to adhering to the “beyond the control” requirement of excluded commodities and general anti-manipulation precepts, the CFTC will want to consider to what extent such prohibitions might be expanded to act as insider trading restrictions similar in form to those of 7 U.S.C. § 13(f) or the proposed H.R. 2341.⁵ Especially given the all-or-nothing nature of many event contracts, this might be desirable in order to provide for fair and equitable trading.⁶

Upon the death of a candidate, the candidate’s contracts and those of all competitors must settle on the last known price before the event. A new set of contracts reflecting the new set of candidates could subsequently be offered.⁷

Analogous rules could be applied to policy and legislative contracts where appropriate. These rules, either directly administered by the CFTC and related associations, and/or required of exchanges, would firmly address outcome manipulation.

Because of their importance and sensitivity, these contracts also require special measures to ensure against price manipulation. However, it is important to note that election and policy markets have typically been traded as binary event options. Such contracts expire at a specific time according to a well-defined objective event and in that way are more resistant to manipulation than futures and perpetuities, the prices of which are unbound in one direction and always open to interpretation based on unobservable factors and developments in related markets. At the same time, the relative detachment of event contracts from the web of more familiar asset prices may make manipulation more difficult to prove.

As would be expected, large trader lists could be maintained and closely followed. A more powerful option is the enforcement of extraordinarily low position limits, which would greatly reduce the potential of price manipulation. At the same time, position limits should respect outstanding risks participants may have and be otherwise unable to hedge, as with traditional hedging and speculative limits. Low position limits also address trader protection concerns if such contracts were to be offered in a non-intermediated fashion. Leverage might likewise be limited. Several tiers of opt-out protection could be available to traders of various capitalization and expertise. Contracts might also be restricted to limit orders in order to curb short-term feedback trading.

Election and policy contracts ought to be restricted to domestic accounts only. This will avoid possible extradition problems where disciplinary action is required. In the case of event contracts that may reflect tax rates, this restriction will also determine that the Department of the Treasury will not lose revenue on a net basis.⁸

FLEXIBLE LEGAL IMPLEMENTATION

Instead of, or in addition to, claiming jurisdiction over some event markets, the CFTC has at its disposal a range of public interest exemptions, including some that interpret the 7 U.S.C. § 6(c)3(K)⁹ qualification clause liberally in order to include participants who might not normally trade in traditional futures and options markets. From my perspective, such exemptions may allow for a more flexible development of event markets in a less heavily-regulated environment. For example, it might allow for a contract in research science claims where trader-researchers capable of determining the outcome are not readily identifiable, or provide for trading in the sorts of narrow, business-specific questions previously mentioned. From the CFTC’s perspective, a public interest exemption may be desirable in order to avoid making a firm jurisdictional claim. However, the outcome of this comment process should be a decisive policy statement from the CFTC, not a sequence of ad-hoc actions. It is hoped that any future public interest exemptions would be offered alongside a substantial list of requirements and guidelines that would at least signal jurisdiction over a class of event markets possessing certain characteristics. Legal certainty is perhaps the most important outcome in this process, and it is not desirable for the CFTC to extend exemptions in a manner that leaves its jurisdiction completely ambiguous with respect to the markets so exempted.

This leaves aside the question of who may operate such markets. If exempted exchanges are to operate for profit, a jurisdictional statement from the CFTC is all the more necessary in order to ensure their legal standing. Exemptions directed at non-profits may be superfluous from a perspective of legal certainty, especially if such exchanges only offer trading in States where the predominant factor test holds.

The CEA allows that public interest exemptions may be issued for specified time periods. The CFTC may wish to consider to what extent exemptive or no-action letters with renew-by dates attached might be a useful tool in light of evolving legal conditions and technologies.

Note that theoretically the CFTC could also assert jurisdiction over all event markets and then direct no-action letters to the finite list of sports and gaming exchanges as a facility to repudiate jurisdiction over such markets. Typically, exempting markets formed principally for speculation would be considered against the public interest. However, if the CFTC finds no satisfactory way under the CEA to take jurisdiction over only those event markets that are associated with economic consequences, no-actioning sports and gaming exchanges would be in the public interest on a net basis, and would best promote interstate commerce. Furthermore, in some cases such exchanges operate under their own regulatory bodies and protections. It is also seldom that such exchanges allow for leveraged trading by beginner participants. In general, most gaming takes place via over-the-counter transactions.

THE PUBLIC INTEREST

I have neglected to argue for event markets in terms of the public interests they promote as these facts have been covered by others and have no doubt been obvious to the CFTC for a long time. I will only note some cases that are more subtle:

Information and estimates can be revealed in conditional form, as in the “decision markets” hosted on Intrade.¹⁰ One such market pays 100% if a Democrat is elected President in 2008 and the national debt rises in the calendar year preceding October 2011. Since the probability of the former event is also available on Intrade, by P(A | B) = P(A & B) / P(B), we can say that the probability of a Democratic president leading to a rise in the national debt is the decision market price divided by the election market price. This type of market is thus able to predict the result of electoral or legislative decisions, and different decisions can be so compared. With this in mind, consider that while prediction markets are usually described as ways to aggregate information, they are likely also useful in terms of collective problem-solving, even in cases where all information is transparent.

In terms of risk-sharing, eventually the utility of political event markets might begin to address some well-known problems with representative government. Consider the typical special interest problem in which a few relatively well-funded individuals would gain heavily by a particular piece of legislation such as an industry subsidy, and so will lobby heavily for it. Even if the legislation is not in the public interest, the costs will be distributed over so many tax payers that they will not care to argue against it, and most will not even realize what’s happening. When mature legislative and public policy markets are in place: (1) the dispersed interests will have the recourse of hedging against policy they dislike, (2) special interests will also have the option of hedging their legislative fortunes, which might lead to an overall reduction in lobbying, and (3) legislators may find compromises to be easier, since interests would be able to voluntarily “meet each other half way,” with price being the arbitrator. This could ease political log-jams, making law-making itself more flexible and efficient. Sensible yet otherwise politically infeasible measures such as unwinding entrenched subsidies could be made viable.

Even if iterations are required, the outcome of this comment process should be a clear statutory interpretation and policy statement from the CFTC regarding event markets. The CFTC should also publish self-certification guidelines for those markets that it determines are within its jurisdiction. Once jurisdiction and/or a public interest exemption framework is determined, it should not be ambiguous whether, for example, a contract based on a presidential election would be approved by the CFTC in principle.

There is good deal of apprehension among those who study prediction markets that regulation will stifle innovation. In truth, exchange requirements may not be as onerous as they are often portrayed, and in most cases are perfectly appropriate. A related, implied fear is that the CFTC may not approve certain contracts such as those on election and legislative events that undeniably possess economic purpose due only to their political sensitivity and considerations of the CFTC’s source of authorization and funding. I hope that this process will assuage such fears. I encourage the CFTC to act decisively and comprehensively in accordance with its purposes.

Sincerely,
Jason Ruspini

Footnotes:

¹ For example, a market on infrequent terrorist attacks would not be approved for the simple reason that outcome manipulators could not reliably be identified beforehand.
² cf. Robert Hahn and Paul Tetlock, “A New Approach for Regulating Information Markets,” AEI-Brookings Joint Center Working Paper (December 2004).
³ Justin Wolfers and Eriz Zitzewitz, “Using Markets to Inform Policy: The Case of the Iraq War,” NBER Working Paper (June 2004).
Justin Wolfers, Erik Snowberg and Eric Zitzewitz. “Partisan Impacts on the Economy: Evidence from Prediction Markets and Close Elections,” NBER Working Paper (March 2006).
Erik Snowberg, Justin Wolfers and Eric Zitzewitz, “Party Influence in Congress and the Economy,” Quarterly Journal of Political Science: Vol. 2: No 3, pp 277-286 (2007).
⁴ F-test (α = 0.1126). If we instead only consider the Wednesdays following election day compared to all other days over this same period, α = 0.0246.
⁵ The “Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act”.
⁶ Trading prohibitions on insiders will also avoid a situation in which candidates are able to enjoy a multiplier effect on their campaign funds by shorting themselves. For example, Candidate A has a campaign fund of $2, and candidate B has $1. By hedging, candidate A can maintain a $2 risk while spending $4 on campaigning while candidate B can only spend $2 to maintain a $1 risk.
⁷ cf. Intrade rules. A more challenging possible scenario involves manipulation preceding the event such that the forced settlement locks-in profits, presumably just as market power is exhausted. See note below on restricting market access to US-based accounts.
⁸ Such restrictions would however tend to limit the growth of such markets and/or result in risk premia accruing to short tax-rate positions.
⁹ “Such other persons that the Commission determines to be appropriate in light of their financial or other qualifications, or the applicability of appropriate regulatory protections.”
¹⁰ For background, see: Robin Hanson, “Decision Markets for Policy Advice,” Promoting the General Welfare: New Perspectives on Government Performance, pp 151-173, Brookings Institution Press (November 2006).

