
The MPAA, its signatory studios, DGA, IATSE, NATO and Independent Film & Television Alliance have petitioned the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to deny approval of an application by Veriana Networks and Cantor Fitzgerald to bet on box office receipts of the opening weekend for major releases. In a letter to CFTC Secretary David Stawick, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, Disney and Warner Bros all joined in the petition that opposes turning box office performance into a betting mechanism.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEApril 8, 2010
ENTERTAINMENT COMMUNITY URGES REJECTION OF PROPOSED ONLINE MOVIE-FUTURES WAGERING
Coalition of creators, talent, craftspeople, independent production and distribution companies, industry workers and theater owners raise concerns about box-office wagering services
Washington, DC – A coalition of entertainment industry workers, creators, independent producers and distributors, business organizations and theater owners today urged a federal commission to reject a proposal to create an online motion picture box-office wagering marketplace.
In a letter to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Directors Guild of America (DGA), the Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA), the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its member companies and the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) urged the CFTC to deny a request from Media Derivatives, Inc. (MDEX) to create a designated contract market for the trading of financial derivatives based on film futures.
The letter explained that the proposal by MDEX is based on a faulty understanding of the film business and could potentially damage the industry and the economic interests of its workers.
“The designation of MDEX as a contract market is not warranted where, as here, its sole purpose is to provide a trading platform for instruments that do not constitute legitimate futures or option contracts, but are in essence wagers that are susceptible to manipulation. Rather than providing a real and useful means for hedging risk or price discovery, these instruments will be harmful and burdensome to the motion picture,” the groups said in their letter.
The letter charged that establishing online box office wagering marketplaces will be “detrimental to the industry they ostensibly are created to serve.” And it continued:
“MDEX Contracts create a panoply of negative effects and risks for the motion picture industry that do not now exist – from actually creating conflicts of interest for studio employees and independent contractors by providing the means to bet against the success of the product to complicating motion picture financing by creating new, but false, unreliable, and non-economic valuations of a motion picture’s success. The risk of depressed box office receipts is more pronounced with box office futures because futures pricing, although lacking any reliable economic basis, could nonetheless affect a motion picture’s prospects by negatively affecting financiers’ and audiences’ pre-release perception. Because the ultimate breadth of distribution can be revised up to the time of release and afterward, the MDEX market could affect distributors’ ability to secure screens if the MDEX Contracts are perceived to be trading negatively. The harmful effect of negative publicity is not limited to theater showings. Many prices for downstream licenses and other sources of revenue are driven in part by box office gross.
“Motion pictures slated to open in limited theaters (which can still involve openings in 625 or more theaters) and then broaden based on word of mouth could be ruined by futures pricing that casts it in the false light of a failed opening.
“Approval of the MDEX Contracts also will require studios and all other industry participants that have the power to affect futures pricing to institute and police anti-insider trading compliance regimes for MDEX contracts at great cost to them. It is problematic whether any prohibition on insider trading would need to take into account inside information held by insiders who are not subject to the control of the studios. There are many industry participants who have access to material, non-public information and could try to use that information to profitably bet on MDEX Contracts. These range from financiers and their advisors, potential distribution partners, exhibitors (who have a right to see a motion picture prior to licensing it in the U.S.), talent, crew, agents and other representatives, special effects and other post-production vendors, trailer houses, festival screening committees and the employees, families, and friends of all these people.”
The CFTC is currently scheduled to take action on the MDEX application to establish a designated contract marketplace (DCM) on Friday, April 9. The MDEX request to contract film futures is scheduled for action by April 23.
Separately, Cantor Futures Exchange, L.P. has a request for approval to register as a DCM for the trading of financial derivatives based on film futures, which is scheduled for April 20. Cantor’s request for approval to contract film futures and options is pending in May. The groups signing the letter today intend to file written comments about concerns about this proposal as well.


Isn’t this just spread betting? Which is supposed to be illegal in the United States.
I like that they’re calling it “wagering” because it’s not really an investment. An investment means putting money into something to help it succeed. A wager is putting money down on whether something would win or lose.
Plus, you can imagine what this would do to the already convoluted science of box office analysis and forecasts. The attempts to influence their forecasts will go beyond the usual inter-studio politics, but to include outside interests as well.
