DOCSLIB.ORG

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Return of the Bucketeers: a Lesson in Regulatory Failure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Return of the Bucketeers: a Lesson in Regulatory Failure North Dakota Law Review Volume 57 Number 1 Article 1 1981 The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Return of the Bucketeers: A Lesson in Regulatory Failure M. Van Smith Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Van Smith, M. (1981) "The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Return of the Bucketeers: A Lesson in Regulatory Failure," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 57 : No. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol57/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION AND THE RETURN OF THE BUCKETEERS: A LESSON IN REGULATORY FAILURE M. VAN SMITH* I. INTRODUCTION In 1974, Congress enacted the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974 (CFTCA). The CFTCA significantly amended the Commodity Exchange Act and was intended to strengthen and centralize federal commodities regulation. One of the specific purposes of the CFTCA was to end the fraudulent ex- ploitation of the public by bucket shop operators, the "bucketeers" of the 1970s. Unfortunately, rather than putting an end to the bucketeers, there was a recrudescence of the bucketeers under the 1974 Act. Partially in response to the resurgence of the bucketeers, Congress in 1978 passed the Futures Trading Act of 1978 (FTA). Nevertheless, the bucketeers have persevered and pro- liferated. This article will trace the emergence of the bucketeers under the Commodity Exchange Act, their adaptation to the restrictions of the CFTCA, and their perseverance under the FTA. *Member of the California and Colorado Bars; LL.B., University of Colorado, 1959; currently in private practice in Palo Alto, California. NORTH DAKOTA LAW REVIEW II. REGULATION OF COMMODITY OPTIONS A. REGULATION UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT OF 1936 Commodity options are contracts by which one party pur- chases from another party the right to buy or sell a commodity at an agreed price and within an agreed time.' In 1936, Congress prohibited the trading of options on commodity futures by enacting, the Commodity Exchange Act. 2 'This prohibition was intended to protect commodity futures markets from the disruption caused by option dealers. 3 The Commodity Exchange Act regulated only commodity futures specified by the Act. 4 Thus, the Act did not prohibit options on futures markets not regulated under the Act, commonly known as "world" commodities. 5 The lack of regulation under the Com- modity Exchange Act of the so-called world commodities set the stage for the return of the bucketeers. On April 28, 1971, Harold Goldstein opened an office in Los Angeles to sell options on commodity futures not regulated under the Commodity Exchange Act. Goldstein had stumbled onto a 1. An option to buy is known as a "call," referring to a party's "calling" for the commodity from the other party; an option to sell is known as a "put," referring to a holder's "putting" the commodity to the other party. An option given the holder to either buy or sell is known as a. "double" option, or "straddle"; a double option or straddle is a combination of a put and a call. The price at which the holder of an option can either buy or sell the optioned commodity is the "striking price." When the striking price is the same as the market price of the commodity being optioned, the option is an "at market" option. If, for the holder, the striking price is better than the market price, the option is "in the money"; if the striking price is worse than the market price, the option is "out of the money." The money paid for an option is the "premium." The premium is paid to the "grantor," or "writer," of an option. Commodity options specify a period, ranging from two to fourteen months, during which time the option may be exercised. The date and hour by which an option holder must state that he wants to exercise an option is the "declaration" date. If an option is not declared by the declaration date, it is "abandoned" and the premium is forfeited. The "commission" on a commodity option is a fee for brokering the option. The "break even point" is how much the price of a commodity must change in favor of its holder to pay for the premium and the commission. Options which are traded on an exchange are called "exchange traded" options, and options which are not traded on exchanges are called "dealer" options. For further explanation of these and other terms used in commodity options trading, see CFTC v. Crown Colony Commodity Options, Ltd., 434 F. Supp. 911 (S.D.N.Y. 1977); P. CRACRAFT, LONDON OPTIONS ON COMMODITIES 210 (1977); R. GIBSON-JARvIE, THE LONDON METAL EXCHANGE 134 (1976); S. KROLL &J. SHISHKO, THE COMMODITY FUTURES MARKET GUIDE 258-68 (1973); R. TEWELES, C. HARLOW & H. STONE, THE COMMODITY FUTURES GAME: WHO WINS? WHO LOSES? WHY? 227-29 (1974). 2. Pub. L. No. 74-675, ch. 545, 49 Stat. 1491 (1936) (current version at 7 U.S.C.A. §5 1-24 (West 1980)). 3. H.R. REP. No. 74-421, 74TH CONG., IST SESS. 5 (1935); Hearings on H.R. 3009 Before the House Comm. on Agriculture, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. at 94-95 (1935); P. MEHL, TRADING IN PRIVILEGES ON THE CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE 75-78 (U.S. Dep't of Agriculture Cir. No. 232, 1934). 4. Commodity Exchange Act, Pub. L. No. 74-675, ch. 545, 1 2.49 Stat. 1491 (1936) (current version at 7 U.S.C.A. § 2 (West 1980)). 5. See Werst v. First Commodity Corp., [1977-1980 Transfer Binder] COMM. FUT. L. REP. (CCH) 20,542 at 22,237 (D. Mass. 1978). COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING loadstone of public cupidity. In less than two years, he pyramided an $800 initial investment into Goldstein-Samuelson, Inc., a cor- poration with offices world-wide which had sold over 175,000 op- tions valued at $88 million. 6 Goldstein-Samuelson represented that its options were backed by a computerized program to buy futures contracts for every option. 7 Goldstein also represented that it covered its obligations by matching every dollar of its customer's profit with a position in the futures markets. 8 Goldstein-Samuelson actually attempted to cover its options with positions in the futures markets only during its first few months in business; efforts to cover options ceased after six months. 9 Although government officials were slow to realize it, Gold- stein-Samuelson's selling of uncovered, or "naked," options was nothing more than the bucket shop under a new guise.10 The quin- tessence of Goldstein-Samuelson's fraud was in representing that its options were bona fide transactions in which holders actually acquired a put or call for the commodities optioned. In truth, Gold- stein-Samuelson's naked options were nothing more than bets which would be settled, if at all, according to fluctuations in com- modity prices. Of 175,000 options it sold, Goldstein-Samuelson at- tempted to deliver the commodity optioned in only four instances, and actually purchased a futures contract in only one instance. 1 As sales of options increased, Goldstein-Samuelson had to take in an ever-increasing amount of new premium money from new in- vestors in order to cover the increased value of the futures contracts previously optioned. Thus, the millions of dollars in sales which 6. Stipulation of All Relevant Facts in Lieu of Trial on Preliminary Injunction for the Plaintiff at 7, SEC v. Goldstein- Samuelson, Inc., No. 73-472 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 1973) [hereinafter cited as Goldstein-Samuelson Stipulation]. 7. Wall St. J.,June 28, 1973, at 38, col. 2. 8. Goldstein-Samuelson Stipulation, supra note 6, at 12. 9. Id. at 6. 10. See People v. Gardner, 72 Cal. App. 3d 641, 140 Cal. Rptr. 238 (1977). The term "bucket shop" originally described places on the east side of London where persons who had cadged leftover beer and liquor would gather together to drink. SeeJ. HILL, GOLD BRICKS OF SPECULATION 39 (1904). Wychoff attributes the term to the practice of selling odd-lot grain "by the bucket." P. WYCHOFF, WALL STREET VENTURES AND ADVENTURES 264 (1968). In time, "bucket shop" came to be used as a term of derision to describe a place where persons placed bets on market quotations. In executing a customer's order to buy or sell commodity futures or securities, a brokerage firm will execute its customer's orders by an exchange transaction. A customer's order to purchase or sell a commodity futures contract must be executed on a commodity futures exchange. A customer's order to buy or sell a security will be executed on a stock exchange or by a brokerage firm dealing with its customer from securities it owns. Bucket shops operate under the guise of being brokerage firms. However, instead of actually executing orders of their customers, bucket shops put orders down as bets. Bucket shops bet that their customers' margin will be lost before they can make a profit. To promote their customers' losing, bucket shops set margins so low that normal market fluctuations do not wipe out customers' margin. Bucket shops also manipulate market quotations so that customers' margins are lost. WYCHOFF, supra, at 33. Should enough customers have winning positions, a bucket shop might arrange to have a market rigged.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Food Speculationspeculation Ploughing Through the Meanders in Food Speculation
    PloughingPloughing throughthrough thethe meandersmeanders inin FoodFood SpeculationSpeculation Ploughing through the meanders in Food Speculation Collaborator Process by Place and date of writing: Bilbao, February 2011. Written by Mónica Vargas y Olivier Chantry from the (ODG) Observatori del Deute en la Globalització (Observatory on Debt in Globalization) of the Càtedra UNESCO de Sostenibilitat Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (Po- lytechnic University of Catalonia’s UNESCO Chair on Sustainability) and edi- ted by Gustavo Duch from Revista Soberanía Alimentaria, Biodiversidad y Culturas (Food Sovereignty, Biodiversity and Cultures Magazine). With the support of Grain www.grain.org and of Mundubat www.mundubat.org This material may be freely shared, although we would appreciate your quoting the source. Co-financed by: “This publication has been produced with the financial support of the Spanish Agency for International Co-operation for Development (AECID). The contents of this publica- tion are the exclusive responsibility of Mundubat and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the AECID.” Index Introduction 5 1. Food speculation: what is it and where does it originate from? 8 Initial definitions 8 Origin and functioning of futures markets 9 In the 1930’s: a regulation that legitimized speculation 12 2. The scaffolding of 21st-century food speculation 13 Liberalization of financial and agricultural markets: two parallel processes 13 Fertilizing the ground for speculation 14 Ever more complex financial engineering 15 3. Agribusiness’
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Statutes of Special Importance to Farmer Cooperatives
    Federal Statutes of Special Importance to Farmer Cooperatives 115TH CONGRESS EDITION Cooperative Information Report 66 Rural Business-Cooperative Service United States Department of Agriculture Federal Statutes of Special Importance to Farmer Cooperatives 115TH CONGRESS EDITION Revised August 2017 Federal Statutes of Special Importance to Farmer Cooperatives provides a single, readily available source of laws that address how cooperatives conduct their business. It was originally compiled by Donald A. Frederick and LaTonya St. Clair, and includes all references to cooperatives in Federal law that are significant to cooperatives. This update reflects laws that are current as of August 2017. Several of the citations in the compilation pay deference to popular convention. In the antitrust portion of the report, the section number at the start of each provision is the number in the original act; the U.S. Code uses the codified section number found in parentheses ( ) throughout. Also, the laws in the antitrust section are presented in chronological order by date of enactment; in other sections the laws are arranged in numerical order by title and section, as they appear in the Code. The headers, which appear in bold letters, are those Federal Statutes of Special Importance that appear in the official Code. to Farmer Cooperatives (Cooperative Information Report 65) was originally If you would like to suggest any materials that could be added compiled by Donald A. Frederick and to make the report more useful or if you have found any LaTonya St. Clair in 1990 and was last errors, please contact Meegan Moriarty at Rural Business updated in 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Ordering at the World's First Futures Exchange
    Michigan Law Review Volume 98 Issue 8 1999 Private Ordering at the World's First Futures Exchange Mark D. West University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Contracts Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Securities Law Commons Recommended Citation Mark D. West, Private Ordering at the World's First Futures Exchange, 98 MICH. L. REV. 2574 (2000). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol98/iss8/8 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRIVATE ORDERING AT THE WORLD'S FIRST FUTURES EXCHANGE Mark D. West* INTRODUCTION Modern derivative securities - financial instruments whose value is linked to or "derived" from some other asset - are often sophisti­ cated, complex, and subject to a variety of rules and regulations. The same is true of the derivative instruments traded at the world's first organized futures exchange, the Dojima Rice Exchange in Osaka, Japan, where trade flourished for nearly 300 years, from the late sev­ enteenth century until shortly before World War II. This Article analyzes Dojima's organization, efficiency, and amalgam of legal and extralegal rules. In doing so, it contributes to a growing body of litera­ ture on commercial self-regulation1 while shedding new light on three areas of legal and economic theory.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Dynamics of Derivative Securities Regulation
    The Political Dynamics of Derivative Securities Regulation Roberta Romanot The U.S. regulation of derivative securities--financial instruments whose value is derived from an underlying security or index of securities-is distinctive from that (~f other nations because it has multiple regulators for .financial derivatives and securities. Commentators have debated whether shifting to the unitary regulator approach taken by other nations would be more desirable and legislation to effect such a ~:hange has been repeatedly introduced in Congress. But it has not gotten very far. This article analyzes the political history of the regulation of derivative securities in the United States, in order to explain the institutional difference between the U.S. regime and other nations' and its staying power. It examines the j;JUr principal federal regulatory initiatives regarding derivative securities (the Future Trading Act of 1921, the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974, and the Futures Trading Practices Act (if 1992), by a narrative account of the legislative process and a quantitative analysis (~f roll-call votes, committee-hearing witnesses, and issue salience. The multiple regulator status quo has persisted, despite dramatic changes in derivative markets, repeated efforts to alter it (by the securities industry in particular) and sh(fting political majorities, because of its support by the committee organization of Congress and by a tripartite winning coalition (if interest groups created by the 1974 legislation (farmers, futures exchanges, and banks). In what can best be ascribed to historical j;Jrtuity, different .financial market regulators are subject to the oversight (~f different congressional committees, and, consequently, the establishment (~f a unitary regulator would diminish the jurisdiction, and hence influence, ()f one (if the congressional committees.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of European Traded Gas Hubs
    December 2015 The evolution of European traded gas hubs OIES PAPER: NG 104 Patrick Heather The contents of this paper are the authors’ sole responsibility. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies or any of its members. Copyright © 2015 Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (Registered Charity, No. 286084) This publication may be reproduced in part for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. ISBN 978-1-78467-046-7 i December 2015: The evolution of European traded gas hubs Preface In following the process of the transition of continental European gas pricing over the past decade, research papers published by the OIES Gas Programme have increasingly observed that the move from oil-indexed to hub or market pricing is a clear secular trend, strongest in northwest Europe but spreading southwards and eastwards. Certainly at an overview level, such a statement appears to be supported by the measurable levels of trading volumes and liquidity. The annual surveys on pricing of wholesale gas undertaken by the IGU also lend quantitative evidence of these trends. So if gas hub development dynamics in Europe are analogous to ‘ripples in a pond’ spreading outwards from the UK and Dutch ‘epicentre’, what evidence do we have that national markets and planned or nascent hubs at the periphery are responding? This is more than an academic question.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of the Secretary, USDA § 2.28
    § 1c.121 7 CFR Subtitle A (1–1–21 Edition) agency through such officers and em- § 1c.124 Conditions. ployees of the Federal department or With respect to any research project agency and such experts and consult- or any class of research projects the de- ants as the department or agency head partment or agency head of either the determines to be appropriate. This conducting or the supporting Federal evaluation will take into consideration department or agency may impose ad- the risks to the subjects, the adequacy ditional conditions prior to or at the of protection against these risks, the time of approval when in the judgment potential benefits of the research to of the department or agency head addi- the subjects and others, and the impor- tional conditions are necessary for the tance of the knowledge gained or to be protection of human subjects. gained. (b) On the basis of this evaluation, the department or agency head may PART 2—DELEGATIONS OF AU- approve or disapprove the application THORITY BY THE SECRETARY OF or proposal, or enter into negotiations AGRICULTURE AND GENERAL OF- to develop an approvable one. FICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT § 1c.121 [Reserved] Subpart A—General § 1c.122 Use of Federal funds. Sec. 2.1 Establishment of the Department. Federal funds administered by a Fed- 2.2 Authority of the Secretary to prescribe eral department or agency may not be regulations. expended for research involving human 2.3 Authority of the Secretary to delegate subjects unless the requirements of authority. this policy have been satisfied. 2.4 General officers.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Information – Glossary of Terms Centrifuge. a Perforated
    Market Information – Glossary of Terms Centrifuge. A perforated appliance which spins inside a casing to separate sugar crystals from molasses. Sugar that has come through a centrifuge is centrifugal sugar. Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT). Established in 1848, it is the oldest financial futures and options exchange in the world and situated in Chicago, Illinois. In 2007, the Chicago Board of Trade merged with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to form the CME Group. Some its commodity futures prices (such as wheat, soya beans and maize) form the principal world price benchmarks. Contract expiry. The date at which trading a particular futures contract ends and becomes either physically or cash settled. For the New York No. 11 raw sugar contract this is the last trading day of the month prior to the delivery month. For the London No. 5 white sugar contract it is sixteen calendar days before the first day of the delivery month. Free on Board (FOB). A term requiring the seller to deliver goods on board a vessel designated by the buyer. The seller fulfils their obligation to deliver when the goods have passed over the ship's rail. Generally, a seller has an obligation to deliver goods, and assume the costs of delivery to a named place for transfer to a carrier, such as a ship. EU sugar regime. In 2006 a major reform achieved simplification and greater market orientation of the EU's sugar policy. The total EU production quota of 13.5 million tonnes of sugar is divided between nineteen Member States, of which the UK’s share is 1.056mt.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dynamics of Commodity Spot and Future Markets
    The Dynamics of Commodity Spot and Futures Markets: A Primer Robert S. pindyck* I discuss the short-run dynamics of commodity prices, production, and inventories, as well as the sources and effects of market volatility. I explain how prices, rates of production, ana’ inventory levels are interrelated, and are determined via equilibrium in two interconnected markets: a cash market for spot purchases and sales of the commodity, and a market for storage. I show how equilibrium in these markets affects and is affected by changes in the level qf price volatility. I also explain the role and behavior of commodity futures markets, and the relationship between spot prices, futures prices, and inventoql behavior. I illustrate these ideas with data for the petroleum complex - crude oil, heating oil, and gasoline - over the past two decades. INTRODUCTION The markets for oil products, natural gas, and many other commodities are characterized by high levels of volatility. Prices and inventory levels fluctuate considerably from week to week, in part predictably (e.g., due to seasonal shifts in demand) and in part unpredictably. Furthermore, levels of volatility themselves vary over time. This paper discusses the short-run dynamics of commodity prices, production, and inventories, as well as the sources and effects of market volatility. I explain how prices, rates of production, and inventory levels are interrelated, and are determined via equilibrium in two interconnected markets: a cash market for spot purchases and sales of the commodity, and a market for storage. I also explain how equilibrium in these markets affects and is affected by changes in the level of price volatility.
    [Show full text]
  • Utility Markets
    Sustainable finance Gordon Bennett Managing Director, Utility Markets CFTC’s Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee June 3, 2021 ICE ESG Solutions With ESG solutions across the investment lifecycle ICE connects people to opportunity to create insights and drive sustainable decision- making. Our track record of creating sustainable products and solutions 2000 2004 2008 2010 2013 2014 2019 2020 ICE formed from ICE and the Climate ICE platform lists swaps ICE expands reach in NYSE lists the only ICE Futures Europe AUM in sustainable ICE Data Services expands its predecessor company, Exchange launch the contracts based on emissions markets with publicly traded green begins conducting ETFs listed on the NYSE range of ESG indices with the Continental Power Chicago Climate Regional Greenhouse the acquisition of REIT, Hannon Armstrong European Union surpasses $5 billion. launch of ICE Global Carbon Exchange (CPEX), Futures Exchange Gas Initiative (RGGI) Climate Exchange and (NYSE: HASI). Aviation Allowances Futures Index, Corporate ESG which was acquired in (CCFE), listing allowances becomes global leader auctions on behalf of ICE Futures U.S. Indices and the Global 1997 to build an futures contracts for in carbon futures and ICE Futures Europe the U.K. Government. launches the first suite of Government Carbon Reduction electronic, transparent carbon offsets. options markets. begins conducting Phase ESG derivatives based Indices energy marketplace III EUA auctions on behalf on MSCI indices. of the U.K. Government. ICE Climate Risk launches ICE ESG Reference Data launches 2003 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015 2019 2020 ICE and the Climate ICE Futures Europe lists ICE launches ICE Futures U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • INTRODUCTION to COTTON FUTURES Blake K
    INTRODUCTION TO COTTON FUTURES Blake K. Bennett Extension Economist/Management Texas Cooperative Extension, The Texas A&M University System Introduction For well over a century, industry representatives have joined traders and investors in the New York Board of Trade futures markets to engage in price discovery, price risk transfer and price distribution of cotton. In fact, the first cotton futures market contracts were traded in New York in 1870. From that time, the cotton futures market has grown in use, but still provides the same services it did when trading began. For the novice, futures market trading may seem chaotic. However there is a reason for every movement, gesture, and even the color of jacket the traders wear on the trading floor. All these elements come together to provide the world a centralized location where demand and supply forces are taken into consideration and market prices are determined for commodities. Having the ability to take advantage of futures market contracts as a means of shifting price risk is a valuable tool for producers. While trading futures market contracts may be a relatively easy task to undertake, understanding the fundamental concept behind how these contracts are used from a price risk management standpoint is essential before trading begins. This booklet will assist cotton producers interested in gaining or furthering their knowledge in terms of using futures contracts to hedge cotton price risk. Who Are The Market Participants? Any one person, group of persons, or firm can trade futures contracts. Generally futures market participants fall into two categories. These categories are hedgers and speculators.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Thomas Delcey, Guillaume Noblet
    ”The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets”: A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Thomas Delcey, Guillaume Noblet To cite this version: Thomas Delcey, Guillaume Noblet. ”The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets”: A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics. 2021. hal-03227973 HAL Id: hal-03227973 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03227973 Preprint submitted on 17 May 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. ”The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets”∗ A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Delcey, Thomas† Noblet, Guillaume‡ May 2021 Abstract This article offers a historical analysis of the contributions of U.S. interwar agri- cultural economics to the economics of information. Concerned with improving the circulation of information on agricultural markets, agricultural economists an- alyzed the relationship between agents’ information and the behavior of prices on agricultural commodity exchanges, thus anticipating modern debates on informa- tional efficiency. We show that these debates were part of a more general context of agricultural market reform led by the U.S. administration to improve the pro- duction and diffusion of economic information. We argue that such reforms were a prerequisite for theoretical discussions on information, and established institutional tools that are still active today, such as the USDA market news service.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Crop Insurance Act.Xml
    Q:\COMP\AGMISC\75-30 - Agricultural Adjustment Act Of 1938 & Federal Crop Insurance Act.xml 1–3 75-30 - Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 & Fed... Sec. 2 TITLE V—CROP INSURANCE Subtitle A—Federal Crop Insurance Act Sec. 501. Short title and application of other provisions. Sec. 502. Purpose and definitions. Sec. 503. Creation of Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. Sec. 504. Capital stock. Sec. 505. Management of Corporation. Sec. 506. General powers. Sec. 507. Personnel. Sec. 508. Crop insurance. Sec. 508A. Double insurance and prevented planting. Sec. 509. Indemnities exempt from levy. Sec. 510. Deposit of funds. Sec. 511. Tax exemption. Sec. 512. Fiscal agency of government. Sec. 513. Accounting by Corporation. Sec. 514. Crimes and offenses. Sec. 515. Program compliance and integrity. Sec. 516. Funding. Sec. 517. Separability. Sec. 518. Agricultural commodity. Sec. 520. Producer eligibility. Sec. 521. Ineligibility for catastrophic risk and noninsured assistance payments. Sec. 522. Research and development. Sec. 523. Pilot programs. Sec. 524. Education and risk management assistance. Subtitle B—Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Sec. 531. Supplemental agricultural assistance.disaster an adequate and balanced flow of agricultural commodities in interstate and foreign commerce and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, ø7 U.S.C. 1281¿ That this Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938’’. TITLE V—CROP INSURANCE Subtitle A— Federal Crop Insurance Act SEC. 501. ø7 U.S.C. 1501¿ SHORT TITLE AND APPLICATION OF OTHER PROVISIONS. This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Crop Insurance Act’’.
    [Show full text]