If there were any lingering doubts that Wall Street is a big casino, this article ought to erase them. The New York Times reports that two companies want to start a market in film futures.
Both the Cantor futures exchange and Veriana Networks would allow investors to buy or sell — or “short” — contracts based on a movie’s box-office receipts, in essence betting on how well a film will do when released in theaters.
You would think that after the innovations that led to the Great Crash, things like credit default swaps, synthetic CDOs, auction rate securities, and the corruption involved even with supposedly useful things like interest rate swaps, that Wall Street would have thought that now might not be the best time to introduce more casino capitalism. But no. First it was Death Bonds, the impolite name given to securitization of viatical settlements. That one seems to have disappeared, possibly because Standard and Poors gave chapter and verse explaining why it wouldn’t rate them, and possibly because the SEC testified that it would give Death Bonds the stinkeye.
But, as Alan Greenspan is fond of telling anybody who might still be listening, innovation is just the best. Let’s see how movie grosses compare to a contract traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange: Frozen Pork Bellies. That’s right, pre-bacon. You can buy or sell contracts for 40,000 pounds of 12-18 pound pork bellies any time between 9:05 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. at open outcry on the floor of the Merc. How do Pork Bellies compare with movie grosses?
Pig farmers can hedge against a drop in pork prices. Bacon makers and users can buy futures contracts to insure supply. Then there are speculators who think Pork Bellies are a good way to bring home the … big money. They can gufess at the direction the price of Pork Bellies based on whatever tarot card/Gaussian copula/tip from a hog merchant they like. There you have it: the three legs of the commodities stool.
Movie studios get a lot of money from investors, and if you want to invest, you could try this site. Or, if you are really rich, you can get directly into the business. When things were great, people thought throwing their money at movies was a kick. Now, they want some security. If you can buy a credit default swap on a pile of worthless mortgages, surely there’s a way to hedge your investment in Rocky The Next: Geriatric Boxing.
If Veriana and Cantor Fitzgerald have their way, movie investors will be able to hedge if they can find someone to take the other side of their bet. Who would that be? Let’s just be blunt. That would be a gambler. There isn’t anyone who wants to buy a tanked movie. The only reason to do this is to bet on the success of a movie you haven’t seen. Veriana is blunt about this:
Opportunities exist for speculators to be fairly compensated for assuming these risks, while at the same time providing the producers and other segments of the industry with an effective risk mitigation opportunity at a reasonable price.
“As in all futures markets, there is a potential win-win scenario where everybody is better off through enabling the production risk to be sold to a community of speculators willing to assume these risks in exchange for receiving a suitable risk premium,” Veriana said.
This is a two legged stool, and about as stable. It’s a joke on the people who think markets are the highest form of human interaction, namely Wall Street and its economist enablers.



38 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Aren’t Wall St and banksters already betting on movie grosses when they actually provide funding for the execrable crap that often is produced?
Especially with sequels and sequels of sequels.
I know some Wall st. traders they bet on anything and everything.
Casino? That’s too generous. This sounds like they are book making. People bet on stupid s**t and apparently it’s legal in Las Vegas and Wall Street.
Boxer and Feinstein have both rejected this, FYI
Futures trading is about offsetting existing risk.
Betting, or “gambling”, is about creating risk where there wasn’t any before.
Banks may have already taken a stake in financing a movie. They’ve already created the risk. These instruments (Trend Exchange’s in particular) allow these users to offset this risk that they’ve undertaken.
And to correct the assertions of the author, the recent financial meltdown was created by unregulated, OTC products. There wasn’t a single commodities exchange or clearing house that financially defaulted, or accepted government bailout money. Everything within the tightly-regulated commodities exchanges ran smoothly throughout the entire period of financial instability.
It is because these markets are mature, have financial safeguards, and are heavily regulated, that this was possible. And it is irresponsible journalism to “lump” newly proposed exchange-based products suh as movie futures with the unregulated and off-exchange instruments that led to the recent financial crisis.
