Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is a Futures Market on Terror Outlandish? Maybe not.
FORTUNE ^ | 07/30/03 | Jeremy Kahn

Posted on 07/30/2003 10:17:13 AM PDT by Pikamax

Is a Futures Market on Terror Outlandish? Maybe not. There is strong evidence that futures exchanges can predict events better than other forms of analysis. FORTUNE Wednesday, July 30, 2003 By Jeremy Kahn

The Defense Department announced yesterday that it is canceling a controversial program to develop a futures market that would allow traders to bet on wars, assassinations and terrorism in the Middle East.

The plan, which FORTUNE first reported on in its March 3rd issue (Place Your Bets—On War), was abandoned after Democratic senators assailed it as ghoulish, immoral, and absurd. Senator Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota claimed the program would provide a monetary incentive to those wishing to commit acts of terror. Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said the plan would have created "a futures market in death."

While the Pentagon program may sound outlandish, there is strong evidence that futures exchanges can predict events better than other forms of analysis. Betting pools on election results have proven more accurate than polls, and options markets are better predictors of future stock prices than the price targets set by individual equity research analysts. The reason, economists say, is that markets are extremely efficient at aggregating information from all investors—including inside information.

It's the ability of markets to make accurate predictions and reveal otherwise hidden information that attracted the Pentagon to futures exchanges. Earlier this year, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) gave a $1 million grant to startup Net Exchange to establish a futures market for political events in the Middle East. Net Exchange was founded by a group of CalTech economists who have been leading proponents of using markets as information gathering tools. The Policy Analysis Market, which would have been run jointly by Net Exchange and The Economist Intelligence Unit, was to start registering traders this week, and was supposed to be fully operational by October 1. It would have allowed traders to place bets on events including whether Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat would be assassinated, or Jordan's King Abdullah II would be overthrown. Market participants could have remained anonymous, a fact that some senators critical of the program said raised the possibility that a terrorist could use the market to profit off his own attack.

The Pentagon had asked for an additional $8 million to fund the project next year, but yesterday Democratic Senators Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Ron Wyden of Oregon held a press conference to attack the plan. Their criticisms were quickly echoed by other Democrats, and by the end of Tuesday, by leading Republicans as well. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before a Senate Foreign Relations hearing on Iraq, said the futures exchange program would be terminated immediately. Robin Hanson, professor of economics at George Mason University, and affiliated with Net Exchange, says he's disappointed the Pentagon has decided to eliminate funding for the futures market. He says criticism that terrorists could have profited from the market are overblown, since the architects of the exchange were not planning on allowing any wagers greater than about $100.

The Policy Analysis Market was part of a larger Pentagon project called FutureMap (an acronym that stands for Futures Markets Applied to Prediction) that is run out of DARPA's Office of Terrorism Information Awareness. (This department was previously called the Office of Total Information Awareness but the Pentagon decided that that just sounded too Orwellian). The office is run by John Poindexter, who served as former President Reagan's national security advisor, and was a key figure in the Iran-Contra scandal. Earlier this year, Poindexter was forced to abandon a controversial plan to use the Internet to spy on average citizens in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks after civil rights groups and federal legislators objected.

While betting on assassinations or the probability of terrorism may sound morbid, these kinds of betting pools have actually been in existence for centuries. In the Middle Ages, European nobles often bet on the outcome of wars. More recently Internet "ghoul pools" have become popular. Generally, these sites allow people to bet on the day an elderly celebrity will die. At least one of these allows users to bet on the month and year India and Pakistan will have a nuclear exchange. And several sites allowed people to wager on when a war with Iraq would start. One of these sites, Tradesports.com, was extremely prescient in predicting the date Saddam Hussein would be removed from power. In fact, the idea of using futures exchanges to predict political events is so intriguing that it may surface again in another form. But for now, the Defense Department's Policy Analysis Market is defunct, and the hottest wager over at the Pentagon may be whether John Poindexter still has his job in a week.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bets; darpa; dod; futures; intelligence; pentagon; prediction; terror; terrorbets
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

1 posted on 07/30/2003 10:17:13 AM PDT by Pikamax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Fortune's just hoping that they can mooch their way into The Economist's spot.
2 posted on 07/30/2003 10:18:41 AM PDT by KantianBurke (The Federal govt should be protecting us from terrorists, not handing out goodies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
--it sounded like a good idea to me. And of course the reason any Demotraitor opposed it was they want the disasters to happen so it can be blamed on Bush--
3 posted on 07/30/2003 10:21:37 AM PDT by rellimpank (Stop immigration now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
From what I heard of the "futures market" idea, it sounded less like a "market" and more like an innovative intelligence gathering tool -- an attempt to statistically predict the next big terrorist hit. The Democrats, of course, were all "shocked," and I think tom daschle was even "saddened." But considering that we can use every tool we can to fight terrorism, it sounded like an idea that didn't get it's day in court.
4 posted on 07/30/2003 10:22:12 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
I suspect Hillary would have made a "killing" on that futures market.
5 posted on 07/30/2003 10:23:21 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonathon Spectre
Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said the plan would have created "a futures market in death."

I guess she's never heard of Life Insurance. Given her own acumen in the cattle futures market I would have assumed she'd be supportive of the effort...

6 posted on 07/30/2003 10:24:40 AM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
What an intelligence bonanza this market could be. Sounds like an idea straight from NSA or CIA.
7 posted on 07/30/2003 10:30:34 AM PDT by dwilli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
There are already real-money implementations of this, look at http://www.tradesports.com/ under 'Current Events'.

It's also worthwhile to google for 'Assassination Politics'.

Remember, a leading indicator of 9/11 was short interest in UAL and American Airlines.

8 posted on 07/30/2003 10:31:32 AM PDT by cryptical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Well, it wouldn't work now. The plan was already exposed.
9 posted on 07/30/2003 10:32:45 AM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
The weird part is that Sen Boxer wants those think-tankers fired. This for an idea that is a few levels above any idea she ever had.
10 posted on 07/30/2003 10:35:21 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
When the idea was floated yesterday and posted, most here thought it was either A, ridiculous, or B, not able to succeed due to inherent flaws. My thinking is that it is much too nuanced an idea for the press or general public to accept. There is something unseemly about it (to many people), that makes its viability improbable.

The concept, however, is sound. If the press would do less clucking about how unorthodox it is and more research into its possible effectiveness, the public could be swayed. I'm sure that won't happen, of course. It would be too much fun for the lazy media to attack a "risky gambling scheme with American lives".

11 posted on 07/30/2003 10:35:42 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I have a better idea...Let's fire Barbara Boxer.
12 posted on 07/30/2003 10:42:49 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
If the Democrats are against it, then that's a sure sign I'm for it.
13 posted on 07/30/2003 10:44:04 AM PDT by Millie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
There have been similar proposals to use "science betting" to provide a market-based mechanism for allocating funding to scientific research. I heard someone give a talk on this several years ago. I don't know if this is the same guy, but here is an example: www.totse.com/en/technology/science_technology/hanson.html.

A current problem in the scientific community is that (pseudo)scientists and their supporters can make reckless statements without incurring any cost upon themselves if they are wrong. Science betting addresses this problem. People won't be inclined to shoot their mouths off on issues like global warming or cold fusion if they have to put their money where their mouths are.

One difference, though, between science betting and terror betting is that one of the purposes of science betting is to motivate funding to prove a scientific point and "make it happen". This is not necessarily desirable in the case of terror betting.

14 posted on 07/30/2003 10:44:52 AM PDT by snarkpup ("Once the Earth goes, the whole planet's going to be next." - Kelly Bundy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarkpup
Don't know that proponents of crackpot science would have to have a position in the science futures market, but the idea of a science futures market has some merit. However, we can already invest in plenty of science-related businesses and many of them are still doing research and have no revenue stream. Some day, maybe in a few years, they could be raking in the profits, and then we win.
15 posted on 07/30/2003 10:48:42 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
When are conservatives going to stop backing down every time the dumbest SOBs in Congress fail to comprehend something? It's pathetic.
16 posted on 07/30/2003 10:49:12 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
The market for this already exists, in the valuation of stocks and bonds and futures and options on them. Problem is, the prices for those products are influenced by multiple factors, so the threat of terrorism is not stripped out. This idea, would strip it out and allow for much greater information related to terrorism, and possibly, economic protection against it. I think it is a great idea. Morbid, yes, but read an actuarial science text someday or about viaticals.

One of the reasons the markets have been so illiquid since sep 11 is the fear of terrorism and its effect on portfolios and insurance policies and premiums
17 posted on 07/30/2003 10:50:14 AM PDT by housethatruthbuilt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
What says such an exchange couldn't be done in the private sector ?
18 posted on 07/30/2003 10:55:58 AM PDT by ChadGore (Kakkate Koi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
Sounds like an idea straight from NSA or CIA

Actually, it was from George Mason University.

19 posted on 07/30/2003 10:59:27 AM PDT by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
It's a great thinking outside the box idea ridiculed by those who criticise the govt for its inability to sift thru vast amounts of data, and then, when an innovative solution is advocated, proceed to destroy it and thereby discourage other creative solutions.

With the large amounts of terrorist oriented think tanks, foreign intel and the govt's own info, this would have been a brilliant experiment to tackle information overload.

Instead the ninnies have deepsixed it.

TIme for an entrepreneur to run this exchange as a private venture.
20 posted on 07/30/2003 11:12:55 AM PDT by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson