Simplification please

Could we please have somebody who understands how this futures trading works create a brief, natural language explanation of how this financial trickery works and what it means in real terms. Preferably in a a jargon free manner.

It's all very well explaingnig the history of "Futures" but notm uch use if no-one can understand what they are! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.165.66 (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historical accuracy

Futures exchanges, or organizations trading contracts serving essentially the same purpose, existed before the dates given. There were active exchanges for example in Britain for cotton, in Germany and France for coffee and for grain in Buffalo New York. I added a link of futures clearinghouses providing sources. As these sources are secondary and I do not know whether secondary sources are accepted by this community, I have not revised the text.

A rice exchange in Japan was active as early as the 17th century. Dojima Exchange

Osaka stock exchange indeed claim that futures were born around 1650 in osaka. The World and Osaka's Market 2005 (last page).

The date given for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is incorrect. In 1898 it was named the Butter and Egg Exchange becoming the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in 1919. see CME To my knowledge, that exchange was never named the Chicago Produce Exchange. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.158.220 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 9 July 2005

A Produce Exchange is a type of exchange that is used in a general classification, and it never was the name of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldfish06 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"the only exchange for hard red spring wheat futures"...and why does this matter?

What's the deal with the paragraph that begins "In 1881, a regional market was founded in Minneapolis, Minnesota..."? If hard red spring wheat is a major deal, internationally speaking, this should be explained. Right now, the paragraph breaks the flow of the article and leaves the reader scratching his head about why this particular regional market is being discussed when no others are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.94.17 (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Agreed. This needs clearing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeGracia (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AMENX is fake

AMENX is a fake exchange. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.150.189 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 1 April 2006

Cleanup Help!

This page needs major work to become readable/understandable. Let's try finding some expertz... -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.131.255 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 18 October 2006

  • Agreed. need more info to help students in this matter, if possible. thanks!!! --165.89.84.88 00:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agreed. I'm a bit dubious about the constant focus on Chicago and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. --70.200.94.91 (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Futures exchange list redundant in this article

Since there already exists a list of futures exchanges (and a wiki link to it in the article), I'd recommend deletion of the Futures exchanges section in this article. Any objections? --Chikinsawsage 07:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New first exchange

I see User:Vapour recently replaced the Chicago exchange with the Dojima Rice Exchange as the first exchange and provided a cite (the previous version didn't). He also included the following:

Japan developed highly monetised version of feudalism where majority of tax was paid in rice but ruling samurai lord exchage the title claim of rice for cash, which soon cause future harvest to be traded likewise.

It's very poorly worded and lacks a citation so I'm going to remove it. I don't want to correct it because I'm not sure I understand what it's saying. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Vapour here, making edit from my school. Tokugawa Shogunate was fedual. Their taxation was based on levy on the harvest, i.e. rice. All feudal lordship, then sold these rice in centralised comoditiy market in Osaka to finance their budget. Pysical trading of rice did not take place in the Osaka market. Osaka market provided clearing service to facilitate monetary settlement of rice "certificate". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.9.34 (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you agree to putting the following into the article:
Japan had developed a monetised version of Feudalism where the majority of taxes were paid in the form of rice or "rice certificates" (i.e. a promise to deliver an amount of rice in the future). The feudal lords then traded these certificates in the Dojima Rice Exchange in Osaka[citation needed]. ?
Not sure I worded it properly but that's how I understand it. Is it right? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't like the citation, mostly because I can't read it. It's also not clear whether they are trading futures contracts or tax certificates, which some people have interpreted to be futures contracts. Basic questions: 1) was there a market-to-market settlement everyday, 2) were they regulated in any significant way, and 3) did they differ from forward contracts?

Without knowing those things, it's hard to judge whether they were futures contracts. Smallbones (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1011632.pdf
Categories