Live data from Hacker News

London traders hit $500M jackpot when oil went negative

bloomberg.com

101–110 of 129 posts

Re: London traders hit $500M jackpot when oil went negative

#101
post #44

The crux of this trade was the TAS order type. It seems like these guys arbed the liquidity difference beyond their wildest dreams... But now they're probably spooked about it because it sounds borderline manipulation. Order types are constantly getting traders or exchanges in trouble. If you know about the less popular ones you always stand to beat out your competitors who dont. TAS reminds me of D-quotes on NYSE.

Yes, it’s curious that the traders didn’t participate in similar trades in subsequent months — appears they may have been shocked and spooked at the outsized bonanza. If this is indeed just a good trade going great, the investigation will hopefully clear their names and they’ll simply get credit for their success.

If you do it once, it may have been an accident. If you try to repeat the success, it starts to look like intentional manipulation.

Re: London traders hit $500M jackpot when oil went negative

#102
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because someone owning an oil fired power plant can buy all these negative priced oil futures, take actual delivery, and burn the oil to produce electricity and get paid for that. Normally, burning oil to make electricity is uneconomic, since gas, coal, and even renewables are cheaper. Oil fired plants were sitting mostly mothballed for the last decade in most of the world, for use only in emergencies.

It's true that low oil prices will encourage oil fired plants to open back up,but I'm not sure that a very short term drop is going to have much effect since spinning up and down a power plant isn't exactly a short term decision.

Most of these plants are on 7 day standby - Ie. They need to be able to reopen within 7 days in case of war or disruption to gas supply.

Re: London traders hit $500M jackpot when oil went negative

#103
post #57
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, let’s consider a simplistic example: an obscure currency, let’s call it FAKE, that can be traded for USD. That currency is only used by people in a small island, and that island only exports clamshells and imports Big Macs. In this scenario, and unless I’m mistaken, the FAKE/USD rate will vary depending on: - how much clamshell those people can export and how much US people value them - how much BigMacs those g…

It's not theft, it's honest trading. Traders buy things from willing sellers and sell to willing buyers, in financial products as in any other market. There are two ways to make money as a pure market player: connecting buyers and sellers who wouldn't trade directly (and taking your cut) aka arbitrage, or getting paid to take on risk. Maybe the trader notices that people on the far side of the island are hungry but c…

Awesome explanation. Thanks!!

Re: London traders hit $500M jackpot when oil went negative

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is zero sum because it adjusts, no matter what you do. If you pump more oil from the ground, the prices will fluctuate until they reach the new zero-sum level that takes into account the new production level. A pegged dollar is the same, it only takes a little longer. When they print they dilute the value of the current dollars in circulation but not immediately, because of the peg. But eventually, because it is z…

Actually with the lag it changes everything, because you can earn interest/dividends on the amounts. You can die in the meantime so its someone elses. The variations are endless. When someone discusses it as being zero-sum there is always just a scenario you can describe where it isn't, and if even just $1 can't be accounted for the whole argument breaks apart. It is never really instantaneous and can take more than…

The interests and the dividends come from someone, they don't magically appear from the heavens. That person had to add value to the system in order to be able to pay the interest, maintaining the zero sum.

> You would have thought printing 6 trillion would have changed something but not really.

I know these are crazy times, but that money did something: it delayed the inevitable by keeping alive zombie companies that should've gone bankrupt the minute the crisis started, if not before. The whole point of printing 6 trillions was to maintain the status quo, not change it, to maintain it and not face economic reality. It didn't work 100% as a lot of that money went directly into assets such as TSLA, AAPL and HTZ(??), some of it went to gold and bitcoin and a lot of it went into bribes and corruption, which prevented companies who could've used that money to stay afloat for a few more months to do so. But because it's a zero sum system it will crash eventually, just that for now it appears to be holding if we stay completely still and don't make any sudden moves.

Re: London traders hit $500M jackpot when oil went negative

#105
post #84

I'd greatly appreciate if any of you can explain how such a trade happened in layman's terms. Every time I try to look various vocab, I end up getting deeper into the glossary of hyperlinked words on investopedia and totally lose sight of the bigger picture.

If I understand it correctly, you agree to buy something at a market price at a given time. Then you sell until that point, driving the price down and essentially exiting the trade at the same time.

Matt Levine from Bloomberg explained it.

Here are some excerpt

> One fairly technical explanation that we discussed was the “trade-at-settlement” mechanism. In oil futures, you can do a TAS trade in which you agree, at some point during the day, to buy or sell oil futures at that day’s closing price, plus or minus a few pennies. So at 11 a.m. you can agree “I’ll sell futures at 2:30 today, at whatever the settlement price is then.”

...

> Here is one really dumb simple way for that to work. You buy 1,000 futures via TAS during the day. You conclude that a lot of people are selling and no one is buying (except you). You think, well, okay, I have to sell 1,000 futures before 2:30, because at 2:30 I am going to get 1,000 futures at whatever the price is then. So you start selling. You sell 100 futures at $10, and the price goes down. You sell another 100 at $5. You sell another 100 at $0. You sell another 100 at -$5. Et cetera; you keep selling—into very thin liquidity, because there are not a lot of natural buyers—and the price keeps going down. By the time you are done, it is 2:30 and the price is -$37.63. The average price that you got, selling your 1,000 contracts, was, say, -$15: You started selling at +$10 and finished at -$37.63 and averaged your way down. But then at 2:30 you buy 1,000 contracts—the contracts you prearranged to buy using the trade-at-settlement mechanism—for -$37.63. You paid people an average of $15 to take oil off your hands, and people paid you $37.63 to take oil off their hands, and you made an average of $22.63 per barrel moving the oil.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-08-04/some-p...

Re: London traders hit $500M jackpot when oil went negative

#106

Can someone ELI5 how energy trading works? I understand stocks, where you earn a portion of the company in return for dividends/capital gains, and options, where you bet on the underlying movements on stocks. But how does this work?

Say you own oil that will arrive in the port of Rotterdam in a month. You can sell it now, delivery date in a month. It's now essentially a virtual good that can be traded, but becomes physical in a month. Somebody who owns a refinery might buy it because they think prices will rise; or someone might buy it to sell it half a month later, allowing them to trade on the price of oil without going through the hassles of storing actual oil.

Then of course there are funds that just buy these futures, hold them for a while, sell them shorty before delivery and use that money to buy fresh futures. That way they can have a fund that closely tracks the oil price without having any physical infrastructure.

The catch is that at some point the oil turns real. So if you own oil bound for Rotterdam but can't actually receive any oil, you have to sell to someone who can take the delivery. If nobody wants the oil you might have to pay money to have someone take the oil, effectively creating a negative oil price.

Re: London traders hit $500M jackpot when oil went negative

#107
post #3

I think most people saw the opportunity, but just didn't know how to properly capitalize on it. At least that's where I was. I wasn't going to take delivery of any oil, that's for sure. At least nothing that stood to make anything significant from. Then, there was also the whole contango thing too.

Just like we pass around code-stories/war stories, I remember reading a funny story about this stuck-up senior trader who ended up having to take delivery of a shipment of coal. Probably an urban legend, but still funny. This thread seems to support the idea that you can't just receive your futures at home. But I guess even with a designated warehouse, you're stuck with the warehouse bill. https://skeptics.stackexcha…

> I remember reading a funny story about this stuck-up senior trader who ended up having to take delivery of a shipment of coal.

Yeah, that was cited about a gajillion times back in May.

Re: London traders hit $500M jackpot when oil went negative

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because someone owning an oil fired power plant can buy all these negative priced oil futures, take actual delivery, and burn the oil to produce electricity and get paid for that. Normally, burning oil to make electricity is uneconomic, since gas, coal, and even renewables are cheaper. Oil fired plants were sitting mostly mothballed for the last decade in most of the world, for use only in emergencies.

But they don't have the storage capacity, otherwise prices would never have gone below zero.

You don't need storage if you immediately burn the oil?

Re: London traders hit $500M jackpot when oil went negative

#110

What scares me is that someone with $100M would (with only a little imagination) have an incentive to buy a biological lab, start a pandemic and make $500M. But perhaps I watch too many movies ...

You can bribe Russians for $100 and save $99 999 900.
Post reply on HN