When Morgan Stanley’s Merger Bankers Say No, Its Derivatives Bankers Say Yes

I very much enjoyed this Morgan Stanley electric shenanigans case that settled yesterday. According to the complaint, this happened:

  • KeySpan, an electric generator, realized that prices for electric generation would be going down as more capacity came online.
  • It decided to keep up prices by cutting back its own generation.
  • But that’s dumb, because then it wouldn’t be able to sell much electricity at the high prices, which would mainly benefit its competitors.
  • So it decided to buy its main competitor, cut back generation, but still sell plenty of electricity at high prices.
  • But it “concluded that its acquisition of its largest competitor would raise serious market power issues” and so would raise problems with antitrust and electric grid regulators.
  • So it said “aha, a swap!”
  • And it synthetically acquired the capacity of its largest competitor (Astoria Generating) by entering into a swap with Morgan Stanley where it effectively bought that capacity at $7.57 a kilowatt-month.
  • And Morgan Stanley hedged that trade by entering into a swap where it effectively bought the capacity from Astoria at $7.07 a kilowatt-month.
  • Attentive readers will note that that’s a $0.50 difference, so Morgan Stanley made $0.50 per kW-month for about three years, for total revenue of around $21.6mm.*

So what do you make of it? The complaint sounds terrible, but then it would, and Morgan Stanley isn’t talking (and not admitting or denying etc. etc.), so we’ve only got one side of the story and maybe it’s exaggerated. But if you believe the complaint then everyone at KeySpan and Morgan Stanley knew that they were structuring this deal to get around antitrust requirements that they knew would make it impossible for KeySpan to buy Astoria directly. That’s certainly one possibility – everyone was as criminal as criminal can be – and, yeah, sure, probably, though the relatively low-dollar-value settlement might suggest otherwise.

But I like imagining the other possibilities in which someone was taking advantage of someone else’s naïveté. I think there are two of these. In one, Morgan Stanley is taking advantage of KeySpan’s ignorance of how swaps work: Morgan Stanley offers to sell KeySpan synthetic electricity at $7.57, without discussing where it’s getting its synthetic electricity from. KeySpan is willing to pay, and never thinks to ask about Morgan Stanley’s ability to generate synthetic electricity. Morgan Stanley, meanwhile, sources its synthetic electrons elsewhere much more cheaply, without bothering KeySpan with that information, and clips like $22mm on a $490mm notional contract, which is a lot.**

This scenario seems to be untrue – the complaint has lots of specific allegations about how the swap started with KeySpan’s idea of actually buying Astoria’s physical generating assets, everyone knew there were back-to-back contracts with Astoria, etc. But it’s interesting to me, first of all, because it seems to be true everywhere else in swap anger-land. We’ve talked about swap fury in Oakland and Strats and Abacus, and the anger there was generated in large part by swap customers not fully internalizing that their dealer counterparties had offsetting swaps.*** And it could apply here: “Sure, I was buying electricity synthetically from Morgan Stanley, but I had no idea they were buying synthetic electricity elsewhere to give to me. I assumed they had a synthetic electricity generator.”

And if it was true, would it be illegal? It so happens that here KeySpan effectively acquired its largest competitor synthetically, but what if Morgan Stanley had just made a naked bet on electricity prices and written KeySpan this swap without hedging it? The result would have been the same – KeySpan would have no incentive to bid its capacity aggressively and so electricity prices would have stayed high – but the antitrust case seems weaker. (Does it?****) And if that would be okay, what if Morgan Stanley was actually hedging by, say, buying synthetic electricity in some other market with correlated prices? Or, even, by buying synthetic electricity from Astoria without KeySpan knowing about it?

I dunno. The other naïveté scenario is one in which KeySpan took advantage of Morgan Stanley. This one sounds even sillier but I think it’s probably true. If you go to your investment banker and say “hey, we’d like to acquire our largest competitor,” they pull out their M&A checklist and their checklist has things like “talk to antitrust lawyer and get antitrust approvals.” If you go to them and say “hey, we’d like to do a swap,” they pull out their swaps guy, and the swaps guy has his own checklist, and that checklist doesn’t usually have antitrust lawyers. And perhaps, if you are a conniving executive looking to get the benefits of an illegal merger, you know that: and so you don’t go to M&A bankers, you go to swaps bankers.

Of course, after this case, the swaps checklist will include a “consult antitrust lawyers” item. Maybe. Lots of people have complained about this settlement that it’s pretty wrist-slappy, given that it’s only 22% of the amount that Morgan Stanley made on the swap. If Morgan Stanley had consulted antitrust lawyers they might have suggested not doing this trade – but it turns out that doing this trade and getting caught was better for Morgan Stanley than not doing this trade. And now they know it. If I were selling derivatives, after this, I might start looking around for other desirable-but-illegal mergers, and trying to replicate them synthetically.

Federal Judge Grudgingly Approves Morgan Stanley Price-Fixing Case [DealBook]
U.S. v. Morgan Stanley [SDNY]

* You can math you some math but it won’t work. The contracted swap capacity was 1800 MW and it ran for 3 years, $0.50 x 1,000 [kW in a MW] x 1,800 [MWs in the contract] x 36 [months in the contract] = $32.4mm, whatever.

** That is surely a dumb way to measure “notional.” $7.57 x (all the other numbers above). $13.6mm of “monthly notional”? I dunno. The point is, MS made 6.6% on this thing, which is high for a risk-free thing.

*** “What do you mean John Paulson was betting against these mortgages you were [synthetically] selling me?” “What do you mean you can’t tear up our Libor swap at below market value?” “What do you mean my collared swapped-to-floating bank trust preferred unwinds at below par?”

**** DOES IT? Everything I know about antitrust law could fit in this footnote. Here is the statute that Morgan Stanley neither admits nor denies violating.

(hidden for your protection)
Show all comments

36 Responses to “When Morgan Stanley’s Merger Bankers Say No, Its Derivatives Bankers Say Yes”

  1. Guest says:

    You don't understand capacity markets in electricity. This is a credit sleeve. No market manipulation. Go back to studying for the CFA.

  2. Super Swaps Banker says:

    Matt, if asked what super power you would most want to have, would your answer have something to do with an ability to get around pesky federal laws via derivative instruments?

  3. Guest says:


    Very Nize Matt!

  4. Guest says:

    "You can math you some math but it won’t work"

    Suck on that math geeks. Degree in liberal arts > degree in math.

  5. zombUBS_MD says:

    "aha, a swap!"…and in the same electricity charged instant:

    "I am alive! And ready to eat brains on a comedically limited budget."

    – Guest who's seen earlier threads this week and knew there was an orgin story waiting in the wings somewhere…

  6. matt's intern says:

    the probability of getting caught and what the fines and legal fees are likely to be are included in the analysis of whether to undertake the project / do the trade. does not suprise me that msco fared better by doing the trade and getting caught than not doing the trade at all. they likely expected to get caught. feds don't understand incentives, you know what i mean? like why doesn't msco have to divorce themselves of the profits altogether? if it's illegal, that is, heck, maybe it isn't, maybe it was just a government shakedown. maybe it was only synthetically illegal. and 449 bps on the notional is not a bad haul at all, as you pointed out (350 bps by my calculations post-settlement, although that's pre-tax and i don't think you can write off legal fines as an expense, but i'm pretty sure you can write of legal fees – so by the end of the day, we can maybe ballpark this deal at 200 bps – worst case – for pretty much doing absolutely nothing and maybe striking synthetic trading gold).

  7. Guest says:

    I realize that selling electrical generating capacity is subject to transmission limitations in some areas, but $160 million per year of electricity purchases seems like a small amount of capacity to be able to corner a market.

  8. _guest says:

    "And it synthetically acquired the capacity of its largest competitor (Astoria Generating) by entering into a swap with Morgan Stanley where it effectively bought that capacity at $7.57 a kilowatt-month."

    I'm assuming that KeySpan reviewed its operations and financial structure and was satisfied it did all the could do before pursuing this option, because that would be what a company would normally do in the face of market changes…

  9. Winston says:

    When someone asks if you're a god, you say YES

  10. Jim Cramer says:

    Hey guys! Jim Cramer here again, at the old hedge fund we used to run into this issue where the pesky equity research team wouldn't agree with our options traders… so one day I got so annoyed at the ER people that I walked up to them and with uncontrollable rage proclaimed, B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B….BOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA SKEEEEEEEEEEEEE DADDYYYYYYYYYYYYY and they shut up after that

  11. Texas Aggie Gas Pro says:

    Jesus! Just buy the electricity and fucking store it! What is wrong with these electricity trading dumbasses?

  12. Tseug says:

    I keep coming back here looking for G.O.T.'s insight . . .

  13. Guest says:

    i liked it, cheers Matt

  14. Mancrush says:

    Matt! Matt! Matt! The "lamestream" financial press…it is no good. They are…a…like…a…the sheep.

  15. Thurgood Jenkins says:

    this is the first time that i've read a matt post and was more confused by the comments than the post

    – guy not sure if matt is becoming clearer and more coherent or if i am still high

  16. Guest says:

    No means yes, yes means…

  17. The newest says:

    Excellent post. I was checking continuously this blog and I¡¯m impressed! Extremely helpful info specially the last part I care for such information a lot. I was seeking this certain information for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.

  18. The newest says:

    Hey there! This is kind of off topic but I need some advice from an established blog. Is it very hard to set up your own blog? I¡¯m not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty quick. I¡¯m thinking about setting up my own but I¡¯m not sure where to start. Do you have any ideas or suggestions? Thanks

  19. I am going back to college right now, within my leisure time We are writing a website on piano benches.

  20. this seems like an incredible idea, I cannot wait to see your next put up about local lens

  21. Good day. Cool article. There is an issue together with the web-site in firefox, and you may want to test this… The browser is the marketplace chief as well as a good section of other folks will leave out your wonderful writing because of this issue.

  22. Hеlpful infο. Lucky mе Ӏ fοund
    your site by аccident, and І’m shocked why this twist of fate didn’t happened earlier!
    I bοokmarked іt.

  23. bqhtlvzn says:

    26e8Y6 lgbvqejcrfkb, [url=]beprcuxphovj[/url], [link=]idpwguqvosuf[/link],