#1. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the federal regulatory agency that oversees futures market activity, should establish safe-harbor rules for selected small-stakes markets. One limited safe harbor is the no-action letter, in which the CFTC market oversight staff confirms in writing that it will not recommend enforcement action if the recipient acts in specified ways. The only prediction market to receive a no-action letter (in 1992) is the Iowa Electronic Markets, which is run by professors at the University of Iowa and which initially focused on presidential elections. Although such no-action letters reduce the chances of legal action under other state and federal laws, they may not be adequate. We would therefore urge the CFTC to explore other approaches to ensuring safe harbors, for example, formal rules or guidance approved by the commission. We suggest that three types of entities be eligible for safe harbor treatment. The first would be not-for-profit research institutions, including universities, colleges and think tanks wishing to operate exchanges similar to the Iowa Electronic Markets. The second would be government agencies seeking to do research similar to that of nongovernmental research institutions. The third group would consist of private businesses and not-for-profits that are not primarily engaged in research, which would only be allowed to operate internal prediction markets with their employees or contractors. In all cases, markets would be limited to small-stakes contracts. Although the definition of small stakes is somewhat arbitrary, we use the term to mean an exchange in which the total amount of capital deposited by any one participant may not exceed some modest sum, perhaps something like $2,000 per year. The exchanges themselves would be not-for-profit but would be allowed to charge modest fees to recoup administrative and regulatory costs. Brokers and paid advisers would be barred, reducing the risks that contracts would be sold to inappropriate or vulnerable customers or that customers would be charged fees above the amounts needed to maintain the markets. Exchanges would be self-regulated, leaving them with the responsibility to make reasonable efforts to keep markets free from fraud and manipulation. For its part, the CFTC should allow contracts that price any economically meaningful event. This definition could allow for contracts on political events, environmental risks, or economic indicators, such as those offered by the Iowa Electronic Markets, but would presumably not include contracts on the outcomes of sports events.

The contracts qualifying under this safe harbor would also create opportunities for more efficient risk allocation. Although the small-stakes nature of these markets would necessarily limit their usefulness for hedging risk, they could serve as proofs of concept for larger-scale markets that could be developed under alternative regulatory arrangements. The CFTC should allow researchers to experiment with several aspects of prediction markets – fee structures, incentives against manipulation, liquidity requirements and the like – with the goal of improving their design. Prediction markets are in an early stage, and if their promise is to be realized, researchers should be given flexibility to learn what kinds of design are most likely to produce accurate predictions. Of course, exchanges would need to inform their customers so that they are aware of the risks and benefits of participating in these markets.

#2. Congress should support the CFTC’s efforts to develop prediction markets. To the extent that the CFTC incurs costs in promoting innovation, Congress should provide the necessary funding. More fundamentally, Congress should explore alternative ways of securing a legal framework for prediction markets if the CFTC’s existing authority proves inadequate. In particular, Congress should specify that a no-action letter, or similar mechanism, preempts overlapping state and federal anti-gambling laws. Because Congress did not intend the CFTC to regulate gambling, it is important to design new regulations so that socially valuable prediction markets easily qualify for the safe harbor but gambling markets do not.

-

UPDATE: A great rebuttal here…

-

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:

- 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.

-

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

-

-

-

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

-

“that three types of entities be eligible for safe harbor treatment. The first would be not-for-profit research institutions, including universities, colleges, and think tanks wishing to operate exchanges similar to the Iowa Electronic Markets. The second would be government agencies seeking to do research similar to that of nongovernmental research institutions. The third group would consist of private businesses and not-for-profits that are not primarily engaged in research, which would only be allowed to operate internal prediction markets with their employees or contractors.

Regarding the applicability of regulatory protections, the economists recommend that such markets should be limited to small-stakes, low-fee contracts. This limitation addresses consumer protection because the CFTC is typically much less interested in non-levered transactions, and there is little chance of being able to manipulate a market with a small-stakes account. Possibly, consumer protection measures could completely satisfy 4(c)3(K).

The safe-harbor proposal looks like an expedient option that would avoid the problems of treating event markets as excluded commodities (or exempt commodities), which were touched on last time. One problem the CFTC faces is selecting a principle that would include only markets that pass an economic purpose test within their jurisdiction, and the safe-harbor proposal avoids this problem. Although there doesn’t seem to be anything in the CEA to indicate that an exempted market could possibly lie outside the agency’s jurisdiction, Congress has determined – significantly – that, “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.”

Arguably, if someone were to set-up non-profit small-stakes exchanges similar to the ones the economists describe, they would not need CFTC safe-harbor anyway – especially if they restrict trading to States where the predominant factor test applies. Safe-harbor would, however, allow for exchange profits.

