Advertisement
UK markets closed
  • FTSE 100

    7,952.62
    +20.64 (+0.26%)
     
  • FTSE 250

    19,884.73
    +74.07 (+0.37%)
     
  • AIM

    743.26
    +1.15 (+0.15%)
     
  • GBP/EUR

    1.1709
    +0.0015 (+0.13%)
     
  • GBP/USD

    1.2623
    +0.0001 (+0.01%)
     
  • Bitcoin GBP

    55,735.72
    +558.38 (+1.01%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    885.54
    0.00 (0.00%)
     
  • S&P 500

    5,254.35
    +5.86 (+0.11%)
     
  • DOW

    39,807.37
    +47.29 (+0.12%)
     
  • CRUDE OIL

    83.11
    -0.06 (-0.07%)
     
  • GOLD FUTURES

    2,254.80
    +16.40 (+0.73%)
     
  • NIKKEI 225

    40,328.03
    +159.96 (+0.40%)
     
  • HANG SENG

    16,541.42
    +148.58 (+0.91%)
     
  • DAX

    18,492.49
    +15.40 (+0.08%)
     
  • CAC 40

    8,205.81
    +1.00 (+0.01%)
     

COLUMN-The curious case of the missing LME lead stocks explained: Andy Home

(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.)

By Andy Home

LONDON, Sept 14 (Reuters) - Maybe it's because it's the lead market.

If a warehouse company had submitted incorrect copper stocks figures to the London Metal Exchange (LME) for three weeks, it might have expected a bigger fine than 30,000 pounds ($40,000).

Which is what Worldwide Warehouse Solutions (WWS), the LME logistics arm of Noble Group (Dusseldorf: N2X.DU - news) , has been hit with for supplying wrong lead stocks figures for metal stored at the Dutch port of Vlissingen.

But this is lead we're talking about. And although the original misreporting fiasco back in February and March enraged lead traders, it's not the sort of story to generate outraged headlines in the mainstream media.

ADVERTISEMENT

Still, at least we get an answer to the riddle of what exactly happened with those phantom lead stocks, which simply weren't there.

Graphic on Vlissingen lead stocks:

http://tmsnrt.rs/2csBt2X

Graphic on Vlissingen phantom "arrivals" and price:

http://tmsnrt.rs/1RjI9vg

NOT OUT, NOT IN

The first anyone knew that all was not right with the LME lead stock count at Vlissingen was on March 8, when the exchange issued a short notice to members titled "Vlissingen Stock Correction".

"Please note that 31,700mt (metric tonnes) of Lead in Vlissingen will show in the stock report published 09 March 2016 as a delivery out. Please be advised this is not a physical delivery out but a correction of an earlier error in reporting by the Warehouse."

The tonnage corresponded to two apparent "inflows" of lead, the first of 18,425 tonnes, the second of 13,275 tonnes, in the LME daily stocks reports of Feb. 17 and Feb. 19 respectively.

Cue much head-scratching among the relatively small community of physical lead traders active in the LME market.

Although relatively large, the original "arrivals" were not out of keeping with lead stocks movements at the time, given a protracted "warehousing war" that saw large tonnages taken out of the system only to be relocated at Vlissingen and the South Korean port of Busan.

However, these particular "arrivals" were no such thing.

Rather, WWS incorrectly instructed its London agent to issue new warrants for 1,268 lots of lead, when it should have told it to reissue warrants for metal that had previously been cancelled.

That would have simply rebalanced the ratio of cancelled to open tonnage and left total registered tonnage at Vlissingen unchanged at 56,725 tonnes.

Instead, it looked as if fresh metal had arrived, lifting Vlissingen lead stocks by 56 percent to 88,425 tonnes.

It took WWS three weeks to realise there had been a mistake, at which stage it notified the LME, which then issued its unenlightening notice.

"DUE SKILL, CARE AND DILIGENCE"

The LME has now reached an agreed settlement with WWS, whereby the latter will pay that 30,000-pound fine and the costs of an additional audit to check the company has put in place new measures to stop a similar mistake happening in future.

WWS was found to have breached three clauses of the LME's warehousing contract.

The two most serious were Clause 11.1, requiring warehouse companies to conduct their business with "due skill, care and diligence", and Clause 11.8, requiring an operator to "organise and control its affairs in a responsible manner, keep proper records (and) ensure that its employees or agents are suitable, adequately trained and properly supervised".

The mitigating circumstances were that WWS had fully cooperated with the LME investigation, that the misreporting was down to "human errors", that it had notified the exchange immediately on discovering its mistakes and that it had appointed an independent auditor to tighten its procedures.

Not mentioned is the fact that the wrong instructions were issued twice, that it took three weeks for anyone to notice and that the original misreporting may have actually generated a price reaction.

But then, this is only the lead market, not copper, or heaven forbid, aluminium, a market in which LME warehousing has grabbed the wrong sorts of headlines in recent years.

THE I-SCALE OF MISDEMEANOUR

WWS is the third warehouse operator to be chastised by the LME in the last 18 months.

And it's tricky from the outside at least to calibrate the level of wrongdoing with the resulting fine.

The exchange will argue it judges each case on its relative merits, although the legal comparison doesn't take into account the fact the LME is by necessity both judge and jury.

However, the three incidents do fit into what might be tentatively termed the "I-Scale".

Irresponsibility (see Clause 11.8) sits at the lower end of the scale leading to a five-figure penalty for WWS.

Next (Other OTC: NXGH - news) up the scale is ignorance.

CWT got whacked with a 100,000-pound fine in April 2015 for failing to disclose it had two trading entities within its extensive corporate group structure.

The LME said it had found no evidence that the lapse was deliberate or that any confidential evidence was passed between the warehousing company and the trading entities.

In essence, CWT simply lacked a proper group organisational chart to show potential conflicts of interest of which it itself was completely unaware.

Right at the top of the disciplinary scale is infamy.

Metro (Other OTC: MTRAF - news) was fined $10 million for its role in incentivising a massive load-out queue for aluminium at its sheds in Detroit.

In doing so, it didn't explicitly break any LME rules at the time, although its actions might certainly be viewed as running against the spirit of the rule-book.

What it did do, however, was propel the LME into a regulatory and media firestorm to the extent of making the exchange the butt of jokes on a popular U.S. current affairs show.

Misreporting lead stocks, even over three weeks, is never going to generate that sort of broader reaction.

Watch this space, though.

With (Other OTC: WWTH - news) heightened LME surveillance of its warehouse operators, there may be more cases to come to flesh out in more detail the tentative I-Scale of misdemeanour.

(Editing by Dale Hudson)