Timing and accounting rules, not the hedge itself, sank Metallgesellschaft

Evidence

Metallgesellschaft’s hedging program was in principle perfectly feasible, and (as in the case of LTCM) it appears as if the firm’s losses would largely have been temporary had it not liquidated its futures market positions. However, price fluctuations generated large margin calls and cash outlays. These damaged Metallgesellschaft’s credit rating and under accounting practice in Germany they had to be reported as huge losses (rather than deferred as they could have been under U.S. “hedge accounting” rules). The large size and predictability of the corporation’s futures market activities also seem to have made those activities vulnerable to exploitation by other market participants. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 1641

Categorization

• QUESTION: The claim that counterparties exploited Metallgesellschaft’s predictable positions is suggestive but understated — worth chasing for a mechanism of predatory trading against large hedgers.
• XREF: connects to: Accounting practices involve interpretation and are not straightforwardly performative — Kean Birch, Rethinking Value in the Bio-economy:…, 35; A derivative is a time-bounded bet, not a property claim — Mark Blyth, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous…, 87

Broader Connections

• A derivative is a time-bounded bet, not a property claim #expands (0.72) — Mark Blyth, Austerity, 87