"The group’s reputation among foreign policy writers, analysts, and practitioners is poor; they are considered a punchline more often than a source of valuable information or insight. As a former recipient of their “INTEL REPORTS” (I assume someone at Stratfor signed me up for a trial subscription, which appeared in my inbox unsolicited), what I found was typically some combination of publicly available information and bland “analysis” that had already appeared in the previous day’s New York Times. A friend who works in intelligence once joked that Stratfor is just The Economist a week later and several hundred times more expensive. As of 2001, a Stratfor subscription could cost up to $40,000 per year."
—
Max Fisher on Stratfor and Wikileaks
I haven’t seen anything actually surprising so far in this. (Israel behind Stuxnet? Shocker. Banks laundering drug money? No kidding.) Stratfor seems to be relatively unimportant and more intent on selling itself than actually doing real intelligence work. If I’ve missed something, let me know.