I believe that a combined approach would work best. Treating event markets as excluded commodities would not contradict granting some exchanges public interest safe-harbors, which would especially be appropriate if they wanted to host markets like research science claims, where a trader might be in control of the outcome. Exchanges seeking to host larger stake markets useful for hedging could do so with a trading prohibition for people who might be in control of the outcome. From the CFTC’s perspective, the safe-harbor would be a less complicated option with regard to their jurisdictional scope. Ultimately, statutory clarification is needed.

* This section is listed as USC Title 7, Chapter 1 6(c) here.

Cross-Posted from RM&P

My concern is that the small stakes limit of $2,000, the limits on who can operate markets, and the limitations on the scope of markets, will lead to spotty coverage which will preclude a robust evaluation of the merits of prediction markets in general. After all, we have intrade.com already which provides spotty coverage of a number of issues - how much more will this add?

Maybe “gambling can save science“, but I don’t see how these steps would show it.

-

Proof that you can be “high IQ” and still lack judgment (in small ways).

-

P.S.: Over that the micro slam above, I have the highest esteem and respect for Robin Hanson —a prediction market pioneer.

-

[*] I know that for a fact. Midas Oracle was hijacked yesterday by a dangerous hacker who signed as “The Barbecue”. I’m not responsible for what he said.

-

The first thing of note is that the extensive list of authors overlaps that of the “Statement on Prediction Markets” of a year ago (but lacking Statement signers Daniel Kahneman, Charles R. Plott, and Shyam Sunder). A quick scan of the piece reveals it pursues that same controversial strategy as the earlier statement – seeking CFTC safe harbor protection for a limited set of small stakes, non-profit prediction market exchanges.

We would therefore urge the CFTC to explore other approaches to ensuring safe harbors, for example, formal rules or guidance approved by the commission.

We suggest that three types of entities be eligible for safe harbor treatment. The first would be not-for-profit research institutions, including universities, colleges and think tanks wishing to operate exchanges similar to the Iowa Electronic Markets. The second would be government agencies seeking to do research similar to that of nongovernmental research institutions. The third group would consist of private businesses and not-for-profits that are not primarily engaged in research, which would only be allowed to operate internal prediction markets with their employees or contractors.

In all cases, markets would be limited to small-stakes contracts. Although the definition of small stakes is somewhat arbitrary, we use the term to mean an exchange in which the total amount of capital deposited by any one participant may not exceed some modest sum, perhaps something like $2,000 per year.

The exchanges themselves would be not-for-profit but would be allowed to charge modest fees to recoup administrative and regulatory costs. Brokers and paid advisers would be barred, reducing the risks that contracts would be sold to inappropriate or vulnerable customers or that customers would be charged fees above the amounts needed to maintain the markets. Exchanges would be self-regulated, leaving them with the responsibility to make reasonable efforts to keep markets free from fraud and manipulation.

For its part, the CFTC should allow contracts that price any economically meaningful event. This definition could allow for contracts on political events, environmental risks, or economic indicators, such as those offered by the Iowa Electronic Markets, but would presumably not include contracts on the outcomes of sports events.

… Congress should support the CFTC’s efforts to develop prediction markets.

And so on.

Maybe this is the best strategy for gaining political protection for progress, it is a difficult judgment to make. But the Science magazine placement is high profile and will certainly help raise the issue among folks who might otherwise be unaware of the need for progress on this front.

Perhaps more comments after I’ve had a change to read the piece more carefully. No doubt by then Chris F. Masse and the hard-core PM crowd will have, in their wisdom, torn this timid suggestion to shreds.

—

Via Google’s Bo Cowgill, Robert Hahn and Paul Tetlock’s Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal (mirror at AEI-Brookings – mirror at AEI):

[...] These markets often predict more accurately than experts. Why? They draw on the knowledge of people who might otherwise be ignored. Their anonymity frees participants from pressures to agree with opinion leaders. And they create straightforward profit incentives that encourage participants to search for better information. [...] A consensus plan, endorsed by more than 20 leading researchers, including Nobel economics laureates Kenneth Arrow, Daniel Kahneman, Thomas Schelling, and Vernon Smith, and published by the AEI-Brookings Joint Center, suggests the creation of a safe harbor for small-stakes, not-for-profit prediction markets to encourage experimentation. One could, for example, introduce exemptions for research-focused markets in which the size of individual investments does not exceed $2,000 per participant. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) could provide this safe harbor in the form of a “no-action” letter. Alternatively, the commission could create formal guidelines that make it cheaper and easier to start these markets. [...] Prediction markets have become more than fodder for television news features on what those zany Internet folks will think of next. They are coming of age as serious tools for information gathering and analysis — tools with great potential for improving the efficiency of government and the productivity of industry. To help achieve that potential, Washington needs to nurture their development and keep them from becoming collateral damage in the endless war over who can gamble and where.

