The Oceania Times

Top Menu

  • About us
  • Contact Us
  • Cookie Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions

Main Menu

  • Australian Economy
  • Brokers
  • Commodities
  • Currencies
  • Financial Market
  • Gold and Precious Metals
  • Investment
  • Stock Shares
  • About us
  • Contact Us
  • Cookie Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions

logo

The Oceania Times

  • Australian Economy
  • Brokers
  • Commodities
  • Currencies
  • Financial Market
  • Gold and Precious Metals
  • Investment
  • Stock Shares
  • RubinBrown Launches New Investment Banking Entity

  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken at the U.S. Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Investor Forum

  • Nvidia, other US chip stocks stall over valuation, industry worries

  • Treasuries, Korea, Buffer ETFs, Cozy Real Estate

  • 5 Safe Investments During a Recession

Commodities
Home›Commodities›Glencore’s Commodity Trading Fraud Scheme (Part IV of V) | The Volkov Law Group

Glencore’s Commodity Trading Fraud Scheme (Part IV of V) | The Volkov Law Group

By Megan
June 3, 2022
97
0
Share:

Glencore’s settlement with DOJ and the CFTC revealed a plethora of manipulative, deceptive and corrupt conduct, which spanned from at least 2007 to 2018 and occurred in the United States and global oil markets, including manipulation of four U.S. based S&P Global Platts physical oil benchmarks and related futures and swaps.

From 2007 to 2018, Glencore sought to increase profits from physical and derivative oil products by manipulating U.S. pricing benchmarks related to physical fuel oil products and related futures and swaps. On numerous occasions, Glencore engaged in a scheme to manipulate Platts price benchmarks connected to four fuel oil products and associated derivatives in three separate U.S. geographic markets.

Glencore is one of the world’s largest commodity traders and a major player in the oil derivatives markets.  Glencore often engaged in physical trading of large oil cargos of fuel oil, as well as smaller trades of bunker fuels, typically with ship owners and other end users.

On numerous occasions, Glencore engaged in fuel oil cargo trades with a Mexico-based state-owned entity for delivery to the Los Angeles market.  More than 100 fuel oil trades with the SOE were priced by reference to the Platts Los Angeles Bunker Benchmark, typically the average of the daily benchmark on specified days, plus or minus a specified dollar amount agreed to by the parties.  Platts regularly reported the daily Los Angeles Bunker Benchmark.

On days in which fuel oil cargo prices were set, Glencore had significant exposure to the Los Angeles Bunker Benchmark.  Between 2012 and 2016, Glencore and the SOE entered into a coordinated, informal “joint venture” by which: (a) the SOE purchased fuel oil cargos from a counterparty priced by reference to the LA Bunker Benchmark on specified pricing days; (b) Glencore sold to the SOE “cutter stock” for blending with fuel oil obtained through the JV; and (c) the SOE would sell the resulting blend to the Singapore market.  Glencore and the SOE coordinated the planning and sharing of profits of the venture.  As a result, Glencore had an incentive to lower its price for the fuel oil cargo to increase its profits.

in the US Gulf Coast and New York harbor markets, Glencore engaged in derivative trading such as futures and swaps that settled based on the average daily benchmark assessment for a given month or portion thereof.  Glencore had significant exposure in physical and derivative markets to the relevant benchmarks, and Glencore traders sometimes increased their positions in derivatives to amplify their exposure and potential profits from manipulating the benchmarks. 

During the relevant period, Glencore manipulated relevant benchmarks and the derivatives such as swaps and futures that settled to the benchmarks to increase profits or reduce losses.  Such trading practices were a regular occurrence and known to and directed by supervisors.

In the Los Angles market, Glencore submitted increasing bids or decreasing bids during the Platts trading window.  At times, Glencore submitted misleading, incomplete, “cherrypicked,” or inaccurate information to Platts outside the window, knowing that such information would influence Platts’ assessments.  By engaging in such conduct, Glencore artificially increased or decreased Los Angeles Benchmark pricing on pricing days to increase profits.

In the US Gulf Coast and New York harbor fuel oil markets, Glencore engaged in similar conduct during the Platts’ trading window designed to increase or decrease relevant pricing benchmarks depending on the nature of the specific transactions.  Glencore earned millions of dollars in additional profits or savings from such manipulative conduct.

The CFTC Settlement Order cited several specific examples of such conduct.

In Los Angeles, for example, Glencore entered into a cargo trade for the sale of 40,000 metric tons of fuel oil to the SOE, which was priced by reference to to the average LA Bunker Benchmark on May 28, 29 and 30, 2013.  A Glencore trader directed an employee to submit bids to Platts during the three-day window to increase the prices of those bids.  The employee did so 27 times on May 28, 23 times on May 29 and 8 times on May 30, 2013.  This activity led to an artificial LA Bunker Benchmark on each day that was significantly higher than the day’s starting peg and benefited Glencore’s position.

In October 2015, Glencore entered into two cargo trades consisting of the purchase of 40,000 metric tons of fuel oil from the SOE.  Both trades were priced with reference to the average daily LA Bunker Benchmark on October 23, 26 and 27, 2015.  A Glencore trader directed an employee to submit offers during the Platts window to decrease the prices.  The employee did so and this resulted in a lower price than the day’s starting peg to the benefit of Glencore’s positions.

In the USGC, around November 2012, Glencore had long exposure to the average daily Platts USGC HSFO Benchmark for the month in excess of 8,800,000 barrels.  The exposure was the result of physical trades and derivative positions.  To benefit that exposure, Glencore traders reported bids and raised bids to Platts approximately 728 times that month and reported approximately 59 cargo purchases.  Glencore raised the Platts benchmark by .83 per barrel, resulting in increased profits.

Source link

Previous Article

Rams News: Will LA regret lack of ...

Next Article

Georgia Residential Mortgage Act Amended to Address ...

0
Shares
  • 0
  • +
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

Megan

Related articles More from author

  • Commodities

    Derivatives And Commodities Brokerage Market Size And Forecast

    May 24, 2022
    By Megan
  • Commodities

    Commodities surge steers market higher – The Market Herald

    November 7, 2022
    By Megan
  • Commodities

    Are Crop Insurance Net Indemnities and Commodity Program Payments Countercyclical?

    April 10, 2023
    By Megan
  • Commodities

    Supermarket chiefs insist worst is over for food inflation as commodity prices fall

    June 27, 2023
    By Megan
  • Commodities

    International food commodity prices witness fall, says FAO – Business

    July 8, 2023
    By Megan
  • Commodities

    CP Rail Sets Fresh January Record for Canadian Grain Transport — Commodity Comment

    February 2, 2023
    By Megan

Leave a reply Cancel reply

You may interested

  • Brokers

    Congress to Investigate Data Brokers and Period Tracking Apps

  • Australian Economy

    China’s worsening economic slowdown is rippling across the globe

  • Brokers

    UBS Group AG Increases Stake in Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:IBKR)

  • LATEST REVIEWS

  • TOP REVIEWS

Timeline

  • September 21, 2023

    RubinBrown Launches New Investment Banking Entity

  • September 21, 2023

    Secretary Antony J. Blinken at the U.S. Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Investor Forum

  • September 21, 2023

    Nvidia, other US chip stocks stall over valuation, industry worries

  • September 21, 2023

    Treasuries, Korea, Buffer ETFs, Cozy Real Estate

  • September 21, 2023

    5 Safe Investments During a Recession

Best Reviews

Latest News

Investment

RubinBrown Launches New Investment Banking Entity

St. Louis-based RubinBrown LLP (FY23 net revenue of $196 million) has established RubinBrown Corporate Finance LLC, a new wholly owned investment banking entity. “RubinBrown Corporate Finance LLC will allow us ...
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken at the U.S. Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Investor Forum

    By Megan
    September 21, 2023
  • Nvidia, other US chip stocks stall over valuation, industry worries

    By Megan
    September 21, 2023
  • Treasuries, Korea, Buffer ETFs, Cozy Real Estate

    By Megan
    September 21, 2023
  • 5 Safe Investments During a Recession

    By Megan
    September 21, 2023
  • Recent

  • Popular

  • Comments

  • RubinBrown Launches New Investment Banking Entity

    By Megan
    September 21, 2023
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken at the U.S. Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Investor Forum

    By Megan
    September 21, 2023
  • Nvidia, other US chip stocks stall over valuation, industry worries

    By Megan
    September 21, 2023
  • Treasuries, Korea, Buffer ETFs, Cozy Real Estate

    By Megan
    September 21, 2023
  • RubinBrown Launches New Investment Banking Entity

    By Megan
    September 21, 2023
  • Australia’s economy: boom or bust?

    By Megan
    September 9, 2019
  • Australian economy suffers virus symptoms

    By Megan
    February 10, 2020
  • The stage is set for mining-led economic recovery

    By Megan
    December 1, 2020

Trending News

  • Investment

    RubinBrown Launches New Investment Banking Entity

    St. Louis-based RubinBrown LLP (FY23 net revenue of $196 million) has established RubinBrown Corporate Finance LLC, a new wholly owned investment banking entity. “RubinBrown Corporate Finance LLC will allow us ...
  • Investment

    Secretary Antony J. Blinken at the U.S. Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Investor Forum

    SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Amos, thank you.  And Ajay, Janet, wonderful to be with you, but especially to be with everyone around this table.  I’m looking around at this lineup, and not ...
  • Stock Shares

    Nvidia, other US chip stocks stall over valuation, industry worries

    The nVIDIA booth is shown at the E3 2017 Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles, California, U.S. June 13, 2017. REUTERS/ Mike Blake Acquire Licensing Rights NEW YORK, Sept 21 ...
  • Investment

    Treasuries, Korea, Buffer ETFs, Cozy Real Estate

    Look to Unloved Sectors  The idea: The US equity market has had a tremendous run in 2023, but much of the rally has been concentrated in the Magnificent Seven. In ...
  • Gold and Precious Metals

    5 Safe Investments During a Recession

    In order to build an investment portfolio that can withstand tough economic periods, investors should consider assets with certain characteristics. Safe investments tend to help preserve capital. They provide stability ...
  • About us
  • Contact Us
  • Cookie Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
© Copyright The Oceania Times. All rights reserved.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Get our latest downloads and information first. Complete the form below to subscribe to our weekly newsletter.



    Input this code: captcha