I’ll say it again–
Having an entire class of gamblers with a direct financial interest in your film failing is a terrible thing for the entertainment industry.
And by the way, where’s SAG and the WGA on this?
There are already commodity pool investment funds that will specialize in these exchanges. http://starsfund.ligadvisers.com
I also found a network on Ning: http://www.moviefuturestraders.com
I’m laying five to two on MDEX over MPAA on round one, then two to one MPAA over MDEX if it goes to appeal. Any takers?
This potential futures market will be DOA as soon as the Hollywood lobby flexes its muscles. It’s an impossible marketplace to regulate and provides very little benefit to relativle few people in return for huge potential risks of manipulation and fraud.
this sounds like the kind of thing that would destroy specific industries in the past. Internet boom in the late 90′s and the recent housing market collapse come to mind. Attaching value to something that isn’t there, or creating an investment market without any benefit. I know it isn’t on such a grand scale, but there are certainly comparisons.
Las Vegas routinely wagers on all sorts of things which have no sure outcome, from horse races on up. So why not wagering on whether or not a film will do well? It’s not really all that different from all the prognostication that the media already does.
This just isn’t going to last if it gets cleared. No way.
Isn’t it bad enough that Andy Wing almost destroyed the venerable research company NRG…now he has set his sights on the entire film industry! Way to go Andy!!
Again, anyone who understands the federally regulated marketplace of exchange derivatives trading knows how ignorant the comments referring to “gambling” and “betting” are.
It will be quite the spectacle on April 22nd, when all of this becomes a public hearing before congress.
The MPAA and the other entertainment groups have demonstrated a blatant ignorance of the function and purpose of regulated markets, and a surprising inability to monitor news that pertains to their own industry, as demonstrated by their comment letters issued 5 MONTHS after the expiration of the public comment period.
The CFTC has been equally incompetent in their inability to follow their own laws and regulations as they pertain to the exchange and product approval process, as defined in the Commodities Exchange Act.
So don’t be surprised if the “circus” becomes a grilling of, not the applying exchanges, but the CFTC and the entertainment industry reps who are all acting, not in the best interest of the public and American business, but acquiescing to special interests and valuing political gamesmanship over ethics and the rule of law.
What is really behind the scenes, unofficially of course, is the CME Group setting all of these events in effect, and exerting incredible political pressure upon the CFTC and congress, in order to maintain and expand their monopoly as the premiere derivatives market in the world. They do not want any new fish in their ocean, no matter how small they may be when they start out.
@moviegeek23 — you’re kinda dumb. Your statement reflects a basic misunderstanding of what the words “betting” and “gambling” mean. I know plenty about the marketplace of exchange derivatives trading. I was a RELP secondary market maker before you were born. There is nothing about the MDEX Contracts that ISN’T gambling.
Here’s how it works. You say, gosh I think that movie will do well. I want to buy some “shares” in it. But nobody who actually owns any part of the movie is selling you any portion of it, so who do you buy your shares from? Well, golly, from someone who thinks the movie is going to do poorly, so they sell you shares that they don’t own, otherwise knows as a short sale. Then the movie comes out, and if it does really well, you get to sell your “shares” and the person who sold them to you has to find a way to buy shares to cover his sale, so he loses a lot of money, since he presumably has to buy them on the open market (from other people like you, who “bought” them pre-release and are now selling at a profit). If the movie does poorly, he gets to buy shares to cover his sale (again, from people like you), but now for less than what he sold them to you, so he makes money.
If the movie does well, you make money, and if the movie does poorly, he makes money, but NO ONE INVOLVED IN THE MOVIE GETS ANY OF IT. How is that any different than betting on the Lakers? Oh, that’s right — if 15 million people bet that the Lakers will lose, it doesn’t affect the outcome of the game. Fifteen million people betting that a movie will lose money has a huge impact on whether or not that movie makes money — in every window (theatrical, foreign, PPV, DVD, cable, broadcast, etc.) Goodbye, sleeper hits. So long, A-list actors doing small indie projects (because like the HSX that this was originally based on, I’m sure you’ll soon be able to trade on components of this “commodity” as well, like actors, directors…maybe even locations).
And a quick reminder — exchange derivatives trading of mortgage backed securities is what caused the financial meltdown in this country.
Do we really want to let these same people destroy our last profitable export?