I think you are right in describing this as insider trading rather than price-fixing; and it brings up the issue of what to do about the general problem of insider trading.
When there are many routinely violating a law which is very broad, it is generally seen as an argument in favor of getting rid of the law, especially when the law is of dubious or debatable benefit to the public. This is one argument in favor of the legalization of narcotic drugs, and it seems to be a good argument in favor of the legalization of insider trading.
If insider trading were legalized, then BASF's customers could either make discretion an explicit condition of their purchasing contracts, or else sell their information (to futures market participants and analysts). This would raise the table stakes for participating in markets like this, but it is not clear that there would be any substantial negative impact to the efficiency of the market; the additional transparency and increased flow of information might even improve the liquidity of the assets, and smooth price fluctuations through better predictions in then futures market.
I am not the first to make these points, but I would be very interested to hear what HNers think of them.
I'm not sure getting rid of insider trading laws makes markets more fair. The incentives are still unchanged and the situation is still unchanged.
For example, let's take two worlds: one with illegal insider trading and one with legal insider trading.
With illegal insider trading: Banks learn about BASF's customers and front run derivatives to make money off the ensuing price change.
With legal insider trading: Banks learn about BASF's customers and front run derivatives to make money off the ensuing price change.
The two situations are the same but in one scenario the bad actors go unpunished. I think a better solution analysis would include upstream and downstream market participants, their goals/interests, and analyze the incentives for each institution and individual.
When there are many routinely violating a law which is very broad, it is generally seen as an argument in favor of getting rid of the law, especially when the law is of dubious or debatable benefit to the public. This is one argument in favor of the legalization of narcotic drugs, and it seems to be a good argument in favor of the legalization of insider trading.
If insider trading were legalized, then BASF's customers could either make discretion an explicit condition of their purchasing contracts, or else sell their information (to futures market participants and analysts). This would raise the table stakes for participating in markets like this, but it is not clear that there would be any substantial negative impact to the efficiency of the market; the additional transparency and increased flow of information might even improve the liquidity of the assets, and smooth price fluctuations through better predictions in then futures market.
I am not the first to make these points, but I would be very interested to hear what HNers think of them.