As proposed, the group would initially cover up to $300 million in claims by customers of participating brokers. The total cost of the program was estimated at $18 million to $27 million a year.

“The proposal is a bit restrictive and costly,” Culp told reporters on a conference call. He declined to say how much he was paid to run the study.

Earlier this year, a survey of more than 500 futures traders and firms from February 28 to April 15 by the Commodity Customer Coalition found that 91.5 percent of respondents supported the creation of a customer-protection fund. The coalition helped futures customers get their money back after MF Global and Peregrine failed.

The industry-funded study found it would be “too cost-intensive” for primary insurance carriers to insure individual futures customers and for brokers, known as futures commission merchants (FCMs), to purchase insurance on behalf of all their clients.

A government-mandated insurance program, similar to the Securities Investor Protection Corp (SIPC) that protects securities investors, “would be significantly under-funded to meet its initial target funding level,” according to the study.

The program could provide up to $250,000 to all U.S. FCM customers to cover losses arising from the failure of brokerages that are short on client funds. It would be funded by mandatory payments from FCMs, up to a stated target funding level of $2.5 billion.

However, it could take 55 years to reach the target funding level, and a “government backstop” likely would be needed to close the gap between actual funds available and potential customer liabilities, according to the study.

After Peregrine's demise, Bart Chilton, a member of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, proposed a futures industry version of SIPC, which covers up to $500,000 in losses to customers of bankrupt stock brokerages.

CME Group, the world's largest futures exchange operator, has previously said a public insurance fund would be too expensive and unfair to the biggest brokers.