:

In the end of 1993 Metallgesellschaft AG exposed in public that their "Energy Groups" were liable for financial loss of nearly $1.5 billion, owing to cash-flow complications consequential by huge oil forward contracts writing. In this eloquent discussion of this disreputable derivatives misfortune, Culp and Merton (1995) explored the tradeoff policies employed by the conglomerate. That paper suggests how proper supervision and understanding of hedging could have averted disaster. This paper analyzes that how similar financial crises may be avoided in the future. It also sheds light on who are blamable for this crisis. Moreover, it critically analyzes what was MGRM strategy?

Background:

Metallgesellschaft AG, or MG, is a German conglomerate, owned largely by Deutsche Bank AG, the Dresdner Bank AG, Daimler-Benz, Allianz, and the Kuwait Investment Authority. MG, a traditional metal company, has evolved in the last four years into a provider of risk management services. They have several subsidiaries in its "Energy Group", with MG Refining and Marketing Inc. (MGRW) in charge of refining and marketing petroleum products in the U.S. In December, 1993, it was revealed publicly that the "Energy Group" was responsible for losses of approximately $1.5 billion. In 1991, MGRM's extended speculation into the derivatives world started by the employment of Mr. Arthur Benson from Louis Dreyfus Energy (Culp and Merton, 1995).

MGRM Deals:

In 1991, for ten year MGRM was determined to trade petrol of certain volumes at fixed prices monthly. These conventions primarily demonstrated to be fruitful as it assured a price over the present spot. In September, 1993 MGRM traded forward contracts equal to160 million barrels. The special thing about this deal was that many of these contracts vividly included an “option” derivative. Culp and Merton (1995) suggested this allowed the opposite parties to dismiss the agreements initially if the front-month New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). As futures contract was bigger than the fixed price at which MGRM was trading the oil. If the purchaser exercised this option, MGRM would be requisite to pay in cash one-half of the variance among the future price and the fixed prices periods the whole volume residual to be provided on the agreement. This option was only beneficial for campiness who were facing fiscal misery or no longer required oil. The sell-back option remained not constantly an option, as MGRM occasionally altered its agreements to dismiss spontaneously if the front-month futures price increased beyond an identified "exit price".

MGRM Hedge Strategy:

According to Culp and Merton (1995) MGRM offered clients with a technique that allowed the consumer to change or eradicate to some extent the oil price risk. The oil marketplace is flooded with huge variations in oil rates and the other allied products. MGRM assumed that their fiscal assets provide them the capability to retail and cope risk transmission in the maximum effective way. In reality, MGRM's advertising team claimed this efficacy at risk supervision as a main reason for sustained development in gaining auxiliary trade. The hedge strategy applied by MGRM cope spot price threat to practice the frontend month future contracts on the NYMEX (Ross, 1997; Dionne, 2013). MGRM engaged a "stack" hedging strategy. It positioned the whole hedge in short dated delivery months, instead of distributing this quantity over numerous, longer dated, delivery months. Culp and Merton (1995) have claimed this strategy to be effective and MGRM was also reliable for monetary point of view. The future contracts MGRM used to hedge were the unleaded gasoline and the No. 2 heating oil. MGRM also detained a quantity of West Texas Intermediate sweet crude contracts. To obtain fluctuating and paying stable energy expenses MGRM went long in the futures and applied for OTC energy swap treaties. NYMEX demonstrated that MGRM seized the futures point corresponding to 55 million barrels of petrol and heating oil. Through inferences, their swap places might have assumed for as much as 110 million barrels to totally hedge their forward contracts. The swap positions boosted MGRM credit risk (Culp and Merton, 1995).

What Went Wrong?

 The supposition of mass production was incorrect. MGRM endorsed to such excessive proportion of the overall uncluttered concern on the NYMEX that liquidation of their position was challenged that raised many difficulties (Mello and Parsons, 1995).  According to Culp and Merton (1995), devoid of sufficient funding in circumstance of instant margin calls, this apparently comprehensive strategy converts unreasonable. MGRM's forward supply contracts lead them to susceptible situation for escalating oil prices. Thus, MGRM planned to hedge away the threat of increasing expenses, as defined. Nonetheless, the downfall in the oil prices eventually left MGRM with huge fiscal loss. Furthermore, MGRM faced another difficulty which was the correct timing of monetary flows essential to sustain the hedging. The cash streams are usually well-adjusted in entire hedging period. MGRM's difficulty was a shortage of needed funds needed to uphold their situation (Culp and Millier, 1995). Moreover this risk managing policy played a crucial part in obtaining corporate pursuant to their commercial goals. Administration must have gained a comprehensive understanding of the approach.

Analysis of MGRM's Methods:

 MGRM loss in the future and swap marketplaces has elevated queries round whether MGRM was actually hedging or just speculating. Once the MGRM crisis was publicized it was alleged that they had gambled the oil prices, betting the prices would increase. If the corporation was really hedging, they might not be concerned with the variation in the oil prices. MGRM was not concerned to the course of oil rate movements as they were busy in an unplanned hedging of forward positions. The huge damage they experienced did not affect by naked futures positions in which MGRM betted that the rate of oil would increase. The situation was more intricate as MGRM's futures and swaps positions were hedges of the medium-term stable prices of oil products they traded forward (Neuberger, 1999).

