Futures trading for movies?? Are you kidding?

Subprime Goes Hollywood

The Wall Street wizards who gave you credit default swaps want to turn the movie industry into their next casino.

— By Nick Baumann


If you thought the mortgage-backed securities and other complex financial instruments that crashed the economy were risky, you’ll love Wall Street’s latest brainwave: a new financial market in which players can gamble on whether upcoming Hollywood movies will be blockbusters or bombs.

For years, Cantor Fitzgerald, a Wall Street investment firm, has been operating the “Hollywood Stock Exchange,” a fake-money game in which players trade “stocks” to bet on how films will do at the box office. Now Cantor could soon get government permission to make a real-money version of the game—a market in which players can gamble on the success or failure of, say, Pirates of the Caribbean 4. Critics are worried that this new market could be vulnerable to insider trading and create bizarre incentives for moviemakers—and that it will also enlarge the risky family of financial products that helped trigger the economic crisis.

“This is such a bad idea on so many levels,” says Lynn Stout, a law professor at UCLA and an expert in derivatives, the category of financial instruments that includes Cantor’s proposed box office futures. “What they want to do is basically open up a casino for people who want to make money for predicting the next blockbuster.”


Here’s how it would work. Hollywood studios, actors, directors, investment banks, hedge funds, and anyone else would be able to buy and sell contracts based on the value of all ticket sales in the first four weeks of a movie’s release. According to Cantor Fitzgerald’s plans, the contracts would each be worth one-millionth of a given movie’s gross sales during that four-week period. Let’s say that you thought Avatar would pull in $500 million during its first four weeks. So, you buy 100 futures contracts at $490, figuring that when Avatar made $500 million you’d be up $1,000. Unfortunately, as it turned out, Avatar “only” made some $430 million domestically in the first month after its release—meaning that you’d lose a cool six grand.

One problem, skeptics say, is that Hollywood insiders could have a huge advantage in such a market. People in the movie business often have far greater access to crucial information about a film’s box office prospects than ordinary investors do—such as how big the marketing budget will be or how bad the performances are. “If the industry is selling, odds are that it is a bad idea to buy,” says Dean Baker, the codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Another problem, says Stout, the law professor, is that such a market creates “all sorts of perverse incentives to manipulate the success of movies.” Let’s say you were responsible for Gigli, and you realized during filming that it was shaping up to be one of the worst movies ever made. Instead of writing off the $54 million you’d shelled out to make the film, you could simply buy up a stack of futures contracts priced on the assumption that the movie would tank. Then, to nudge that failure along, you could slash the marketing budget, or decide to add 30 more dreadful minutes to the final cut. Played correctly, a studio could inflict a movie like Gigli on the world and still turn a profit. If box office futures trading happens, being a Hollywood insider would take on a whole new meaning.

Proponents of the concept argue that the plan would simply allow moviemakers to offset their risks. Media Derivatives, Inc., another company that has applied for government approval for a box office futures market, said in a submission to regulators that it wants to enable “risk transfer…from the producers, studios, theaters, and financiers/film funds to a community of speculators willing to assume these risks in return for being paid risk premiums.”

Stout says there could be a legitimate case for a futures market limited to players with an economic stake in a movie’s success. But Cantor has no plans to restrict trading to those with skin in the game. If it gets the green light from the government, the firm plans to hold “boot camps” across the country to familiarize people with box office futures trading. And it’s already recruiting players of its Hollywood Stock Exchange game to set up accounts to “practice” for the rollout of the real market. One New York investment firm, SAGA Capital, has said it will launch a hedge fund focusing on box office futures if Cantor’s plan gets the go-ahead.

In other words, Cantor hopes to flood its futures market with plenty of players whose participation would be purely speculative. “In layman’s terms, we call that making a bet,” Stout says. If that sounds familiar, it should. One of the catalysts for the financial crisis was the spread of risky derivatives like credit default swaps, which allowed investors to bet on whether subprime mortgages would default. Because those investors had no stake in the underlying product—in this case, the original mortgage—they took far greater risks. In that context, Cantor’s plan could be “incredibly dangerous,” Stout says. “Until we fix this legal problem that you can make purely speculative derivative bets, we have to worry that any newly created form of derivative can add risk to the system.”

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is responsible for approving Cantor’s proposal, but refused to comment on the application. A Cantor spokeswoman refused to discuss the firm’s plans, saying only that the idea was pending approval. But if the plan succeeds, the amount of money in play could be significant. The movie business brought in around $10.6 billion in domestic box office revenues last year. Because anyone could participate in the Cantor Exchange—not just people who own rights to the box office takings—a futures market could be much bigger.

Tyson Slocum, a futures expert with Public Citizen who advises the CFTC, says Cantor’s plan suggests Wall Street hasn’t learned its lesson from the crash. Investment firms shoudn’t be able to launch new “casinos,” he says. The movie business is already an industry based on smoke and mirrors. If Cantor has its way, the fortunes of other financial players could be tied to Hollywood’s whims. And there’s no guarantee of a happy ending.

Here is another analysis from: Written by Chris F. Masse



A “transaction” occurred in 2001 – that transferred HSX Holdings Inc. voting rights to Cantor – giving the hundreds of investors – who invested $40 mn. dollars into HSX from 1996 – exactly NOTHING.

When queried by lawyers, Cantor claims they lost all the paper work in the 9/11 attacks (they moved the company from Santa Monica Ca. to the top floor of the WTT during the Spring of 2001).

What I know is that a board member of HSX – Woody Knight of SBS (Scandinavian Broadcasting Service) – engaged in a pre-arranged, third party transaction that passed voting control to Howard Lutnick at Cantor – in exchange for $2 million in eSpeed stock (Cantor’s publicly listed entity at the time) that was immediately sold to ‘wash’ the sale.

Cantor is now going to launch ‘box office futures contracts’ based on intellectual property and technology they don’t have the rights to – with the blessing of the CFTC.

According to my sources who are close to this – the CFTC – run by Gary Gensler – a former Goldman guy (of course) – took 25 mn. in ‘lobbying’ fees from Cantor to get these new contracts green lit. But did they do any due diligence? Did they spot the absence of any bona fide transaction between HSX and Cantor?

Does the world really need more weapons-of-mass-financial- destruction from the sickos on Wash. and the CFTC?

Why should we assume that Cantor will operate this market honestly when the circumstances of their “ownership” including the patented “Virtual Specialist” technology used for online CDA (Continuous Double Auction) technology, are dubious at best, if not outright fraud.

Will anyone be able to resist these new products that combine tinsel with wall st.?

Is this the new bubble the CFTC hopes will take people’s mind’s off the current spate of fraud on Wall St.?

Also, can you think of a market that is any easier to manipulate by insiders?

We understand that a former CEO of HSX got calls from people like Jeffrey Katzenberg asking to move prices of their projects up to change the perception in the market place (and media) and to free up more marketing dollars.

Just one example of many, many ways to game this market.


I suppose nothing is sacred, not like Hollywood was sacred to begin with, but still!

Linked to http://ragingdebate.com/economy/as-if-hollywood-wasnt-bad-enough


~ by jrparrott on April 10, 2010.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: