Enron’s Gas Bank

Jeffrey Skilling was a thirty-six year old consultant at McKinsey & Co., making six figures and on his way somewhere in life. While at McKinsey, incidentally, he would get to know Rex Shelby and numerous other future Enron folks. But in 1989, Skilling was a hotshot consultant with a big idea for a client, this “Enron” company: the gas bank.

The gas bank was a process by which Enron would buy gas from a network of suppliers and sell it to a network of consumers, contractually guaranteeing both the supply and the price, charging fees for the transactions and assuming the associated risks. This would later be known as an energy derivative.

When Jeff pitched the idea to Rich Kinder it was met with excitement, but their success was slow to come. The buyers loved it because they could obtain a predictable price for gas. But gas producers were reluctant to buy in. Gas was very cheap and producers believed the price would rise. Why would they sell cheaper gas today instead of waiting until tomorrow when they’d get a better price?

Confronted with the seemingly intractable problem, Jeff had another brainstorm. He would buy the gas on the spot market. The idea was a good one but it still needed some refinement. So Jeff did something brilliant.

He realized that Enron did not have to deliver gas to its customers. It could guarantee the price of gas to the customer and allow someone else to deliver it. So if the gas price rose, Enron would buy the expensive gas, and the client could then sell it at the higher price. If the price dived, the client would pay Enron the difference. Enron would be guaranteeing the price of gas, not delivering the gas.

He also got money in the form of loans into the hands of oil drillers. So he set up Enron Finance Corporation to handle the credit requests. Many years later, at trial, Jeff would describe this time in the Texas economy as a desolate era with “shotgun” buildings – empty buildings you could shoot through and not hit anything.

In 1989, Rich Kinder asked Jeff to join Enron and take over the whole gas bank operation. Skilling said not only no, but hell no. Things were going well for him at McKinsey. But Rich – and then Dr. Lay – kept after him and in the spring, he finally agreed to come aboard Enron. He would be CEO of Enron Finance.

With his new title and new job, he needed some finance talent, someone knowledgeable about securitization who would be able to push the loans to the gas industry.

Enter Andy Fastow.

Andy Fastow was a banker in Chicago who had already built a solid reputation in securitization. He was, Jeff thought, the guy he had been looking for.

Andy’s first job at Enron was a project called Cactus. This is how it worked:

1. Enron would create a contract.
a. The contract would represent a supply of gas that could be sold on the spot market at variable prices.
b. It would advance payment for an agreed amount of gas over a specified period of time.

2. Enron would pool all the contracts.

3. Enron would sell stakes to institutional investors.

4. Enron would use the money from the fund to pay gas producers.

This was the fully realized gas bank. But an accounting curiosity quickly emerged. It required a different type of accounting on both sides of the transaction. This irrational gas-rules accounting vexed Skilling, who believed that it would be smarter and make more sense to use mark to market.

Mark to market accounting means that you value an asset at the current market price, and any fluctuations – positive or negative – are taken at the end of the transaction. (Example: If I sell you a contract worth $10 and the value diminishes, I can hold the $10 on my books until I sell it for $7.)

The gas bank became a brilliant success. Jeff Skilling had almost singlehandedly created a futures market in which Enron would be paid on both sides of the deal, for billions of transactions.

The gas bank ultimately became Enron Capital and Trade.

10 thoughts on “Enron’s Gas Bank

  1. It really is amazing what these guys basically invented.

    Correct me if I am wrong but this was before NYMEX listed Nat Gas futures…I mean these guys basically invented what we take for granted now.

    Also, isn’t it funny how many people think mark to market was some “black op” shaddy deal, bet those people don’t realize it is still OPENLY. being used by lots of legit companies. I am NOT saying Enron was not legit…just that people point to mark to market as evidence they were bad yet companies that many admire today still use mark to market.

  2. Yep, Ryan, they invented the energy swap. They were brilliant.

    And yes, mark to marketing was not some black op (great phrasing there!) And that was not something Enron invented; it was being used for other commodities – livestock, metals, etc. The SEC *ordered* Enron to use it. If they’d NOT used MtM, they’d have been in trouble with the SEC.

    Great points!

  3. FYI, mark-to-market accounting is where the value on the books fluctuates with the market price (you’re marking the books to the market price). So if you buy something for $10 and then its market value falls to $7, you have to write its value on the books down to $7 at that time and take the $3 hit to income (or to equity, depending on the classification of the investment).

    I agree that there is nothing wrong with mark-to-market accounting. When there are objective market prices on which to base the valuation, everything is fine. The trouble begins when there isn’t a reliable source to base the value on. This led to Mark-to-Model where assumptions and judgement are made to determine the value to carry on the books. Since subjectivity is now involved, there is room to manipulate the value to minimize the negative impact to a company’s financial statements. This is where most criticism of Mark-to-Market is directed towards.

  4. I agree with all that. However, as it relates to Enron, mark to market was never abused. There wasn’t a charge in any indictment that so-and-so abused mark to market accounting.

  5. I was at Enron in the formulative years from 1990-1995 and am all too familiar with “mark to market” accounting. What Skilling did when he can to Enron was get mark t0 market accounting approved for natural gas through his efforts with the SEC. He did this about a year before the first NYMEX contract began trading. The early NYMEX contracts were for 1 year or less… whereas Enron was offering 10 year deals. I know because I sold 10,000mmbtu/day to Minnesota Power at $1.30/mmbtu for 10 years delivered!! A profit was booked in the next quarter for the 10 year net present value based solely on internal price curves generated by MBA types with no physical world experience buying or selling natural gas…. Lou Pai ultimately approved the curve slopes each day. Given the complexity of markets, to base your entire profit on interally generated price curves is nothing less than “the fox guarding the hen house”. I have to disagree that mark to market accounting was never abused. In my experience it was routinely abused to show profits where there were losses. The deal I did with MP, shortly after being booked went under water and never returned. Yet, it was shown as a profit on the books. To turn a loss into a profit, only required Lou Pai to move the bid/ask curves slightly up or down, and suddenly a loss became a profit. But as time progressed, more and more of these long-term deals went underwater, becoming losses. The forward curves would be adjusted to make the loss either disappear or diminish, but at some point there was no way to adjust the price curves to keep these deals profitable. It was at this point Fastow began his hijinx to hide the losses or should I say purchase the assets before the end of the quarter to get them off the books. Mark to market accounting is a good concept if it is used properly, but in the case of Enron it was abused to create huge profits out of thin air through manipulating internally generated price curves. I don’t believe I have any special knowledge here as anyone who bought or sold gas knew the game and how to play it.

  6. Hi Greg, I think your comments are still too gossipy to justify indictments. Plus, it is not clear from these comments that the people who were indicted, other than Fastow, had anythings at all to do with the alleged shenanigans you are talking about. And if something improper was being done and you knew about it, why did you say nothing at the time? People who throw out comments after the fact have a severe credibility problem in my mind. Plus you end the comment saying essentially that Enron was not doing anything that was not common in the industry. So what is the point exactly?

    Look, my point is not to go after you specifically. It’s just that people throw out comments without any rigor attached. An indictment is an act that forever alters a person’s life. It is not right to justify such an act without applying the utmost rigor to the analysis.

  7. Cara thanks for your comments. What I wrote may indeed sound gossipy, but I know for certain it was common practice. The point I am making is that internally generated price curves were manipulated to show profits on deals that ultimately were losers. And mark to market accounting compounded the problem because everything had to be balanced at the end of each day. The pressure to balance was tremendous and ultimately required curve manipuation. And everyone knew what was going on… it just wasn’t talked about openly. It was explained to many of us how the curves worked… and off the record after a few cocktails, people talked. But I was dealmaker so I had access to information that many didn’t. But I have no doubt Skilling new this was going on, Pai signed off each day, and guys like me out in the field selling interfaced with the likes of Kevin Hannon to get pricing for 5-10 year deals. I apologize if I am coming across as arrogant, vindictive or bitter, to the contrary I am proud of my time with Enron. I met some brilliant men, learned derivatives, have fond memories and was part of history. And to this day, telling someone you worked at Enron, invites questions and interest. Thanks for listening

  8. Just another quick comment, I am not saying anyone could be indicted based on my knowledge. To be convicted of a crime the evidence has to raise to the level of “beyond a reasonable doubt”… and that would not be easy to prove. But I think we all know we have seen things that we know intuitively or through indirect/direct knowledge, the activity was wrong, illegal or unethical, but one could not prove it in a court of law. Mere knowledge is not enough to convict a person… one has to have concrete evidence, and that I do not have. This doesn’t mean that what I have written is therefore invalid or not credible… it just means in a court of law, one could not convict based on my knowledge. But I stand by my statements that price curves were manipulated to show profits at times where there were extreme losses being experienced.

  9. Hi Greg, thanks for your comment.

    Were you one of the dealmakers who wanted to book origination profit from mid-market, rather than the prudent curve the likes of which Kevin Hannon instituted? That kind of aggressive profit recognition was a form of curve manipulation generally pushed by some of the dealmakers that it sounds like you were a part of.

  10. There may have been what you call “aggressive dealmakers” working at Enron when you were there, but not when I was there. In my time, dealmakers had no control over the level of profit from mid-market to bid. The trading desk gave us the bid price and how much origination there was in the deal, and we were told to go sell it. Dealmakers out in the field pressing the flesh with customers, had no control over how the curves varied… oh sure we could call the desk and tell them “that dog won’t hunt”, but we had no control over how the curves varied daily. As I have said before Lou Pai was the final decision-maker on the price curves, and guys like Hannon were lined up like cord wood behind Pai. I left Enron for Amoco because I could see that Enron was building a house of cards, that would someday implode because Enron had little to no physical supply of natural gas, and it was obvious to anyone looking and listening, that given the price curves, Enron would never be able to back the sales with physical gas at the price levels needed to actually generate profit. And financial trading can only supplement the physical sales we made to an extent… eventually, the physical supply must be purchased to deliver to the physical sales made by guys like me. And as the market price for natural gas rose, a large number of the Gas Bank deals, became losers. And as losses mounted desperation caused people to do things that were illegal. Fastow was the vehicle to hide the losses, but I have no doubt Pai, Hannon, Skilling and others knew what was going on. They didn’t run around talking about it, but they knew losses were mounting… Hell if they didn’t know, they must have been in a coma. All one had to do was look at the futures market and see prices were rising, and in order to back the Gas Bank deals, they would have to purchase higher priced gas spot gas which would produce a loss. It’s really not that complicated or complex. If one sells a fixed price for 10 years, but is backing it with spot gas, if the spot market goes up, that fixed price sale is a loser. And this is exactly what led to the losses that Fastow creatively hid from the public. Would my description of events lead to an indictment of any of the people involved… of course not, but that doesn’t mean they are untrue. Anyway, good luck on your case study of Enron…

Leave a comment