Quote from tradertt:
Seriously speaking without any bad intent - I can live perfectlly well with myself trading over such news
I do not cause such disasters
I do not hope for such disasters
What I do here do NOT affect those over there 
Do you know how close I am to the disaster spot? Do you think we people here in Singapore do not contribute to any funds to help those in need?
This is just business.
Well, I also thought you're a dick first, but then I gave it a thought. Remembered the remark from Wall Street, that Gordon Gekko shorted NASA stocks some 20 seconds after Challenger exploded.
As long as you donate part of the profits you make with the money you make from shorts, I think it's O.K.
I think this catastrophe must offer several long-opportunities as well: try to gain a view over the major construction or battered tourist companies. If you go long in a company that'll profit from rebuilding the infrastructure, I think you can help almost as much as by directly donating to some charity where a part of the donations find their ways into some local individual's pockets.
Oh, and regarding your original question: a few years ago, I saw something on the tellie about so called 'catastrophe bonds' Munich Rueck (big German reinsurance player) planned. Their intention was to bundle individual local insurance risks into bigger bonds kinda ABS-style. Don't know whether they issued them, but they weren't intended for retail investors anywas, AFAIK.
What's wrong with making money out of disasters? Insurances make it every day and, on a side note, modern capitalism started right after the pestilence in the 13th century, when there was a surplus of farms and agricultural machines, and a shortage of workers, so that the landlords were forced for the first time to pay their workers high salaries.
Read my signature.
