Ice Heats Up Crude Oil Exchange Competition

Last week, we took a look at the somewhat unique situation of WTI Crude Futures being in Contango while their near identical twin, Brent Crude Futures were in backwardation; and now a recent article from the Wall Street Journal (you can see the full text here) highlighted an interesting consequence of these pricing anomalies – the rise of ICE.

The futures exchange is where trades are made, and it wasn’t that long ago that they hosted bustling trading pits replete with screaming, gesticulating traders scrambling to get the best deal possible. But now, most of these trades are placed electronically. You’ll frequently hear us make reference to the CME, or Chicago Mercantile Exchange, on this blog. The CME is easily the largest futures exchange in the U.S., and one of the dominant exchanges in the world. However, ruling the oil trade since 1983 has been the New York Mercantile Exchange, and the clearing fees associated with that contract alone are enough to make it venerable… which is probably why the CME bought them out in 2008. Still, ICE, or the Inter Continental Exchange, where Brent Crude is traded, is quickly becoming a contender in the battle of the exchanges, beating out NYMEX’s WTI trade in volume for the first time in four years in the month of June.

Does it really matter who the belle of the exchange ball is?  To a managed futures investor – no. We don’t really care what exchange a manager is executing his or her trades on; we really just care about the trade result. To the CTAs (Commodity Trading Advisors) themselves, it matters slightly, in so far as they may need to eventually add ICE Crude to their portfolio in place of Nymex Crude (if they haven’t already done so), and all of the data collection and setup tasks which go along with that.

Beyond that, competition among exchanges can theoretically provide many of the same benefits to traders that competition among retail stores gives to average consumers- pricing. But in practice this has rarely worked. There have been several tries by exchanges to break into the CME’s interest rate futures monopoly via severely discounted clearing costs. But as these competing exchanges have found out, cost is but one consideration when deciding which markets to trade, and far below liquidity and volume at that.

What ICE seems to have figured out (or lucked into), is to compete not directly with futures on the same deliverable, but instead, indirectly, via a market 95% the same. Perhaps we’ll see the same at some point in the future with Russian Wheat, Brazilian Sugar, and so on. With the managed futures industry showing no signs of slowing down any time soon, it isn’t too much of a stretch to imagine exchanges creating these sorts of one off markets to lure CTAs to add the markets to their portfolios.


Speak Your Mind


Interested in distributing or reprinting this content? Check out our reprint policy here.


Forex trading, commodity trading, managed futures, and other alternative investments are complex and carry a risk of substantial losses. As such, they are not suitable for all investors.

The entries on this blog are intended to further subscribers understanding, education, and – at times- enjoyment of the world of alternative investments through managed futures, trading systems, and managed forex, and is not intended as investment advice, or an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. Unless distinctly noted otherwise, the data and graphs included herein are intended to be mere examples and exhibits of the topic discussed, are for educational and illustrative purposes only, and do not represent trading in actual accounts. Opinions expressed are that of the author.

*The mention of specific asset class performance (i.e. +3.2%, -4.6%) is based on the noted source index (i.e. Newedge CTA Index, S&P 500 Index, etc.), and investors should take care to understand that any index performance is for the constituents of that index only, and does not represent the entire universe of possible investments within that asset class. And further, that there can be limitations and biases to indices such as survivorship and self reporting biases, and instant history.

The mention of general asset class performance (i.e. managed futures did well, stocks were down, bonds were up) is based on Attain’s direct experience in those asset classes, estimates of performance of dozens of CTAs followed by Attain, and averaging of various indices designed to track said asset classes.

It should be noted that past market performance is not indicative of future market movement.No market data or other information is warranted by Attain Capital Management as to completeness or accuracy, express or implied, and is subject to change without notice.

Managed Futures Disclaimer:

Past Performance is Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results. The regulations of the CFTC require that prospective clients of a managed futures program (CTA) receive a disclosure document when they are solicited to enter into an agreement whereby the CTA will direct or guide the client’s commodity interest trading and that certain risk factors be highlighted. The disclosure document contains a complete description of the principal risk factors and each fee to be charged to your account by the CTA.