Step #1: Make some gullible economists sign a “petition”, entirely engineered by Bob Himself, and which is flawed and too timid.

Step #2: Make the gullible Wall Street Journal readers believe that a “no-action letter” is the solution, claiming that that’s the “consensus”.

Robin Hanson, who is at heart a free-gambling-for-all economist, took part of this pitiful farce. Bad judgment, doc. If Robin Hanson wants to stay the “reigning expert” of the field of prediction markets, he will have to mind a more pertinent industry analysis in the future. Viva Steve Levitt.

Previous: Steve Levitt of Freakonomics: I WON’T SIGN YOUR PETITION, BOB. + Chris Masse’s comment on the Freakonomics’ blog post about the legality of US prediction markets + Safe Harbor Letter too Timid – by Chris Hibbert + The limitations of logic (and the need for passion) – by Caveat Bettor + Jason Ruspini on the Economists’ Petition

—

Executive Summary

Prediction markets are markets for contracts that yield payments based on the outcome of an uncertain future event, such as a presidential election. Using these markets as forecasting tools could substantially improve decision making in the private and public sectors. We argue that U.S. regulators should lower barriers to the creation and design of prediction markets by creating a safe harbor for certain types of small stakes markets. We believe our proposed change has the potential to stimulate innovation in the design and use of prediction markets throughout the economy, and in the process to provide information that will benefit the private sector and government alike.

Introduction

Prediction markets are markets for contracts that yield payments based on the outcome of an uncertain future event, such as a presidential election, the release date for new software, or the action taken by the Federal Reserve on short-term interest rates. A key benefit is that the market price of these contracts can potentially provide more accurate forecasts of future events than other methods. Using these markets as forecasting tools could substantially improve decision making in the private and public sectors. They also can help manage risk more efficiently. It is precisely because prediction markets have great potential that we think the government should facilitate rather than hinder the introduction of these markets.

There are significant regulatory barriers to establishing prediction markets in the United States, in part because they are potentially subject to gambling laws. We argue that U.S. regulators should lower barriers to the creation and design of prediction markets by creating a safe harbor for certain types of small stakes markets. We believe our proposed change has the potential to stimulate innovation in the design and use of prediction markets throughout the economy, and in the process to provide information that will benefit the private sector and government alike.

[...]

Conclusion

We believe prediction markets can significantly improve decision making in both the private and public sectors. One of the clear benefits of allowing small stakes, non-profit markets to operate would be the greater use of prediction markets to inform both public and private decision making. A second benefit would be that access to better information could promote greater transparency and accountability in decision making. A third benefit might be that other countries and regions would promote prediction markets with more sensible regulation. Finally, we think there would be benefits from the development of new knowledge on how to design prediction markets.

We are aware that Congress did not intend the CFTC to regulate gambling and we believe that it is important to design this safe harbor in such a fashion that socially valuable prediction markets can get in, but gambling markets cannot.

Prediction markets have great potential for improving economic welfare and the decisions of private and public institutions alike. To help achieve that potential, the regulatory impediments to the use of prediction markets in the U.S. should be lowered. Here, we have suggested one approach for reducing those regulatory barriers.

AEI-Brookings Joint Center – The views in this paper represent those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the institutions with which they are affiliated.

Kenneth J. Arrow – Stanford University

Robert Forsythe – University of South Florida

Michael Gorham – Illinois Institute of Technology

Robert Hahn – AEI-Brookings Joint Center

Robin Hanson – George Mason University

Daniel Kahneman – Princeton University

John O. Ledyard – California Institute of Technology

Saul Levmore – University of Chicago

Robert Litan – AEI-Brookings Joint Center

Paul Milgrom – Stanford University

Forrest D. Nelson – University of Iowa

George R. Neumann – University of Iowa

Charles R. Plott – California Institute of Technology

Thomas C. Schelling – University of Maryland

Robert J. Shiller – Yale University

Vernon L. Smith – George Mason University

Erik Snowberg – Stanford University

Cass R. Sunstein – University of Chicago

Paul C. Tetlock – University of Texas at Austin

Philip E. Tetlock – University of California at Berkeley

Hal R. Varian – University of California at Berkeley

Marco Ottaviani – London Business School

Justin Wolfers – University of Pennsylvania

Eric Zitzewitz – Stanford University

–

Previous: Statement on Prediction Markets – by Robert Hahn – 2007-05-07