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.
コンテンツを印刷またはコピーできるのは、有料の購読契約を結んでいるユーザー、または法人購読契約の一員であるユーザーのみです。
これらのオプションやその他の購読特典を利用するには、info@risk.net にお問い合わせいただくか、こちらの購読オプションをご覧ください: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
現在、このコンテンツを印刷することはできません。詳しくはinfo@risk.netまでお問い合わせください。
現在、このコンテンツをコピーすることはできません。詳しくはinfo@risk.netまでお問い合わせください。
Copyright インフォプロ・デジタル・リミテッド.無断複写・転載を禁じます。
当社の利用規約、https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/(ポイント2.4)に記載されているように、印刷は1部のみです。
追加の権利を購入したい場合は、info@risk.netまで電子メールでご連絡ください。
Copyright インフォプロ・デジタル・リミテッド.無断複写・転載を禁じます。
このコンテンツは、当社の記事ツールを使用して共有することができます。当社の利用規約、https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/(第2.4項)に概説されているように、認定ユーザーは、個人的な使用のために資料のコピーを1部のみ作成することができます。また、2.5項の制限にも従わなければなりません。
追加権利の購入をご希望の場合は、info@risk.netまで電子メールでご連絡ください。
詳細はこちら 我々の見解
批判派は、パーペチュアルはすべてフロスだと言っています。しかし、数字はそうではないことを示唆している
TradFiを原資産とする永久先物に対する堅調な未決済建玉は、CMEやEurexといった既存の取引所にとって脅威となる可能性があります
SpaceXがCMEの個別銘柄先物に待望の追い風をもたらした
S&P 500先物契約へのIPO関連の追加契約として、新たな契約が急増する可能性があります
Bank vs non-bank: FX’s two-tier reality
CME and LSEG data show banks provide sticky and broad liquidity, while non-banks cling tightly to the price
規制当局はエンフォースメントを甘くしているのか?(そして、私たちはそれを気にするべきなのか?)
米国の規制当局は、技術的な規則違反に対する罰則を緩和しており、小さくとも重要なリスクが見過ごされてしまうのではないかという懸念が高まっています
FX HedgePoolを超えて:オール・トゥ・オール(All-to-All)の今後はどうなる?
この取引モデルの支持者たちは、その将来性を明るく見ていますが、普及に向けた障壁は依然として残っています。
バーゼル協定のCVA見直し:米国では説得力があるものの、欧州ではそれほどではない
信用リスクモデルの使用禁止は、米国の銀行がより高度なCVA手法を採用するきっかけとなる可能性があります
オルタナティブ・データは予測市場に賭けているのか?
新たなデータの豊富な情報源を提供する一方で、法的な不確実性は依然として残っています
「SaaSpocalypse」は、プライベート市場にリスクモデルが必要であることを示している
投資家たちは、プライベート・クレジットにおける損失がどれほど深刻なものになるか、ほとんど見当がつかない