According to financial knowledge, the hedge situations are described as: If oil rates decrease, the hedge lose the money and the fixed-rate position upsurges in value. If oil rates increase, the hedge advances balance the fixed-rate position decreases. A hedge is assumed to relocate the marketplace risk, not escalate it. MGRM bare the circumstances to capital risk by moving into these situations (Leach, 1993). In this way they were assumed to be speculating. According to Culp and Merton (1995) it was believed this situation was the equal to 85 days’ value of the total production of Kuwait. If oil rates were to decrease, MGRM will lose cash on their hedge positions. This gets margin calls on their futures positions.

Who is To Blame?

Once the spot price is more than the futures marketplace, the marketplace is believed to be in backwardation. While when the futures price is more than the spot price, the marketplace is in contango. Mr. Arthur Benson, the risk manager monitored this hedging approach guessing that marketplace will endure regular backwardation, which typically occurs in oil marketplaces. (Hilliard, 1999). Conversely, in 1993 spot prices reduced and administrators turn out to be deadlocked on accomplishment of manufacture allocations, and marketplaces shifted from backwardation to contango. In MGRM’s problems the German accounting standards and the contango market both contributed. Culp and Merton (1995) emphasized that the size of their position was the actual problem with MGRM.  There are 15000 to 30000 contracts per day in the heating oil and unleaded gasoline pits usually average reading volume. The MGRM takes 55000 contract position in these types of contracts, in this contract, company takes the long position by which the exchange marketplace was well informed. According to Culp and Merton (1995) the efficient hedge was simply not handled by the exchange market with a position so huge.  It yields capital risk for MGRM that ascertained to be huge. Arthur Benson is extensively accused for this dilemma as he bore an enormous degree of charge for MGRM loss. He sturdily suggested in regular backwardation in the oil marketplace and assumed that he has already establish method to earn money through it. MGRM might have held a quantity of futures constantly corresponding to its residual distribution requirements. But I this it was contract with delayed maturity dates. Culp and Merton (1995)  enforced liquidation of MGRM’s futures presented an unclear, prone to risk set called as “operational risk” according to Group of Thirty’s Global Derivatives research. Under the light of 30 Group’s study operational risk is linked with organizations disasters, usual catastrophes, or workforce’s complications. Moreover, operational risk is associated to unapproved projected events by assistants not noticed by the higher administration and panel till severe damages have followed. With reference to MGRM, for instance, the “General Accounting Office” stipulates that underprivileged processes panels were supposedly blamable for sanctioning losses to this organization to propagate to this extent (Edwards and Canter, 1995).

Conclusion:

Evidently, through instigation of the references put forward in the Group of Thirty Derivatives study the administration MG might have got privileged. These commendations are elementary, yet by the deliberate ignorance of the specified ideologies charge MG simply $1.5 billion. Whereas a fiscal crisis of MG's degree is exceptional, such types of financial crisis is occurring more recurrent in the fiscal markets. By the growth of such derivatives marketplaces, fiscal losses are more often owing to the scarce knowledge and understanding of hedging strategy. To evade this ambushing, higher executives and employer companies are not merely requisite to master these derivatives but they should comprehend the vital reason for their companies’ advertising and hedging schemes and the durable obligations are desirable for this plan to run. Or else, their companies might meet not merely conventional “gambler’s ruin” issue but a deceptive novel phenomena of the derivatives period: a financially rigorous hedging scheme might be liquidated early as extremely noticeable “rollover costs” and transitory cash drains might be interpreted by chief administration as “gambling losses”. This is also called as “hedger’s ruin.” The exchanges and futures marketplaces providing MGRM a chance to transmission of their marketplace threat. They effectively implemented this but failed to precisely evaluate the funding risk of their hedge situation.

Reference list:

Culp, C.L. and Miller, M.H., 1995. Metallgesellschaft and the economics of synthetic storage. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 7(4), pp.62-76.

Dionne, G., 2013. Risk management: history, definition, and critique. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 16(2), pp.147-166.

Edwards, F.R. and Canter, M.S., 1995. The collapse of Metallgesellschaft: Unchangeable risks, poor hedging strategy, or just bad luck? Journal of Futures Markets, 15(3), pp.211-264.

Hilliard, J.E., 1999. Analytics underlying the Metallgesellschaft hedge: short term futures in a multi-period environment. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 12(3), pp.195-220.

Leach, J.A., 1993. Global derivatives: Public sector responses (No. 44). Group of Thirty.

Mello, A.S. and Parsons, J.E., 1995. Maturity structure of a hedge matters: lessons from the Metallgesellschaft debacle. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 8(1), pp.106-121.

Neuberger, A., 1999. Hedging long-term exposures with multiple short-term futures contracts. Review of Financial Studies, 12(3), pp.429-459.

Ross, S.A., 1997. Hedging long run commitments: Exercises in incomplete market pricing. Economic Notes-Siena-, pp.385-420.