Big Government Hinders Hollywood Stock Exchange

Wednesday, 23 Feb 2011 09:15 AM

By John Stossel

  Comment  |
   Contact  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
Sunday night is Oscar night! Think you know who's going to win?

Want to make a bet?

The Hollywood Stock Exchange allows people to bet on which movies, actors, directors, etc., will take home Academy Awards. You can also bet on how much money a movie might make. It's called a prediction market . . . except unlike other prediction markets, bettors can't use real money.

What fun is that? It's not only less fun, it's also makes the prediction market less accurate. People are more careful when they have real money on the line, and the chance of losing money weeds out the frivolous guessers.

Prediction markets are valuable for predicting all kinds of things because the prospect of making money attracts people with knowledge, judgment, and a good sense of the future. More information is better than less. The people most confident in their information bet the most. That's why speculation is a sound market institution.

The promoters of the Hollywood Stock Exchange would have preferred the use of real money but — surprise! — government forbids it.

The Frank-Dodd financial regulation law killed the real market at the behest of some in the movie industry.

Rich Jacobs, president of the Hollywood Stock Exchange, a guest this week on my Fox Business show, says that some studios wanted it killed because they didn't want public discussion of their plans.

"I think they were just concerned about bringing financial market transparency to an industry that hasn't had any transparency about finances," he said.

Why would people want a prediction market for movies?

"Thousands of users out there follow movies very closely," Jacobs said. "They have an opinion on how well those films will do, and they'd like to put some of their money (to) work."

And through the betting, knowledge would be revealed. Films more likely to succeed would probably get funded.

Not every studio opposed the prediction market. Lionsgate defended it. Good for them.

"It would give an opportunity for those trying to produce (small) films and get distribution . . . by showing that the market thinks those films can make $10 or $20 million," Jacobs said.

The betting would start at the very beginning of the process.

"First, it's a script, an idea. Then, an actor or director signs on, and the value goes up. And by the time the trailer comes out, there's a very good sense of the valuation of the property."

But politicians called that "speculation" and "gambling." Can't have that!

"The Commodity Futures Trading Commission did a three-year review and concluded that there was legitimate economic purpose behind this market," Jacobs added.

But last year, then-Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank said no.

Now I hear Dodd might be appointed head of the movie studios' lobby. Cozy. Maybe sleazy. But that's how politics and regulation work.

Meanwhile, the Hollywood Stock Exchange continues to operate.

But with bettors using fake money, it's less accurate.

"It's certainly not as accurate as it would be with the real money market," Jacobs said. "(But the) track record of the Hollywood Stock Exchange in forecasting how well a film will do at the box office has been extraordinary."

That's because prediction markets predict better than pundits and polls. An even better one is Intrade.com — it uses real money. One study found it has just half the margin of error of national polls. Intrade is based in Ireland because cloddish busybodies like Dodd and Sen. Jon Kyl won't allow such gambling sites to operate in the United States.

Nevertheless, Americans bet on Intrade anyway, so that prediction market is still a way for Americans to demonstrate their predictive talents.

So let's have fun with the information that the bettors bring us. What does Intrade predict for the Oscars?

As of Tuesday, "The King's Speech" had an 81 percent chance to win best picture. Its star, Colin Firth, was a 95.5 percent favorite to win best actor. Natalie Portman had a 90 percent chance of winning best actress for "Black Swan." The best director race was closer. David Fincher was the favorite at 60 percent for "The Social Network."

I dare you to bet against the prediction market.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at www.johnstossel.com.





© Creators Syndicate Inc.

  Comment  |
   Contact  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Nanny-State Health Policies Harm More Than Help

Wednesday, 19 Nov 2014 09:05 AM

Control freaks want to run your life. They call themselves public
servants. . . .

Boston Bombings' Lasting Impact on Liberty

Thursday, 06 Nov 2014 08:51 AM

Yes, most people will give up liberty for security.
 . . .

Don't Expect a Big Shake-Up Tuesday

Wednesday, 29 Oct 2014 10:09 AM

A better way to get new blood into politics would be term limits on elected officials. Several states have them, and the . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved