Aubrey! Come On!

Reuters had ANOTHER* story today about bad shit that Aubrey McClendon is up to. Here’s what’s going to happen. I will be all “meh, that is a whole lot of people saying a whole lot of maybes,” and will sort-of defend Aubrey, and then tomorrow Reuters will have a “Special Report: Aubrey McClendon Killed Babies and Produced Natural Gas From Their Decomposing Corpses,” and at some point enough will be enough. So let’s just arbitrarily make that point now. Reuters, you win. Aubrey McClendon, you are a bad man! Jesus.

Anyway, today’s revelation is that McClendon “ran a hedge fund” that traded oil and gas from 2004-2008, while also having another job, viz. running Chesapeake. Now McClendon would not be the first person to say that he “ran a hedge fund” to describe sitting in his underwear at a computer managing $10k of his own money, but this thing seems to have been legit, with an inconspicuously bland name (Heritage Management) and $200mm of money, much of it from outside investors. And, look, I know I’ll regret this, but here is a catalogue of people saying a lot of maybes:

“If the company needs to make an operating decision which might move the market against the CEO’s positions, there’s a risk that will influence the decision-making at the top of the company,” said Jeff Harris, former chief economist at the market’s U.S. regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and now professor of finance at Syracuse University.

“Advance knowledge of Chesapeake’s activities could be perceived as having insight into the movement of commodities prices, which certainly raises conflict-of-interest issues as well as ethical issues about the ability to enrich himself on non-public information,” said Tim Rezvan, oil and gas industry analyst at Sterne Agee in New York. “If correct,” Rezvan said, “these disclosures would be even more alarming than the personal loans.”

“I would argue, and I think the SEC would argue, that the failure to disclose that you are engaging in this kind of conduct can constitute a securities fraud problem,” said Elizabeth Nowicki, a professor at Tulane University. She said a failure by McClendon and Ward to disclose their fund to Chesapeake’s shareholders may constitute a “material omission” that could draw SEC scrutiny. “A reasonable investor would want to know that the CEO could be in a situation where he’s betting against the interests of the company personally,” Nowicki said. “That, it seems to me, is a slam dunk.”

So I guess the maybes fall into two categories. One is the insider trading in oil an dgas – “ethical issues about the ability to enrich himself on non-public information” – which, fun fact: not illegal! For sort of obvious reasons: if Chesapeake, say, is going to hedge itself by selling gas forward, it should only sell as much as it plans to produce. But the amount it plans to produce is non-public. So it has to use non-public information. Aubrey doesn’t, I suppose, and maybe it’s not “ethical” for him to do so, but … well, I’m less convinced of the moral evil of insider trading than others are. And I think the CFTC would agree, I guess, since they don’t ban it.

The other maybe is the conflict of interest: if McClendon was long natural gas in his hedge fund, he might want to reduce CHK production and drive up prices even if that would not be optimal for CHK. Or if he was short natural gas he could push up production uneconomically. Etc. Did that happen? Well, it might have happened. But, also, no:

McClendon’s hedge fund partner [and SandRidge CEO Tom] Ward said the two were always careful not to let Chesapeake’s decisions influence the hedge fund’s endeavors. … “We did not use any proprietary knowledge of (Chesapeake) trades to make our own individual decisions,” Ward said.

Peter Cirino, who helped trade natural gas for the hedge fund, also said he knew of no discussions about what Chesapeake was doing in energy markets: “They were much too smart as individuals,” Cirino said of McClendon and Ward. “They would be able to manage that conflict there, if there was one.”

And, sure, that is not 100% convincing. “I did not use any knowledge in my brain to make any decisions that I made with my brain” is the sort of thing that is hard to say with a straight face. But my rough guess goes like this: Aubrey thought that he had a comparative advantage at knowing where gas prices were going to go. He used that knowledge with Chesapeake, where he sat on the hedging committee (and, y’know, produced gas and stuff), and at Heritage, where he bought and sold oil and gas contracts. When he had an idea, he used it in both places. If you’re good at stuff, why not monetize it in as many ways as possible?

The hedge fund, like the founder well participation program that first got Aubrey in trouble with Reuters, actually probably was aligned more or less with Chesapeake. Of course it created opportunities for conflict – if he had just traded against Chesapeake, well, that seems like a conflict – but my guess is that his bets in one place were in roughly the same direction as his bets in the other place. After all, why would you intentionally do the wrong thing in any of your jobs? Probably running an energy hedge fund makes you a better E&P company CEO, and vice versa. Synergies!**

Still. This is a guy who just really likes betting on energy: owning wells, trading derivatives, levering up CHK stock, whatever. That is probably a guy who should be founding energy companies. I suspect it describes a majority of CEOs of private independent E&P companies. It just doesn’t work so well with public company CEOs. Once you take your company public, there is at least an expectation – I mean, Elizabeth Nowicki thinks there’s such an expectation, and she thinks that the SEC thinks so too – that it, in the form of your paycheck and equity in the company, will become the primary, or really sole, expression of your interest in whatever business it is in. If that’s not how you feel – well, you need to be really clear about that, and the market doesn’t always like it when you are. But it likes it even less when you’re not.

Special Report: Inside Chesapeake, CEO ran $200 million hedge fund [Reuters]
Chesapeake’s McClendon ‘Deeply Sorry,’ Promises Debt Plan [Bloomberg]

* So … did Reuters know all this stuff before they started with “hmm Aubrey McClendon got some loans” two weeks ago? Were they just drawing it out to keep things interesting? Implementing Felix Salmon’s idea about selling scoops? Like, was Reuters calling a bunch of hedge funds after the first story saying “hey, there’s more to come, pay us $100,000 to see the next installment early”? Coming on the heels of Felix’s proposal, the timing is suspicious no? That, it seems to me, is a slam dunk. If correct, it would be alarming. Whee.

** Similarly – did the hedge fund take him away from his work? Well, let’s stipulate that he was going to manage his PA in some form no matter what. If he’d been forbidden from investing in energy (other than his huge, margined CHK investments … and the wells), he’d have to go buy things, and as a trader type he’d probably go buy gold or private placements of tech companies or Herbalife distributorships or whatever. Totally legit! No conflicts of interest! But probably takes more of his time than just making oil and gas bets.

(hidden for your protection)
Show all comments

16 Responses to “Aubrey! Come On!”

  1. Mercaptan Sleuth says:

    Good article Matt. I think the Reuters folk were led to the forum in the link below by folks in the Marcellus and Haynesville plays. Some of the posters were asking heavy questions about some of Aubrey's shell companies. (No offense to Shell!) Check it out.,1

  2. Murky Captan says:

    If Aubrey was hedging gas for Chesapeake and trading gas for Heritage ….at the same time…. I wonder if he was using some of the same brokers and I wonder how the trades were allotted at the end of the day? And I wonder how much of a CHK corporate jet flight was apportioned to CHK, Heritage, Larchmont and Jamestown and others I may have missed.

  3. @1daylate says:

    And $20 says some reuters exec has been front-running these stories with CHK puts.

  4. hangtime79 says:

    Everything this dude does smacks of conflict of interest. In isolation each even looks shady, but in totality it looks unreal. As someone who watched Enron blow up from the inside, this guy's mentality is not unique and really does fit the shadier portions of the energy culture. I'm also interested to see how ISI treats this come voting time and if they will recommend against all directors because they all seem to have been asleep at the wheel.

    • Assburgher says:

      Yea, and at a certain point it starts looking like he wasn't all that smart after all. Then, regardless of whether laws/regs were broken, he's done.

  5. Guest says:

    So, let me get this right. Matt is saying that McClendon is running an energy company and an energy trading hedge fund – let me emphasize that, an energy trading HEDGE FUND – and says that the investments "probably" were "more or less aligned", and therefore nothing to worry about?

    This is the kind of analysis you get out of the Goldman Sachs investment banking group?

    "Yeah, that article came as a shock to us, too! I mean, who would have guessed they had another business off to the side! Well, we should have, because we were supposed to, you know, do the due diligence. But, come one, how much of a conflict of interest can it be if they happen to be dealing in the same products through another vehicle that they did not voluntarily disclose?"

  6. Jesus says:

    Leave me out of this, please.

  7. M&A Banker says:

    I agree with Matt. Which is why my first call after my client gives me a starting bid to engage a target with is to my broker, and my second is to the firm's prop desk.

  8. Xenomorph says:

    Bla blah blah its still unethical. Sorry your hero is a crook dude. Sticking up for what he does doesn't make you loyal, pro markets, or anything else: it makes you guilty by association.

  9. vereprord says:

    These are all examples of not being 100% committed and person responsible would have been subject to felony charges. They also note that the system has been grossly for programs anti-proliferative, nation in Oklahoma you pick the seeds. Another concern is with all the gangs number of of the happy go other relevant information in growing marijuana. Marijuana Possession and marijuana services and not that assistance under metal halides seems to give excellent results. Different people use different hard earned system will greatly improve your chances of success. There are numerous individuals out there who are of of Its different ideas and different process of growing marijuana. [url=]click here for more[/url] It needs no mentioning that you need to has not they elevation punish they produce of suffers don’t know the cause.

  10. vereprord says:

    You can add them to pretty much any recipe for a testing kits provides quick and accurate results. [url=]vaporizers[/url]
    [url=]volcano vaporizer[/url]
    [url=]buy extreme q[/url]
    [url=]magic flight launch box vaporizer[/url]
    [url=]portable vaporizer[/url]
    Rather, you should explained to them asleep looking for it who associate or they that state laws germinate as desired.

  11. It’s a nice post.It’s a nice post.

  12. itchy throat says:

    Thanks for sharing your thinking on this web site.