Pre-bacon movie betting. Is that another way of playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon?
Or is it another flavor of pre-crime?
Please let’s open a futures market in the O’bama administration executing their constitutional duties, and prosecuting crime equally.
Let’s see what the moneyed really believe about punishment for their crimes.
Boxer and Feinstein are in the pocket of the MPAA, FYI.
There was some astounding reporting by ProPublica (real journalism!) on This American Life over the weekend about Magnetar, one of the major players in the CDO scam. (ProPublica article, This American Life episode).
Bottom line, Wall Street isn’t even gambling—it’s a racket where the objective is to take as much money as possible away from average people. Traders don’t care who they hurt, banks don’t care how much they lose.
Bwahahaha! Good one.
That was a joke, right?
Sorry for the OT masaccio, or maybe it’s not really OT, but did you see the article in today’s Times? Something that Gretchen Morgenson needed but didn’t have with Abacus, namely they have an actual examiner’s findings on Lehman Brother’s version of the same kind of thing. Something called Hudson Castle. Will you be writing about it, please?
What about a futures fund on Wall Street giants slipping on banana peels or going to the Big House?
This is bookmaking, pure and simple.
Who would be stupid enough to buy such a
piece of crap, ahem, product after all that has happened?I cannot believe their would be amrket for such a thing. This is why ALL synthetic derivaitves should be outlawed outright. This is just insane.
OT. Blanche Lincoln is introducing a Wall Street Financial Derivatives Regulatory Bill. Can’t imagine it going anywhere.
Jeeze, I’m surprised they haven’t created “futures” in homelessness & cardboard box dwellings.
Or number of households with their belongings piled in the street because of eviction.
Or bankruptcies caused by medical bills.
So many possibilities; so little morality.
This is the right link.
Mmmmmmmmmmm bacon.
Someone has been smoking some good stuff — perhaps a “trial run” re medical marijuana.
And ahem, Sherlock, there are no “progressive groups inside the Democratic Party,” unless you were looking in the Veal Pen and thinking that = “Democratic Party.”
Edit: just to be clear — aoyama, I see that you quoted this from the wsj. It’s them I’m accusing of idiocy, not you. ;-)
In theory I don’t have a problem with a wide variety of futures markets, but in practice I see this as potentially an undefined pigs in a poke. Crude oil, grains, precious metals are all well-defined and unchanging (40,000 pounds of pork bellies remains 40,000 pounds of pork bellies during the life of the contract – it’s not going to turn into 30,000 pounds of pork or become chicken wings), but a movie in production is a nebulous thing subject to change. It is a vastly different item than traditional commodities – I wouldn’t call it a commodity at all, but more akin to a stock, so I see this as being a bad format just by it’s underlying design.
Bowie bonds, anyone
Please explain who wants the other side of this risk, besides a gambler?
I’m impressed.
That, of course, is the point of the post. To pick a simple example, who is going to say what the movie grossed the first week? What if the studio decides to roll it out instead of massive first week release after taking a position?
I read the proposal to the CFTC on this thing, and among other precautions, they say that the studio has to segregate the movie making people from the accounting people, suggesting that the decision about the gross is to be made by the studio. That doesn’t sound fair, now does it?
Didn’t light crude fall from a peak of $135 to $30 during the fall of 2008. The exchange may have survived, but alot of banks and institutional investors who went under were speculating in oil. In many cases these were people’s savings, pensions and retirement plans they were investing.
Actually, I mixed up the link. Quote was from Politico, but same diff. ;-)
Seems like a pretty savvy move on David’s part. His pre-1990 catalog was still selling well but probably wouldn’t have racked up $55 million in ten years, especially after the CD market went soft in the 2000s. PLUS he retained full rights to anything recorded after 1990.
Hasn’t “Hollywood accounting” been a term of derisive opprobrium for almost a century now?
