It is outrageous to ask their own regulator to police a market that politicians abuse.
INSIDER trading has emerged as an unintended consequence of the introduction of a carbon tax/emissions trading scheme. Someone made a killing out of trading steel industry stocks, BlueScope and OneSteel, before the announcement of the carbon tax package's details.
The embarrassing aspect in this instance is that the leaking of market-sensitive information may have come from the government or from public servants who were aware of the details of the package before it was released on July 10.
The particular element of the package that is the focus of the insider trading claim involves the $300 million concession package for Australia's two steel makers, BlueScope and OneSteel. Without it, they would have been put at a serious financial disadvantage by the introduction of the carbon tax.
In the months before the announcement, the steel makers' share prices had been marked down. But in the week before the announcement the share price of each ran up by more than 6 per cent, adding more than $300 million to their sharemarket value.
This was all but ignored by Canberra until the media started to ask questions of the government and the regulator yesterday.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission chairman Greg Medcraft ducked questions, but independent MP Rob Oakeshott and the Greens' Christine Milne registered their disapproval at apparent leaks and trading that took place because of them.
Like much government policy, details of the package were selectively leaked to the media. By the time the full policy detail was announced, much of it, including the starting price of the tax, had already made headlines. The media was also let in on the consumer compensation package.
Politicians are accomplished information managers giving details in advance is nothing new. Giving certain media the heads-up on the carbon price was not particularly controversial, neither was the more general indication of compensation for emitters. But the steel makers' compensation package was specific and involved only two companies, making information on the compensation extremely price sensitive.
There were more than 100 people in Canberra who knew the details of the package, and keeping a lid on such information is difficult.
This will make it extra difficult for Medcraft to get to the source of the problem. It would be far easier if the information was known to a select few investment bankers, which is normally the case when a deal is brewing that alters the value of a listed stock.
Medcraft will now be under pressure to pursue an investigation to find a needle in a haystack.
Since taking over at ASIC a couple of months ago, he has made it clear that insider trading is a focus for his enforcement team.
There are plenty of examples of glaring insider trading in recent weeks Sundance Resources stock moved up almost 20 per cent on higher than usual turnover just before the news that Hanlong Mining had made a takeover approach.
Pre-announcement share movements are anything but unusual. Insider trading has been a difficult crime to prosecute. But in the interests of maintaining transparency in financial markets the regulator must continue to pursue them. ASIC has full carriage in this sphere and does not need to wait for a referral from the ASX to start an investigation.
Joining the dots in the BlueScope and OneSteel case won't be easy. ASIC will have to cope with investors kicking up a stink because they were not apprised of the carbon package details. They want some action.
And because the independent MPs are getting their first taste of being inside the loop on sensitive data, they are now aware of how the information game can have wider ramifications than just public relations.
There are traders who profited from this Canberra leak and others outside the loop who lost millions. Politicians don't understand investment markets and never have. But asking their own regulator to police a market that Canberra abuses is outrageous.
Having played the selective-leaking game, Canberra has a nerve asking ASIC to get tough on insider trading.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
How did the carbon tax or emissions trading scheme lead to insider trading claims?
The article says insider trading emerged as an unintended consequence of introducing a carbon tax/emissions trading scheme: market-sensitive details about the policy were leaked before the official announcement, allowing some traders to profit from share moves linked to the package.
Which companies were at the centre of the insider trading allegations related to the carbon tax?
BlueScope and OneSteel were the two steelmakers highlighted in the article. A $300 million concession package specific to those two companies was the price-sensitive information thought to have driven pre-announcement trading.
What happened to BlueScope and OneSteel share prices before the carbon tax announcement?
According to the article, the steelmakers' shares had been marked down in prior months but in the week before the announcement each ran up by more than 6 per cent, adding more than $300 million to their combined sharemarket value.
Who might have been responsible for leaking the carbon package details?
The article suggests the leaking may have come from inside government or from public servants who knew the package details before the July 10 announcement. It also notes more than 100 people in Canberra reportedly knew the details, making secrecy difficult.
What role does ASIC play in investigating insider trading, and what did Greg Medcraft say?
ASIC (the Australian Securities and Investments Commission) has full carriage to investigate insider trading and does not need a referral from the ASX to start inquiries. The article notes ASIC chairman Greg Medcraft has made insider trading a focus for his enforcement team, though he 'ducked questions' about this particular case.
Why will it be difficult for regulators to find the source of the leak?
The article explains the investigation will be hard because many people in Canberra apparently knew the details (more than 100), so tracing a single source is like finding 'a needle in a haystack'—much harder than cases where only a few investment bankers know sensitive information.
Are there other examples of suspicious pre-announcement share movements mentioned in the article?
Yes. The article gives the example of Sundance Resources, whose stock moved up almost 20 per cent on higher-than-usual turnover just before news that Hanlong Mining had made a takeover approach—an instance the article describes as obvious pre-announcement movement.
What should everyday investors know about government leaks, market fairness and regulator action?
The article warns that selective leaking by politicians can create unfair winners and losers—some traders profited from the Canberra leak while others lost millions. It argues regulators must pursue transparency and investigate insider trading, even while criticising the idea that politicians who leak information should ask their own regulator to police the market.