I don't understand how attacking the guys who find secret information, analyse it, and sell it to businesses, governments, and the public promotes an open society.
Is it that opaque to you how attacking a company that finds and SELLS secret information to businesses and governments promotes an open society?
Plus, the part about making information available to "the public" is laughable.
The public does not "buy" information from them. What little they make available to the general public (subscribers etc) is not at all the same stuff they sell to governments and corporations.
And the plural "governments" is also crap -it's mostly the US government, first and foremost.
Maybe being a macro derivatives trader at an investment bank with a multitrillion dollar balance sheet put me on STRATFOR, Kroll, IGI, Dilligence and Troika's (Russian) default-to-dumbass lists, but the information STRATFOR released to subscribers was on par with what we commissioned, the only difference being I could commission research as a corporate customer while as a personal subscriber it's a one-way relationship.
Every potential conspiracy need not be one. If STRATFOR really didn't care about distributing its research it could do what the other private intelligence firms do and be client-only.
Just out of curiosity: What is the primary use for you guys of these geo intelligence services? Is it "just" regional risk assessment or what form of benefits do these providers offer to your investment decisions?
Two sides; the primary rationale is defensive. If we are making an illiquid investment in say China, having Kroll investigate who has beneficial ownership of the other 85% of the firm, who in the Party are they connected to, and if anything shady is going on is useful. Additionally, given the increasing salience of macro factors in the capital markets having awareness of areas like Greece or Iran which are economically insignificant but carry the ability to effect asymmetric damage on asset prices (which traders have traditionally labeled as "exogenous" or "fat tail" scenarios) becomes critical.
On the offensive side the edge mostly deriving most traders' view of geopolitics as an exogenous risk. We were favourably positioned for the fallout in Libya, culminating in a life-changing trade where we syndicated oil being sold by the rebels in Benghazi. The risks in that deal were too high if you approached it at day zero. We were willing to commit since we had been watching that market since January.
Maybe being a macro derivatives trader at an investment bank with a multitrillion dollar balance sheet put me on STRATFOR, Kroll, IGI, Dilligence and Troika's (Russian) default-to-dumbass lists, but the information STRATFOR released to subscribers was on par with what we commissioned
"on par with what we commissioned" maybe, but not on par with what they gathered.
Essentially, thet use your money to provide you with your results PLUS build a huge intelligence database with much more results (including things that come up during your commissioned search that are not for you to know) for government etc use. It's like you subsidy the CIA and get back some partial results on things you want to know.
Given that we often double-contracted with Kroll, in two cases a Russian security firm, and in one case directly commissioned a satellite feed (European/no down graining), I can call out your claim as being categorically false within the realm of my experience.
Note that STRATFOR isn't quite as badass as it's being painted - they aren't an ersatz intelligence agency. They're a team of analysts working through existing information networks. The deep dig intelligence consultants are at other firms.
Is it that opaque to you how attacking a company that finds and SELLS secret information to businesses and governments promotes an open society?
Plus, the part about making information available to "the public" is laughable.
The public does not "buy" information from them. What little they make available to the general public (subscribers etc) is not at all the same stuff they sell to governments and corporations.
And the plural "governments" is also crap -it's mostly the US government, first and foremost.