Not sure I understand the entire concept of "terror futures", but the first thought in my mind is . . . . who's likely to have the biggest edge? Profitable trading needs an edge, and in this case the folks with the best edge are those closest to or within a terrorist organization. It would take some doing to set up the infrastructure to benefit and funnel the funds, but it's easy to visualize a terrorist organization taking a position in that market then making the event happen. Now there's an edge. Same thing probably happens in other markets which react to major terrorist attacks, would this vehicle be even more directly correlated?
the fact that most people were immediately repulsed by the idea without even thinking about it makes me wonder if it could actually be a good idea. ROCK
For futures with large move all the anti terror agencies of the world would try and fight to prevent that event happening. That is why Pentagon wanted to use it because it is an early warning signal. So terrorist organization taking position will also make it vulnerable to being found out.
Came across an article at Wired, a half-dozen academics have come up with this, in response to the Pentagon's terrorism futures market. "The American Action Market will offer various Washington "futures" that can be bet upon and traded. Examples include: â¢Which country will the White House threaten next? â¢Who will be the next foreign leader to move off the CIA payroll and onto the White House's "most wanted" list? â¢Which corporation with close ties to the White House will be the next cloaked in scandal?"