Goldman's 100mm wrong bet on Natural Gas

I'm sure there is a better article, but still good nonetheless. Essentially states that GS was long DOM/Eastern nat gas basis that went from -.30 to -1.30 cents. This caused a 100mm trading loss. This is a great example of the volatile nature of the energy markets and how one way bets like this can really blow up in someone's face. The amount of size you have to have to lose that type of coin is significant.

I hear this is also what caused Vitol to lose a lot of $$ on a similar position, although i heard theirs was back-end of the curve dom south. I'm sure this caused a few people to get let go. I'm not sure if this was all one trader, although most likely was one traders book as I can't see how many east gas traders GS has. I've heard of guys getting let go for much much less of a loss than this.

Full article

 

I haven't heard of who was on the right side of the trade..

Almost the same thing that happened with fixed-price natty at the beginning of the year. Day 1 Nymex down .40 and stop outs galore until it hit 2.75. The market was so long and I heard rumors of everyone losing money but never got wind of who was on the right side of that trader either.

 

I don't have access to the article, but is it suggesting that the 100 mm loss was all east basis related, or east basis length was just a part of that number?

Agree with comments that a lot of fundamentally "right" trades went wrong in 2q between the east and NYMEX. "Back end" is an interesting distinction on dom- is that winter 17/18? Cal 20+? Bal summer had fundamental issues of its own - production growth and TCO maintenance being the big two there IMO, but if the length was in the winter then this Rover choppiness may be noise. I don't know how reliable it is, but the CFTC data suggests the market is still quite long ICE dominion. Cal 20 and beyond have been relatively well bid despite everything going on further up front - I have my theories...

This is a small poker table - did the big stacks leave for the time being, or just temporarily short stacked?

 
new_guru:
I don't have access to the article, but is it suggesting that the 100 mm loss was all east basis related, or east basis length was just a part of that number?

Agree with comments that a lot of fundamentally "right" trades went wrong in 2q between the east and NYMEX. "Back end" is an interesting distinction on dom- is that winter 17/18? Cal 20+? Bal summer had fundamental issues of its own - production growth and TCO maintenance being the big two there IMO, but if the length was in the winter then this Rover choppiness may be noise. I don't know how reliable it is, but the CFTC data suggests the market is still quite long ICE dominion. Cal 20 and beyond have been relatively well bid despite everything going on further up front - I have my theories...

This is a small poker table - did the big stacks leave for the time being, or just temporarily short stacked?

In and out, and stack ahead of time for a short-term period.

Problem is how many open positions they carry. I back most of my positions in. I rarely keep stuff open, it's not against my risk policy, but I feel it's more conservative. I won't carry a position of 6 figure dekatherms open. I just won't. I'll leave basis open as physical position changes, but nothing huge.

Citadel, for example, buys without any backing in. They'll pick up capacity on some pipes for the weekend, hoping to sell to some sucker. Works 3 or 4 times, loses 6 or 7 times. If the 3 times they are winning beats the losses of the 6 or 7 times-- sure, great. But I know in some areas it's just not. Too damn competitive. And if I get some sense they are going to be in competition with me, I'd beat their offer.

 
Tandem21:
Citadel acquiring more pipe space out west?

They're becoming more aggressive on short term transport, from what I've seen. but somebodies sucking it out of them cause they don't renew it after it expires.

A true shit show over there.

Not sure if they are getting any long-term capacity, just know they are aggressive bidders on RFP fronts.

 
Best Response

There was a bunch of producer hedging they were trying to cover, and they were pretty loudly talking this view up to the market. Dom basis hadn't been that strong in over 2 years, the market was on track for a supply deficit, and all the new demand that everyone had been praying for was starting to show signs of arriving. BUT more so this was a Rover bet. ETC had a pretty long history of delivering pipe on time, but the logistics of such a big pipe as well as the regulatory issues (turnover at FERC, etc.) really shot this trade in the face. If rover would have come in they still would have had a loss but I doubt it would have been as large.

I think their other main issue was betting that producers had actually learned their lesson and they wouldn't all jump back into producing into a glut of supply. One day the traders in the market are going to learn that producer's produce, they don't trade, and they are making widgets. The majority of their thinking is more widgets means more money especially in the NE where the economics are strong for the core producers.

 

Quia facere quos placeat consequuntur architecto neque ipsum enim. Id magnam vel voluptates quo error quisquam. Vel maxime dolorem facilis ad omnis ut asperiores. Molestiae ut iusto quod rerum distinctio. Et qui porro quis tempore cumque rerum.

Quo rerum molestiae enim sed dolores sit sed. Iure nam ipsam ea ex enim. Totam et est quis velit. Adipisci suscipit alias nemo ea. Voluptas maxime et fugit. Vel commodi sit dicta assumenda aut nam. Tempore omnis exercitationem blanditiis veniam.

Ad aut cupiditate neque qui ut. Et iusto doloremque quia sed a est fugiat.

 

Impedit a omnis inventore omnis. Et officia magni praesentium doloremque facilis. Error maiores voluptatem ut deserunt est voluptas quo.

Possimus aliquid impedit in id commodi ea. Sequi eius adipisci voluptas earum. Dolor quae eum aut ullam. Commodi dolore consectetur consequatur veritatis et ullam.

Temporibus nam suscipit deleniti facere. Voluptas et eius qui rerum. Aut magni dolor dolore. Qui itaque officiis sit aliquam. Assumenda aut vel voluptatem et dolorem et et quis.

Career Advancement Opportunities

May 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. New 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 04 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

May 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

May 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

May 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (20) $385
  • Associates (88) $260
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (14) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (67) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (205) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (146) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
7
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
numi's picture
numi
98.8
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”