First, a hearty congratulations to Robert Swagger and Trend Exchange. Along with the Cantor Exchange folks, they have run quite a gauntlet, and although there remains a tremendous obstacle in the form of the Lincoln amendment, I consider these exchanges to have already accomplished a great deal.
In its approval of Trend Exchange and preceding statements, the CFTC has confirmed a very broad definition of “-commodity”- that includes “-event”- contracts. The old debate about whether or not the CFTC has jurisdiction over “-prediction markets”- has been decided for now. Yet, there is considerable dissent within the Commission. Commissioners Chilton and Sommers have expressed disapproval that the Commission did not first address the general questions raised in the 2008 Concept Release. To this point, given the very broad definition of “-commodity,”- it now seems that Intrade and online sports exchanges could be in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. The Commission does not consider an “-economic purpose test”- in the contract review process, and there is no statutory basis for such a test being used in jurisdictional determinations. Perhaps as a matter of practice, in accordance with the spirit of the Act, the Commission is considering such a test for jurisdicitional questions as I suggested in my Concept Release comments (surprisingly cited by the MPAA group). Otherwise, it seems inconsistent that exchange-traded sports bets, for example, would not also be considered commodities and be subject to the Act.
As a whole, the Commission has apparently decided to defer such questions and focus on specific techniques for ensuring that the new contracts fulfill the Act from the standpoints of manipulation and fair trading. To these ends, the CFTC will require, “-entities and individuals who control a film’s marketing budget, release date or opening screen number to provide the Exchange with information regarding such decisions whenever that entity or individual holds a position of 1,000 or more contracts.”- Additionally, the Commission will require a “-firewall”- within studios and distributors, and has restricted certain employees from trading altogether. These are procedures that I had recommended for event contracts, but they are relatively novel mechanisms in the commodities world. Whether or not the CFTC would agree to support special trading restrictions was the pivotal question in whether the contracts would be approved. I applaud the principled, politically independent thinking of the Commission and the can-do attitude of the Market Oversight Division —- though some headline risk has been assumed here if something should eventually fall through the cracks.
As real-money prediction markets become legal in the US, there’s surely going to be a lot of money in writing about them and driving rich readers to them.
Carlos Graterol [*] and Ben Shannon both tried to popularize their prediction market blog (featuring InTrade 95% of the time), and they never managed to take off. The fact that InTrade needs websites to drive people to its betting operation does not mean that readers will appreciate prediction market journalism.
Prediction market journalism (which sums up news and probabilities harvested from newspaper sites and from InTrade) does not produce any scoops. You need scoops to draw readers into your blog. No scoops, no readers.
[*] He is a smart and sociable young man with a bright future.
“-In a 3-2 vote, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Monday afternoon approved a contract created by the company Media Derivatives that would allow traders to bet on the gross receipts that a movie pulls in during its opening weekend.”-
– “-If we approve these types of things on the arguments posed in favor of them, we could be approving things like death pools or terrorism contracts, something Congress surely never intended.”-
Part 4 is about prediction markets and InTrade.
Part 4 is about InTrade’-s prediction markets:
Best wishes to them.