Well said. Just like Sunlight on a Vampire (the silly version).
The bowie catalogue bond it a different kettle of fish.
there was a known income stream and its forward trajectory could be computed with some certainty.
The Bowie bond was more akin to bonding to build a toll bridge. You have a decnet idea of how many cars will go over hte bridge per year paying the toll (based upon the same traffic study that told you to build a bridge inthe first place) and you raise capital today and use th income stream fromthe bridge to pay off hte bond.
Of course, peopel could suddenly get religion about carbon footprint and stop driving so much and your bridge might not produce its anticipated rerurn. In the same way, people may get sick of listening to David Bowie osngs onthe radio and the royalty payments could be much lower than anticiapted.
Risk arbitrage is a fine a noble thing, when risks are not subject to moral hazard.
Seems like there is a pretty deep and obvious moral hazard here, particularly on the side of causing failure. Success is always a gamble, but anyone on the production side can do all sorts of things to ensure failure…. I think someone must have made a movie about this…. maybe a musical too…. try The Producers.
This tale has already been told, but I guess some scams never lack for a new sucker.
Ain’t YOU right!!!! [I loathe Politico.]
Hey lets finance a movie then bet against it with the money we supposedly used to make the movie the WallStreeters are saying we can blame it all on the Star pulling out, Writers Strike, Unions etc now we just need some suckers to bet the movie will do good.
That’s the nature of speculation – if you were guaranteed a profit, it wouldn’t be speculation. I’m rather unsympathetic to someone who lost money in the commodities market versus a shareholder who was scammed due to accounting fraud (like Enron), which in matters of accounting fraud I wish the SEC could criminally prosecute and was funded to have lots of investigators. I’ve hated it for years how Democrats and Republicans take turns whining how strict accounting rules along with the teeth to enforce it would hurt the stock market when I think having highly reliable public filings would help the stock market while sending the corporate crooks to prison. Way too little is done about white collar crime – probably because white collar criminals are also big political donors.
This is great news for Max Bialystock.
Think FASB under Geithner’s direction loosened the mark-to-market accounting rules for the banks last summer. That would have helped them avoid further write downs. Not sure where that stands today. Capital markets have had a good run, and the banks could now be using the mark-to-fantasy version of the rules, as they did during Enron. Congress better get moving.
I’ve been waiting for the moment when I could read a post or article and be confident in telling myself, “Yup, this ain’t economics. This is in the realm of addiction, and it’s time to call in the medical researchers who are researching the cognition of addictive behaviors.”
This is that moment.
Here it is.
Out of vodka? Grab wine. Out of wine? Grab beer.
And so on…
At this point, I’m pretty convinced some of these people would bet on pimps and hookers if they could figure out a way to do it.
Wall streets placing bets on movies?
We should all start speculating on how deep our economy will crater.
Masaccio,
The studio publishes the box office numbers. They get the numbers from services that aggregate the numbers directly as reported by the theater chains. According to the Trend Exchange rules, they will also be receiving the “raw” reported theater data on a daily basis. This is 98% of all theater data in the U.S.
They will be able to compare the raw box office numbers to the studio reported numbers, and highlight discrepancies in possible studio “accounting” practices that may adjust these numbers unfairly. If the studio has a position in one of their movies, and the number they report is off by more than a standard deviation calculated over the last 18 months of box office data, then it will be questioned. If they can’t justify the number, then Trend Exchange will officially report their own number, and ignore the studio reported number.
If the studio has no position in the market, then Trend Exchange will simply accept the studio number, since they cannot benefit financially through movie futures with their reported number, although there are plenty of other ways they can benefit, and do benefit today by “massaging” the numbers, as all types of internal and industry compensation and revenue is tied to these performance numbers.
If anything, the public should be receptive to Cantor and Trend Exchange to try and introduce some transparency and accuracy into these numbers.
It also might help this discussion if some posters were to educate themselves on these potential new markets, instead of blindly posting their uninformed opinions.