
UPDATE WRITE-THRU: Last weekend, Karate Kid vastly outperformed estimates, proving that even though the plots of films are predictable this summer, the box office outcome certainly isn’t. It was in that climate that the creators of the new Media Derivatives box office futures business held its press conference after the Commodity Futures Trade Commission cleared the way for his company to hatch the first box office futures market based on the opening weekend performance of Hollywood films. This outcome is far from decided, though and while Trend Exchange CEO Robert Swagger offered gratitude to the CFTC for formalizing approval, he acknowledged the real battle comes later this week when he heads to DC. There, he will lobby lawmakers to drop language inserted into the Senate version of the pending financial reform law that would prevent the futures business from getting off the ground by making it illegal.
Swagger said he’s still formulating his plan of attack, but he previewed it to journalists. He will paint the MPAA as a behemoth and himself as the small entrepreneur in danger of being crushed by a fat cat special interest using its influence to get its way with lawmakers. Swagger will try to excise a provision was included in the bill by Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln outlawing the box office futures trading proposals by Media Derivatives and Cantor Fitzgerald.
“This is a David and Goliath story, where a large special interest group has rallied its friends in Congress to try and destroy a small business owner, who has followed all the rules,” Swagger said. “The MPAA is trying to get the law changed, and that should be of concern to every American out there…This is the best handout a member of Congress has given to Hollywood in years, the inclusion of 54 words in a document that is 1974 pages long, and one that reeks of special interest. At a time when we are looking at economic reform and wanting transparency, some members of Congress are bending over backwards for the powerfully MPAA lobbying effort.”
Swagger confirms that the hope is to begin bets on opening weekend possibly by the August 20 release of the Screen Gems film Takers. The Media Derivatives plan is to allow bets four weeks before the release of a film, and pay off based on opening weekend results. The market is open to institutional investors and Swagger expected many of them to be industry insiders. Possible participants could range from theater chains who offset risk on a film the chain feels will underperform, to stars whose bonuses are based on box office performance, or a theater that got locked out of a movie title, but can still bet that it will surpass opening weekend estimates.
The real surprise is the depiction of the MPAA as a heavy that is bullying pols, since the industy lobbying arm got involved because its signatory studios opposed the programs, as did all the showbiz guilds. The MPAA has called the futures program little more than legalized parlor game betting. There are fears of potential conflicts of interest. Swagger repeated referred to the MPAA as a “huge special interest group” with a $65 million war chest that is looking to undermine three years of work and millions of dollars that went into bringing Media Derivates to the altar on its futures program.
MPAA president/interim CEO Bob Pisano reiterated the position that the futures programs “Serve no public interest, and to the contrary, can significantly harm the motion picture industry and impose new substantial costs that do not exist today. These are proposals that ought to be under the jurisdiction of the federal gambling and gaming laws, not the federal commodity trading laws. It is unfortunate that the CFTC has now given the go-ahead to a new gambling platform that could be plagued by financial irregularities and manipulation.”
PREVIOUS: Looks like Media Derivatives has gained the upper hand in its quest to begin trading box office futures on feature films. Trend Exchange CEO Robert Swagger will speak to the media at 5 PM Et to describe his plans to launch a futures betting tied to box office performance on the opening weekends of big feature films. Media Derivatives, which previously won approval by the Commodity Futures Trade Commission, got the formal okay to begin its trading program. Cantor Fitzgerald, which also got interim approval from the CFTC, is next up. The MPAA and the guilds have opposed a program it has labeled little more than a legalized betting system, and has pressed its case on Capitol Hill, where the issue is part of a financial reform bill. More details as they come in. The MPAA wasn’t immediately available to comment.
Wall Street Approves Second Box Office Casino With Futures Betting Programs
For more estimates listed by title, see box office results here...


What’s stopping any of us who work in the industry from using our ‘inside information’ to profit from this legalized gambling pit? Nikki herself could make millions from all the info her contacts constantly feed her in advance of telling us about it. I ‘short’ projects on the play money version of this (hsx.com) all the time and do very well.
I wonder if enough ‘suckers’ from outside Los Angeles and New York can be convinced the game isn’t hopelessly rigged against them from the start to fund this for the rest of us?
Insider trading exists in the futures markets and is not prohibited by law. Chances are professional traders and speculators will be able to beat casual traders or what will emerge as day traders should this and Cantor’s market become operational. There is one NY-based hedge fund already set up to do this. Chances are the studios will be unable, however, to beat the pros. In their doing so, however, it will have accomplished what futures markets are supposed to do: Transfer risk from those least able to handle risk to those most able – or willing – to do so.
Autistickid,
Any trading on material non-public information of stocks, bonds, futures contracts, etc. is illegal. Insider trading in futures markets is just as illegal as trading their underlying security.
Paul
aren’t there already enough places to go gambling? why is this something that is being pushed for so hard despite the fact that every entity, from the MPAA to the WGA, who could be potentially affected by this experiment, are steadfastly against it? since when do those 2 organizations agree on anything?
the entertainment industry is already a very fucked up place for people trying to do their thing and make a living, and this will bring a whole new set of problems. and it’s unlikely that congress will do the right thing.
…if only I could get my money back from Ishtar.
This has to be one of the worst ideas since Heidi Montag scored a record deal. Wall St. can’t even handle the futures it has now. Let’s see how well and how fast the the Big Gov’t Dems stop this. Here’s hoping!
There is no stopping it when you come to think of it. And I don’t mean by moving it offshore either. Its a idea whose time has come. Without it the industry – in its present form – may not survive. Who’s left to finance films and who’s going to be crazy enough to do so without being able to manage of the risk in a better fashion?
Autistickid,
There will always be some person, country, tax dodge, hedge fund, corporation, insurance company, bank, etc. who wants to make movies. There have been low and high tides in funding, but investors keep coming back. Hollywood doesn’t need a futures market on box office numbers to provide liquidity for film financing. That is a dog that doesn’t hunt.
paul
Paul — Hollywood DOES need co-financers. Lets get real. AVATAR cost around $400-500 million just to make and market. That meant private equity.
Which meant that Murdoch’s News/Fox had to go round up investors, to the tune of $300 million. In what is very, very risky business. It could win big, it could flop, nobody knew.
Heck, MOST films studios make flop. Again, let’s get real: $1 Redbox rentals, rampant piracy (the LAT reports folks are selling $5 DVDs of Iron Man 2 on the Blue Line, proving their wares by way of portable DVD players) … all mean huge challenges to revenues as family earnings are not just flat but under pressure. There’s been no real wage or job growth in the last ten years, and there’s no dot-com or real estate bubble to jump start things. The feds have poured as much zero-interest money into the system as they can (the Europeans and Chinese did the same). Stagnant consumer growth, world-wide, is the rule.
Hollywood CANNOT self-finance because it can’t make reliably movies that cost $50 million and make money. Because as talented as the writers and producers are, they’re alien beings to the ordinary people who make up the audience, too much money, decadence, and post-Americanism. Without huge budgets requiring 60% or more co-financing Hollywood cannot milk the global market.
Independent TV dried up with the death of German tax shelters. Indie films are dying for lack of finance. Think Wells Fargo, or Bank of America, or German Landsbanks, or Goldman Sachs, or any of the global banks, I-banks, and other institutions are going to invest in Hollywood after taking extensive bailout money from their local national authorities?
“Yes Senator, I spent taxpayer money investing $300 million in ‘ALF: the Movie’ starring DJ Qualls and Chloe Kardashian. Why no, of course it never entered my head that it was a bad move!”
The only sources of cash out there are Sovereign Investment funds, which want to be hedged six ways from Sunday, or Hedge Funds, which duh, always hedge their risks they don’t care about or understand.
These guys don’t do projects. The don’t give a damn if they get their picture taken with Angelina Jolie or Tom Cruise. They *might* move around $4-5 billion into a studio to do a slate of films, but only if they can hedge or liquidate their position quickly if things go south. Even doing another AVATAR is a waste of their time — because its too small.
How hard will it be to fund an AVATAR sequel? Damn hard. Private Equity is being regulated from DC to London to Brussels to Beijing. On the not unreasonable assumption that if it blows up taxpayers will be on the hook.
So no, there won’t be and isn’t any person, tax dodge, hedge fund, or corporation that wants to make movies and will take horrible risk to do it just to hob-nob with junk celebrities.
Hell, the plethora of video game, board game (Monopoly, Battleship), comic book, and other origin movies is likely a demand by investors that were signed up before the collapse demanding as much of a “sure thing” (i.e. awareness) as possible.
Bottom line: Hollywood needs outside money to make its movies (like GM after 1973 with cars) because the only thing they can make thats popular is something like Transformers. Even a simple animated film like Up! cost over $100 million.
So it’s hedge away or nothing.
Whiskey,
I love you because you always write something that makes my wife and I laugh. Today it was “How hard will it be to fund an AVATAR sequel? Damn hard.”
Yeah, it will be so hard to find financing for an AVATAR sequel. Where do I sign up?
I absolutely agree that Hollywood needs outside financing and that financing motion pictures is a horrible bet, but the different sources just keep on coming: In the 1980′s it was publicly traded production companies, then the Japanese bought everything, then the insurance companies, then the Germans, then the tax-shelter funds, then the private equity funds. They all knew what you and I both knew, it is a horrible bet, but they threw their money into productions anyway.
Schuyler Moore wrote a wonderful commentary about this in the HR a few months back: he said film financing wasn’t a business it is a bacchanalia.
Hollywood doesn’t need an exchange on box-office futures to provide liquidity for film financing; nor do investors in film slates really want to limit their potential upside on films by locking a return (otherwise they would invest in something more predictable and safe.)
The only people who really need (or more accurately want) this exchange is Cantor Fitzgerald and Robert Swagger: They want an inefficient market that they can use to roll smaller investors who are attracted by the same sexiness of the movie business, but don’t have the access to actually invest in individual films or slates of productions. A new inefficient market benefits only the market makers; everybody else will lose. Just like a casino.
So it’s hedge away or nothing? Really?
It’s been roughly 115 years of film.
Anyone of a hundred films that were made in the 90′s can be found in a thrift store in the VHS section.
Hollywood is trapped in a game they can’t win.
They ate themselves from the inside out long ago.
Do you really think you know what you are talking about Whiskey? Yes,you do!
Hollywood is clueless and has created a monster machine that it can’t feed anymore. The real problem is movies suck today because of the mindset you have perfectly explained.
Hollywood is dead. Hedge or not.
I did liked your sentence:
“Because as talented as the writers and producers are, they’re alien beings to the ordinary people who make up the audience, too much money, decadence, and post-Americanism. Without huge budgets requiring 60% or more co-financing Hollywood cannot milk the global market.”
Alien beings— yep.
“Wall St.” or more correctly the futures markets do quite well. They were the only ones which didn’t blow up and for good reasons: trading by matched counterparties, trading on margin, and better credit management all facilitated by the use of a clearinghouse.
These markets really seem like a good idea, I’m glad they’re going through, at least until the Congressional Financial Bill gets through the reconciliation process. Capital is flowing very steadily out of the entertainment sector. And especially with the drop in DVD revenue (about 15% a year) which constitute a LARGE portion of any movie’s expected profits, the studios are having a harder time finding partners. Providing a hedging mechanism will undoubtedly bring back a lot of money into production.
There will undoubtedly be mechanisms, like in every other futures exchange, to ameliorate for insider trading issues… I’m sure the CFTC was amply satisfied enough to approve the Trend Exchange. Much like any other futures contract, this should really help to increase liquidity and money back into the marketplace, something Hollywood desperately needs.
Futures markets thrive on non-symmetrical information. Especially true of motion pictures. You think a star makes any difference as far a BO is concerned? A movie has a particular star and will therefore do well? Long or short the contract. Is it actually a factor? Probably not. In this discussion everyone has forgotten William Goldman: NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING!
That was only true for Goldman’s era — and for the reason discussed above. Too much wealth, social distance, and frankly, post-Americanism decadence. Malibu mansion marxist millionaires don’t understand the audience, hate and fear it, and so come up with a facile explanation for “nobody knows anything.”
Guys like Mayer or Warner knew something. They might not know how to write a movie, but could spot talent, rein it in, and use their “butt-sensor” as well as “secretary test” (if they squirmed during a movie, or their secretary did not like it — it was out). Warner and Mayer made money on almost every movie they did. They had to — it was their money on the line, every day.
They did it without CGI. Without extensive, professional stuntmen using wire-work, without the vastly more talented writers, actors, directors, cinematographers, and effects artists of today.
They were able to “know something” because the social distance in attitudes, morals, values, beliefs, and behavior was not a vast gulf as it is today.
Can you imagine any exec in Hollywood making his “birthday” the Fourth of July as Mayer did? Can you imagine Mayer or Warner making: Stop-Loss, Green Zone, Rendition, Valley of Elah, or Jarhead?
Do you realize how far out this “nobody knows anything” really is … that Wal-Mart, Sony, Toyota, Ford, and Apple all know a great deal about what their customers like and dislike?
Its because of the social distance. Execs don’t WANT TO KNOW their audience, preferring to know their peers.
This idea is so idiotic I can’t even formulate the words. First of all, the SEC is already in shambles and unable to enforce the laws we already have on the books that relate to insider trading. If this passes, everyone in LA instantly becomes one of these “insiders.”
(1) The futures market is not regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Rather, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). (2) The futures market, there are no laws vs. insider trading. They, in fact, run – and benefit – on and from insider information. (3) As far a motion pictures are concerned, knowing one piece of information about them is no more important than not knowing it. (4) BO returns are truly random.
Box office returns are not random. Certain patterns have been observed:
1. G rated movies on average make more than PG which make more than PG-13 which make more than R.
2. Certain screenwriters have more box office associated than others.
3. Script matters most, more than any other aspect.
4. Sequels eventually run out steam at around the third movie.
5. Horror generally doesn’t make much money, kid-friendly movies make a TON.
If nothing else, having a futures market will bring the same analytical strengths that “Moneyball” brought to Baseball (aka Bill James insights). Most people in Hollywood believe things that are not generally true: Stars matter, amount of effects = amount of money made, etc.
It would be pretty remarkable if returns were truly random. Audiences (in the US at least) are well known, as to demo and other breakouts. Their spending habits well researched. Their likes and dislikes well known. There are a lot of good information available from quantitative analysis:
*What’s the sweet spot for running time, beyond which audiences get bored no matter how engrossing the story?
*Does outstanding Cinematography matter more than outstanding effects? I.E. Pretty vs. Exciting?
This is what Relativity thought; that patterrns exist. They never made money. They’re probably cosing up shop by year’s end – beginning of ’11. Then, what are the studios going to do for finance?
Even Bob Pisano of the MPAA has stated publicly in a comment letter to the CFTC that “whether a motion picture will connect with an audience has proven quite difficult to predict, and in some instances sentiment for a motion picture can prove to be quite fleeting.”
If the formula for success were a known formula, there would not be such a thing as a movie flop.
If box office returns are truly random, how is the “exchange” not a mere parlor bet?
If trading on a picture does not open until 4 weeks prior to release, how does the market offer hedging opportunities to investors?
If “knowing” vs “not knowing” is the same thing yet Friday exit polls have predictive value for the rest of the weekend, wouldn’t you think that advance test screening data would have predictive value, too? Or are decades of distribution executives so methodologically inept as to spend millions year after year on research that has zero value?
“Or are decades of distribution executives so methodologically inept as to spend millions year after year on research that has zero value?”
answer … YES.