The Aluminum Warehousing Racket Turns Out to Be Really Good for Aluminum Companies

 

A few months I wrote a series of posts about Goldman Sachs’ purchase of an aluminum warehousing business called Metro International. Their strategy, inexplicably, was to deliberately slow down deliveries of aluminum, thus driving up both the spot price and the storage premium they charge customers. The New York Times reported that over the course of three years, the wait time for aluminum deliveries had increased from six weeks to 16 months even though warehouses were bulging with ingots.

But how exactly did Goldman make money off this? It was nothing crude like speculating directly on the price of aluminum. The answer turned out to be insanely complicated—but completely legal. So the London Metal Exchange, which regulates aluminum warehousing and trading, has proposed new rules. Reuters reports that this would be terrible news for aluminum companies:

Two-thirds of aluminum producers would be losing money because of lower premiums paid on top of exchange benchmarks if the world’s biggest metals bourse approves rules to cut waiting times at its warehouses, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Premiums to obtain the metal will drop 60 percent to about $100 a metric ton as a result of the new rules the London Metal Exchange is expected to approve in October, Benjamin Defay, an analyst at the bank in London, wrote in a report e-mailed today. The LME proposed to oblige warehouses where waits extend for 100 days or more to let more metal out than they take in.

Hmmm. So if the rules were changed, it would hurt not just Goldman and its insanely complicated financing business, but also the aluminum producers, who benefit in a very un-complicated way from higher prices. For example, the Wall Street Journal estimates today that thanks to the warehousing logjam, Alcoa alone has earned an extra $649 million in premiums over the past three years—and that doesn’t even count extra profits from higher spot prices. Perhaps, then, you can guess just what the aluminum industry thinks of the LME’s new rules?

On Friday, Alcoa sent a letter to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority calling the LME proposal a “misguided” effort that would disrupt the market. Alcoa, which is based in Pittsburgh, said the LME should halt any plans to implement the changes.

Last month, Oleg Deripaska, chief executive of Rusal, the world’s biggest aluminum producer by volume, said in a letter released publicly that the LME proposal “is an unprecedented intervention and one that Rusal strongly objects to.”

That’s a shocker, isn’t it? Among other things, the LME’s new rules would require warehouses to ship out more aluminum than they take in if wait times increase beyond 100 days. Presumably the rules would also tighten up the definitions of “ship” and “warehouse,” since Goldman’s warehouses are already in the habit of “shipping” aluminum from one building to another in order to evade current LME rules. Sadly, though, Goldman’s financing racket may well continue, since its actions are beyond the purview of the LME.

We should have a decision on all this later this month. Stay tuned.

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate