>Yes, to the best of our knowledge. 7 U.S. Code § 13-1 prohibits "contract[s] for the sale of [...] onions for future delivery [...] on or subject to the rules of any board of trade in the United States." The San Francisco Onion Futures Company is not a board of trade, defined as an "organized exchange or other trading facility". We sell contracts privately to individual buyers, and do not operate any exchange or secondary market.
Performance art against that law?
Also November onions are an absolute steal compared to the adjacent months!
I think their point is there's no "peer to peer" trading so it's not an exchange. You're always contracting futures with them, so it's more like a vegetables seller than a trading facility.
Exactly right. You're able to privately resell contract keys (and the buyer can then re-issue a new key with their delivery info, voiding the old one), but onionfutures.com doesn't facilitate it.
I mean, it kind of does, though, no? Since it is backing the contract in the first place? Why else would anyone buy those contracts if they didn't know they have value provided by onionfutures.com in the first place? Why can't I just sell a fake key, claim it'll work, and make unlimited money this way if that wasn't the case?
The specific laws do not actually ban the transfer of those contracts (tbf this is very complex and depends on your reading). And yes they do not facilitate the trading of the instruments in the secondary market but they absolutely facilitate the instruments themselves otherwise there cannot be a secondary market without any backers of the instruments.
> [A] trading facility that— (A) permits trading— (i) by or on behalf of a person that is not an eligible contract participant; or (ii) by persons other than on a principal-to-principal basis; or (B) has adopted (directly or through another nongovernmental entity) rules that— (i) govern the conduct of participants, other than rules that govern the submission of orders or execution of transactions on the trading facility; and (ii) include disciplinary sanctions other than the exclusion of participants from trading.
And 7 USC § 1a(51)(A) defines a "trading facility" as
> [A] person or group of persons that constitutes, maintains, or provides a physical or electronic facility or system in which multiple participants have the ability to execute or trade agreements, contracts, or transactions— (i) by accepting bids or offers made by other participants that are open to multiple participants in the facility or system; or (ii) through the interaction of multiple bids or multiple offers within a system with a pre-determined non-discretionary automated trade matching and execution algorithm.
(7 USC § 1a(51)(B) then follows with some exceptions to that definition.)
In short—an "organized exchange" is defined as a type of "trading facility". To count as a trading facility", whether of the "organized exchange" type or not, you must either accept bids or offers from other participants yourself or else deterministically match and execute those bids and offers.
Broker or dealer. Per the interwebs, a broker acts on behalf of another party, vs a dealer trades for themselves.
As distinguished from an exchange, where the exchange intermediates and becomes a middle party "simultaneously" to both sides.
The market dynamics are pretty different between broker dealers and exchanges. For instance a /ticker/ as a concept makes sense only with an exchange.
The exchanges basically pick up only the contracts or goods with the most volume and standardized & predictable goods.
To trade more exotic or niche things basically you have to find your own counterparty, versus the exchange acts as an "typical" buyer and seller to each side (assuming there is anyone there at all to participate on each side... giving rise to the concept of market makers who undertake to do just that, i.e., to be ready to trade either side at any time in a certain good).
I believe 10/15 is a huge harvest day for Vidalia(??) Onions so crop will be scarce leading up to the harvest. As my multi-player free farming simulator has shown me. https://farm-mp.frontpageintelligence.ai/
I looked up onions, lettuce and tomatoes (because burgers), and the volatility actually looks very similar. Am I missing something or looking at the wrong things?
For speculators yes. But for a farmer and the consumer of the goods they would rather lock in a margin for their goods and run their business than risk guessing what the price will be at harvest time or consumption time. It’s called hedging.
Lettuce and Tomatoes don't keep well, which adds more seasonal variability and reduces the ability of a futures market to smooth prices.
Compare with potatoes, which keep about as well an onions, and are farmed in the same areas. Look at onions and potatoes over a 5-year time span (because the default all-data time span is silly for this). It doesn't give enough control of the Y axis to make the comparison easy - for potatoes it shows me Y=40-320, for a range of 280; for onions it shows me Y=120-440, for a range of 320. This means that potatoes are more "zoomed in" and it's graph will exaggerate volatility relative to onions, but qualitatively, I'd say the potato graph looks smother just the same. This is exactly what economic theory says a futures market should do to the price.
> Lettuce and Tomatoes don't keep well, which adds more seasonal variability
The more durable a produce is, the easier it is to transport over a large area, which will always smoothen price fluctuations. This alone could explain why lettuce and tomatoes have higher volatility than onions, which have higher volatility than potatoes, which have higher volatility than corn and weat.
At least that's the null hypothesis that the hypothetical effect of futures should be compared to.
I know nothing about logistics of the food supply chain and how they preserve food at scale, but at least at home I'd say that potatoes are close to twice as durable as onions.
Interesting. This would be more sensible if it was time-bound. Since the intention was clearly "stop a bad thing someone is doing right now" and not "make this field illegal forever"
A contract represents a set of (quantity, month) tuples, where quantity is an integer greater than zero; that number of yellow onions will be delivered in the first week of the corresponding month to the current holder of the contract. The size of the onions is unspecified.
Why was the law against onion futures passed in the first place? Couldn’t the same scheme be done with garlic, or sweet potatoes, or turnips or something?
But what I’m saying is, why did they only cover onions? I don’t think there’s anything stopping someone from cornering the market in other commodities just as easily
Because the size of the market was/is so small that you're actually able to corner it. Oil or Treasury futures are far too big that no single person could ever corner it.
> Treasury futures are far too big that no single person could ever corner it.
Well, you'd think, but squeezing the CTD bond was completely accepted practice well into the noughties until PIMCO flew too close to the sun and faced regulatory wrath.
The point is that it's silly that the law is specific to onions, and the explanation "it's because onion market was small enough to be cornered" is unsatisfactory because there are other small markets too
Just like solving math or programming in a general sense is much harder than a specific solution , so is passing a broader law.
We don’t complain about switch cases in code when there is two or three switches we start refactoring once it starts to proliferate.
The law is no different , passing a wider ban would not get the votes easily or quickly and the interested parties the onion industry have no reason to push for it neither does the lawmaker acting on their interests.
If said small markets also had exceptions passed seeing the onion one there could have been case to be broad.
It would premature optimization to otherwise, based on just need for elegance , code or law has to work first even if dirty .
Because American lawmakers are weirdly specific brainless creatures. This is how you get all those laws named after individuals like Megan, and my other specific fave, the Video Rental Records Privacy Act.
Shall we address the general question of privacy, or just close the particular breach that affected a congressman? You know it's going to be the latter.
narrowly scoped laws limit the blast radius of a stupid law without the political price of opposing a law in the aftermath of a disaster that law would have prevented. imagine if they had banned commodities trading in general!
The particular brainless lawmaker behind this act went on to become President. I think that shows Americans love and reward brainless lawmakers for creating these brainless laws.
I'm pretty sure that he was loved and rewarded for being the star football player at the University of Michigan when they were the undefeated national champions two years in a row.
No, it is because onions (and potatoes) occupy this very weird middle ground in terms of perishability, the seasonality of the harvest, and the size of the domestic production and consumption market, which makes them uniquely vulnerable to market manipulation. A commodity has to be storable enough and/or regularly harvested enough to create a predictable futures market, but when inventory is small, highly seasonal, geographically constrained, and slowly and often unpredictably non-linearly degrading, then it's pretty easy for a big player to squeeze the market.
It is a lot harder to corner the market when you have very non-perishable or very perishable goods and/or much larger domestic and global markets with harvests that vary across geography and time, like wheat and frozen orange juice concentrate. Most goods traded via futures have those properties. Onions is right on the edge of even making sense as a futures commodity, and because of that, it's a recipe for manipulation.
And there were calls to regulate potatoes the same way in the fallout of the onion market manipulation, but those didn't pass, and in 1976 the potato market was almost cornered in the same way.
I would not be so quick to call people brainless. Generally speaking, I would prefer that congressmen be specific with their legislation and, like a good doctor, try to first do no harm or as little harm as possible and address the problem before them specifically without causing unintended consequences.
As I wrote in a previous comment on this thread I am sure the congressman that passed the law discussed the issue with farmers and ranchers producing all traded commodities and the ones that were not growing onions did not think there was a significant risk of a corner and they preferred to have their goods traded.
Although I do agree with you that privacy protections should be broader. As far as Megan’s law I am sure you realize that it is intended to protect everyone from sex criminals not just people named Megan.
No because none of these things have futures traded on a major exchange. Agricultural commodities whose futures are traded on major exchanges are very few. Now of course your question will be couldn’t the same be done with a commodity whose futures are traded, such as corn or wheat.
The answer is it is difficult to say. One thing anyone cornering the market has to consider is government intervention. In this respect onions are perfect. They are merely a condiment. Nobody is going to starve for lack of onions if the rest of the food supply is intact. Thus any government official rushing in to intervene in a cornering of the onion market will look a little foolish and thus think twice about it.
If someone tried to corner the wheat market the government is likely to step in, confiscate his goods and pay him a fair price for his wheat which will be much lower than the cornered price. The cornerer will then lose money.
I suspect the congressman that passed the legislation did his research and talked to all potentially affected parties. I suspect the farmers and ranchers producing the other traded commodities said that this was not really a concern for them and that they would prefer that their commodities continue to be traded.
Wait a minute, are onions just condiments to people? You can cook a ton of different dishes with onions, I was thinking about the many recipes I've tried for onion soup.
The people behind this are a real (if silly) student organization at UChicago and Northwestern campaigning for the legalization of onion futures trading. Sometimes they will aggressively hand out free onions to passerby on campus. It's quite entertaining.
I'm a young naive lad curious about this, have UChicago economics professors and/or grad students ever done something that might be considered like, idk, a crime against humanity stain on one's soul, in the past couple of decades?
They are not that silly. I am sure they are being secretly funded by the cbot. The idea may seem silly but apparently onion futures trading was big money when it was banned. It was the most lucrative futures contract for the cbot (Chicago board of trade).
They have what appears to be a screenshot of an excel document (complete with sort and filter widgets), except I can select the text, so perhaps it's an embedded excel sheet inside a word doc?
Either way, I love it and I'm always excited to learn about what mundane functions the government and MS Office are keeping alive for society.
Are these contract prices really "per onion"? Or are they actually per pound or per kg? Up to $9.39 seems very expensive if it's really the price for a single onion.
I thought maybe they're some sort of special exotic onion variety, but I don't see anything to suggest that.
Some personal preference not covered in that recipe: do not caramelise all your onion; instead, keep a quarter and add it in after you have caramelised the rest. This gives a bit more variety in terms of taste and texture.
Few things warm your cockles this satisfyingly on a wet, dreary late-Autumn evening.
Yeah, this is pretty much the loophole. They're never actually referred to as futures, but as "private, transferable contracts for the future physical delivery of yellow onions".
Hard to take this seriously when it just lists “onion” as the commodity. The onion we extract from the ground is not the same everywhere. It can be either light or heavy based on the size and density. Light onion rolls more easily than the thicker heavy onion.
The sulfur content also affects the onion quality and price: “sweet” onion has low sulfur content, “sour” onion has high. Sweet onion can be used much more easily than sour onion, which requires more culinary processing to extract the sulfur compounds that make your eyes water.
Onion has been shown to have negative impact on climate, especially on air quality with people in confined spaces, but despite this it continues to be a valuable resource that is processed into many everyday foodstuffs: white, yellow, red, salad, and for specialist applications the highly refined shallot and pearl compounds as well.
Alas it seems likely that geopolitical upheaval will mean onion trading at ever higher prices. Brest Roscoff Intermediate (light, sweet onion) is trading over $8 a bunch (yes, crude onion is traded in weird units!) since the war began.
There’s also a bright future for synthetic. environmentally friendlier onion! Hydroponically grown scallions — so called “green” onion — have some interesting applications in the aerospace industry e.g. in-flight sandwiches and salads.
141 comments
[ 1.3 ms ] story [ 40.1 ms ] thread>Is this legal?
>Yes, to the best of our knowledge. 7 U.S. Code § 13-1 prohibits "contract[s] for the sale of [...] onions for future delivery [...] on or subject to the rules of any board of trade in the United States." The San Francisco Onion Futures Company is not a board of trade, defined as an "organized exchange or other trading facility". We sell contracts privately to individual buyers, and do not operate any exchange or secondary market.
Performance art against that law?
Also November onions are an absolute steal compared to the adjacent months!
I hate to argue but then what would they define this as, if not an organized exchange or other trading facility?
The specific laws do not actually ban the transfer of those contracts (tbf this is very complex and depends on your reading). And yes they do not facilitate the trading of the instruments in the secondary market but they absolutely facilitate the instruments themselves otherwise there cannot be a secondary market without any backers of the instruments.
> [A] trading facility that— (A) permits trading— (i) by or on behalf of a person that is not an eligible contract participant; or (ii) by persons other than on a principal-to-principal basis; or (B) has adopted (directly or through another nongovernmental entity) rules that— (i) govern the conduct of participants, other than rules that govern the submission of orders or execution of transactions on the trading facility; and (ii) include disciplinary sanctions other than the exclusion of participants from trading.
And 7 USC § 1a(51)(A) defines a "trading facility" as
> [A] person or group of persons that constitutes, maintains, or provides a physical or electronic facility or system in which multiple participants have the ability to execute or trade agreements, contracts, or transactions— (i) by accepting bids or offers made by other participants that are open to multiple participants in the facility or system; or (ii) through the interaction of multiple bids or multiple offers within a system with a pre-determined non-discretionary automated trade matching and execution algorithm.
(7 USC § 1a(51)(B) then follows with some exceptions to that definition.)
In short—an "organized exchange" is defined as a type of "trading facility". To count as a trading facility", whether of the "organized exchange" type or not, you must either accept bids or offers from other participants yourself or else deterministically match and execute those bids and offers.
As distinguished from an exchange, where the exchange intermediates and becomes a middle party "simultaneously" to both sides.
The market dynamics are pretty different between broker dealers and exchanges. For instance a /ticker/ as a concept makes sense only with an exchange.
The exchanges basically pick up only the contracts or goods with the most volume and standardized & predictable goods.
To trade more exotic or niche things basically you have to find your own counterparty, versus the exchange acts as an "typical" buyer and seller to each side (assuming there is anyone there at all to participate on each side... giving rise to the concept of market makers who undertake to do just that, i.e., to be ready to trade either side at any time in a certain good).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act
(which also banned box office receipt futures)
A fun thing is to go on FRED and make a graph with prices from onions and, say, corn to see the differences in volatility.
Tomato: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPU01130217 Onion: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPU01130216 Lettuce: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPU01130215
To the farmer, futures mean no risk of having to sell when prices are low. To the buyer, futures mean no risk of having to buy when prices are high.
The farmer also gives up the chance of selling when prices are high, and the buyer gives up the chance of buying when prices are low.
The transfers go both ways, which is the magic.
Compare with potatoes, which keep about as well an onions, and are farmed in the same areas. Look at onions and potatoes over a 5-year time span (because the default all-data time span is silly for this). It doesn't give enough control of the Y axis to make the comparison easy - for potatoes it shows me Y=40-320, for a range of 280; for onions it shows me Y=120-440, for a range of 320. This means that potatoes are more "zoomed in" and it's graph will exaggerate volatility relative to onions, but qualitatively, I'd say the potato graph looks smother just the same. This is exactly what economic theory says a futures market should do to the price.
The more durable a produce is, the easier it is to transport over a large area, which will always smoothen price fluctuations. This alone could explain why lettuce and tomatoes have higher volatility than onions, which have higher volatility than potatoes, which have higher volatility than corn and weat.
At least that's the null hypothesis that the hypothetical effect of futures should be compared to.
I suppose that prevents Kalshi gambling on box office duds?
They also got onion farmers to buy back onions they'd already sold.
Well, you'd think, but squeezing the CTD bond was completely accepted practice well into the noughties until PIMCO flew too close to the sun and faced regulatory wrath.
We don’t complain about switch cases in code when there is two or three switches we start refactoring once it starts to proliferate.
The law is no different , passing a wider ban would not get the votes easily or quickly and the interested parties the onion industry have no reason to push for it neither does the lawmaker acting on their interests.
If said small markets also had exceptions passed seeing the onion one there could have been case to be broad.
It would premature optimization to otherwise, based on just need for elegance , code or law has to work first even if dirty .
Shall we address the general question of privacy, or just close the particular breach that affected a congressman? You know it's going to be the latter.
Legislative product management, by committee.
A direct democracy might have just banned all futures.
And it was Robert Bork - who was never elected to anything - that inspired it.
And Bork’s rental history really should have been private. In any event, it was innocuous,
What am I missing in this story?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bork_tapes
It is a lot harder to corner the market when you have very non-perishable or very perishable goods and/or much larger domestic and global markets with harvests that vary across geography and time, like wheat and frozen orange juice concentrate. Most goods traded via futures have those properties. Onions is right on the edge of even making sense as a futures commodity, and because of that, it's a recipe for manipulation.
And there were calls to regulate potatoes the same way in the fallout of the onion market manipulation, but those didn't pass, and in 1976 the potato market was almost cornered in the same way.
But sure, govment bad.
As I wrote in a previous comment on this thread I am sure the congressman that passed the law discussed the issue with farmers and ranchers producing all traded commodities and the ones that were not growing onions did not think there was a significant risk of a corner and they preferred to have their goods traded.
Although I do agree with you that privacy protections should be broader. As far as Megan’s law I am sure you realize that it is intended to protect everyone from sex criminals not just people named Megan.
The answer is it is difficult to say. One thing anyone cornering the market has to consider is government intervention. In this respect onions are perfect. They are merely a condiment. Nobody is going to starve for lack of onions if the rest of the food supply is intact. Thus any government official rushing in to intervene in a cornering of the onion market will look a little foolish and thus think twice about it.
If someone tried to corner the wheat market the government is likely to step in, confiscate his goods and pay him a fair price for his wheat which will be much lower than the cornered price. The cornerer will then lose money.
I suspect the congressman that passed the legislation did his research and talked to all potentially affected parties. I suspect the farmers and ranchers producing the other traded commodities said that this was not really a concern for them and that they would prefer that their commodities continue to be traded.
They have a website also: https://onionfutures.org
https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/fvdidnop.pdf
Readers may wish to skip ahead to page 4, where onions are discussed.
Either way, I love it and I'm always excited to learn about what mundane functions the government and MS Office are keeping alive for society.
I bought a box of onions from him before and they were very good. I ate those onions for a long time.
Why don't existing futures cover this? Are onions unique in how sturdy they are?
I thought maybe they're some sort of special exotic onion variety, but I don't see anything to suggest that.
Some personal preference not covered in that recipe: do not caramelise all your onion; instead, keep a quarter and add it in after you have caramelised the rest. This gives a bit more variety in terms of taste and texture.
Few things warm your cockles this satisfyingly on a wet, dreary late-Autumn evening.
[0] https://www.seriouseats.com/french-onion-soup-recipe
https://www.emerils.com/127311/seven-onion-soup-parmesan-gar...
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/10/14/448718171/epis...
The sulfur content also affects the onion quality and price: “sweet” onion has low sulfur content, “sour” onion has high. Sweet onion can be used much more easily than sour onion, which requires more culinary processing to extract the sulfur compounds that make your eyes water.
Onion has been shown to have negative impact on climate, especially on air quality with people in confined spaces, but despite this it continues to be a valuable resource that is processed into many everyday foodstuffs: white, yellow, red, salad, and for specialist applications the highly refined shallot and pearl compounds as well.
Alas it seems likely that geopolitical upheaval will mean onion trading at ever higher prices. Brest Roscoff Intermediate (light, sweet onion) is trading over $8 a bunch (yes, crude onion is traded in weird units!) since the war began.
There’s also a bright future for synthetic. environmentally friendlier onion! Hydroponically grown scallions — so called “green” onion — have some interesting applications in the aerospace industry e.g. in-flight sandwiches and salads.
Tsk. There is no free market.