Statements in Regard to Craig Pirrong (with Lofchie Comment)

Last Saturday, the New York Times ran a front-page article that took the view that it was improper of Craig Pirrong, an academic at the University of Houston who writes on commodities-related issues, to also act as a consultant to financial market participants.

Lofchie Comment: Professor Pirrong has repeatedly argued that regulators should attempt to test for the costs and benefits of their regulations empirically. In this regard, his academic research led him to the conclusion that the CFTC's proposed position limits rule does not have a sound theoretical basis. The basis for his research is not secret data that is unavailable to the CFTC or to other academics; just the contrary, it is information that is publicly available. Accordingly, from a public policy standpoint, it would be the best possible outcome if those who disagree with Professor Pirrong's views are able to make an opposing case based on data, whether it is the data used by the Professor or it is other data available publicly or even available only to the regulators. Professor Pirrong's blog pieces are sometimes linked-to from the Cadwalader Cabinet news because they seem consistent with a clear eyed understanding of the way in which the markets work from the point of view of lawyers and practitioners. Accordingly, please find below links to the compelling defenses of Professor Pirrong personal integrity and of his work by writers in Forbes and Reuters, and by Thomas Sowell, as well as by Professor Pirrong, himself. See also one of Professor Pirrong's pieces discussing the issue of position limits, which is now a hot topic of regulatory debate, and which was at least indirectly the subject of the New York Times article.

See generally: Forbes Staff Article in Defense of Professor Pirrong; Thomas Sowell Statement. See also: Professor Pirrong First Statement; and Second Statement. See also: Professor Pirrong Article from 2010 on Position Limits.