
Blame to spare in UK energy supplier debacle
Price cap was part of the problem, but lack of hedging and oversight also contributed
When the UK introduced a cap on household energy prices in 2019, the idea was to protect consumers from predatory suppliers charging above the odds for gas and electricity. Now, the shoe is on the other foot, with suppliers blaming the cap for driving more than 20 firms out of business when wholesale energy prices surged 250% in August and September.
They have a point. The cap sets the maximum amount a supplier can charge a retail customer on a variable tariff for their gas and electricity annually and is reset twice a year to take account of market prices.
When wholesale prices for gas and electricity jumped above the cap, suppliers were unable to pass on the costs of sourcing energy to customers. This has been the case in gas since April, and while prices have retraced in recent weeks, no end to the situation appears in sight.
But it’s not all the cap’s fault. Some of the blame lies with the suppliers themselves.
Going by the annual reports of the energy suppliers, few saw the cap as a problem until wholesale energy prices began to explode.
Firms offering variable tariffs largely assumed they would be able to adjust retail prices to match what they were paying for energy in the wholesale market. Those that hedged only did so out to a maximum of six months, meaning they were only protected for a short period of time once prices went above the cap.
Few saw the cap as a problem until wholesale energy prices began to explode
This begs a number of questions. First, why did suppliers sit on their hands while prices were racing towards the cap? Some may have run into credit limit issues, or had difficulty devising and executing a hedging strategy when prices were moving rapidly. But Risk.net’s conversations with market participants uncovered no real evidence of a change in supplier behaviour leading up to the point when the cap was breached.
Second, was no-one checking to see if these firms were prudently managing their risks? Actually, no. The UK energy regulator, Ofgem, has a mandate to protect consumers, not to oversee energy suppliers. From a risk management perspective, UK energy suppliers were largely left to their own devices
Then, there’s the structure of the retail energy supply market. Ofgem encouraged new entrants into the market to break the stranglehold of the so-called big six energy firms, and made it easy for retail customers to switch between suppliers, meaning competition is intense.
That means prices are low, which is great for customers. But it also left suppliers operating with razor thin margins. That may have contributed to some being unable to hedge as much as they would have liked because they simply couldn’t afford it – or because they wanted to keep their market share and gambled on the market retracing.
When these firms collapsed, the so-called big six energy suppliers scooped up many of their customers, who may now see higher tariffs. So at the end of the day, the market is heading back more or less to where it started – with higher prices and a concentration of suppliers.
It’s not clear how or when this crisis will end and more pain is tipped to be on the way. But when the situation does calm, all those involved need to have a serious think about how risk management is applied in this sector.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Our take
GFXC to entice buy-side code adoption with ESG tie-ups
Rating agency partnerships would link FX code adoption to ESG scores
Clock ticking on UK plan for regulatory reforms
Changes to SMCR and short-selling rules least likely to be completed before next election
How did EU regulators miss the FTX horror story?
Gruesome accounting practices and a questionable cast: plenty of grounds to reject Mifid licence
ARRC’s trivial fight over term SOFR use
Toyota’s ABS deal should not derail effort to expand use of term rate in derivatives
What happens when a bank drops off the systemic risk radar?
Russia’s Sberbank skipped this year’s G-Sib assessment. But just because a bank is invisible doesn’t mean it no longer poses a risk
Degree of influence 2022: in the grip of volatility
Rough volatility, liquidity and trade execution were quants’ top priorities this year
China congress brings new risks to foreign bank JVs
New political risks add to existing challenges for fully controlled ventures in the country
Crypto structured products come of age
After some growing pains, the space is now offering the type of structures seen in TradFi equities markets