First it was Enron. Then it was Amaranth Advisors, a
hedge fund that collapsed. The changing face of energy
trading has left regulators scurrying to catch up. The
questions now before U.S. lawmakers are to what extent
big traders move markets and the means by which such
outfits should be monitored.
|
Ken Silverstein
EnergyBiz Insider
Editor-in-Chief |
Traders merely match buyers and sellers and profit
those transactions. It's a risky business, with many
traditional energy outfits having shed their marketing
and trading ventures so that they could focus on their
core strengths. When they vacated the market, the
investment banks then filled the void. Hedge funds also
emerged, which are essentially unregulated mutual funds
comprised of sophisticated investors.
Hedge funds seek to find "arbitrage" opportunities
whereby they might buy power for a low price in one part
of the country and sell it for a higher price in another
region. They often carry out "over-the-counter"
transactions that are private and outside the purview of
regulators thanks to the so-called Enron loophole. That
provision, which is part of the Commodity Exchange Act
and which Enron requested in 2000, exempts some
commodities from government supervision.
Hedge funds may not be able to evade government
scrutiny for long. Amaranth's demise is the catalyst.
And now, other major hedge funds that include two run by
Bear Stearns have lost huge bets in the mortgage lending
sector.
It's not just the problem of the rich and famous. In
the case of Amaranth, an independent congressional panel
concluded that its large position in natural gas markets
caused market volatility. That, in turn, forced average
people to pay much higher prices. And hedge funds with
mortgage assets are a separate problem. Their losses
have constrained lending practices, which means ordinary
businesses like utilities may not borrow and
subsequently add jobs or new technologies.
Certainly, most of the pain will be centered on the
housing sector. But the energy sector needs to cooperate
with federal lawmakers and regulators to determine how
hedge funds that trade key commodities can be monitored.
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
conducted a nine month investigation into the collapse
of Amaranth. It concluded that Congress needs to enact
laws that would curtail "excessive speculation,"
allocate more money to the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission and delete the "Enron exemption."
"Amaranth accumulated such large positions and traded
such large volumes of natural gas futures that it
distorted market prices, widened price spreads and
increased price volatility," the panel wrote. The fund,
which lost about $6.5 billion before it finally went
bankrupt in September 2006, held 100,000 natural gas
contracts that accounted for 5 percent of all natural
gas consumed that year.
Restraining Amaranth
Most of the trading takes place on the New York
Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the Intercontinental
Exchange (ICE). The Senate panel's report says that
neither regulators nor the exchanges had a complete
picture of Amaranth's holdings. Nevertheless, it finds
fault with NYMEX, saying it failed to help restrain
Amaranth. When the exchange asked the hedge fund to
reduce its holdings in the summer of 2006, Amaranth then
transferred the transactions over to ICE.
The exchanges find the criticisms unfair. And,
naturally, so do Amaranth's representatives. All of
those parties note that the Senate report acknowledges
that there were times when the hedge fund was responding
to market conditions and not driving them. NYMEX adds
that hedge funds account for a modest share of futures
markets and those funds are unable to cause large
movements in price. Specifically, such holdings
represented about 9 percent of the natural gas futures
trading volume in 2004 - an amount that the exchange
says adds liquidity and contributes to a more vigorous
market.
"If Amaranth really dominated the market, wouldn't
they still be in business?" asks Geoffrey Aronow, a
lawyer representing the hedge fund's founder. The
report's findings are "a novel theory of causation that
is not supported by economic logic," he says.
The Amaranth debacle, however, comes in the wake of
the 2001 Enron mess and subsequent allegations of price
manipulation in natural gas markets. While key
Republicans in Congress say that strict oversight in the
hedge fund industry could lead to trades taking place in
darker corners, the Democrats say more needs to be done.
In 2005 alone, U.S. consumers and businesses spent about
$200 billion on natural gas.
Amaranth dominated trading in U.S. natural gas
markets, holding about 40 percent of all outstanding
natural gas contracts on the NYMEX during 2006.
Specifically, it held at times 100,000 natural gas
contracts in a month. NYMEX says it will examine those
positions if they exceed 12,000 in a month. In any
event, critics say that such large holdings were the
driving force behind higher natural gas prices.
"Market prices are supposed to be the result of the
interaction of many buyers and sellers, not the result
of massive trades by a dominant speculator with market
power to affect prices," says Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich.,
who heads the Senate panel overseeing the Amaranth
investigation. "But in 2006, Amaranth dominated the
market, and winter prices remained at extreme levels
despite ample supplies. Later, as Amaranth collapsed in
September 2006, winter prices fell dramatically, but by
then many natural gas consumers were already locked in
and couldn't take advantage of the lower prices."
Congressional inquiry into the hedge fund business is
justified. Major losses incurred by those investors
don't just affect speculators. They also impact ordinary
people who -- if the Senate panel is correct -- absorb
the price spikes. Such funds, however, are largely
exempt from any form of regulation. But in the aftermath
of Amaranth and the current credit collapse, changes may
be coming.
Copyright © 1996-2006 by
CyberTech,
Inc.
All rights reserved.