This is really stupid. The decerebrated journalos at the FT chose to feature the illiquid, Ireland-based, un-regulated InTrade prediction markets instead of the very liquid, UK-based, regulated BetFair prediction markets on the next British congress.
Makes no sense at all.
The BetFair PR boys have an omelet on their face. They should work harder.
DISAMBIGUATION: The “-illiquid”- adjective refers to the UK political markets on InTrade —-not the US political prediction markets.
Via Emile Servan-Schreiber of NewsFutures, John Auters in the Financial Times.
[…] This leads to [Justin Wolfers]‘- claim that [prediction markets] are the best way to aggregate information. This is true of any given amount of information. Take three economists and make them trade out a market over their predictions for next month’-s inflation number, he suggests, and they will arrive at a more accurate prediction than a poll of the same three economists. In a market, those with stronger conviction (or inside information) can express that conviction- those less confident will not be willing to stake money. […]
Prediction markets remain subject to the same weaknesses as other markets. The principle of “-garbage in, garbage out”- [*] applies. If there is only poor information to aggregate, they will be as wrong as everyone else. […]
It would make sense to incorporate these odds when making investments. […]
–
Excellent.
(I don’-t get his micro slam against the wisdom of crowds. Anyway.)
–
[*] As explained in the prediction market explainer published on the frontpage of Midas Oracle.
–
BOTH.
But, contrary to what Lucy Berholtz thinks, the former will go further than the latter —-in my view.
–
My thoughts about the Financial Times article on Bet2Give:
–
Share: