Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Trading & Investing · Financial decision · 1991–1998

Zhuzhou Smelter shorted 420K tonnes of zinc — $176M loss nearly bankrupted the company

Zhuzhou Smelter's trader secretly sold 420K tonnes of zinc on the LME — three times annual output. The $176M loss nearly bankrupted the company.

Zhuzhou Smelter Group · 1997-09

What happened

Zhuzhou Smelter was one of China's largest lead and zinc producers, a state-owned enterprise based in Hunan province. Its 'Torch' brand zinc was registered on the London Metal Exchange in 1991, giving the company direct access to international futures markets.

In 1992, the company was authorised to trade LME zinc futures for hedging purposes. But the trading quickly exceeded its mandate. By 1994, the company had already lost $15 million in unauthorised speculative trading. Instead of stopping, the company doubled down. In August 1996, facing projected losses of 80 million yuan on increased zinc output, management decided to expand its short positions on the LME.

The situation spiralled out of control when the manager of the import-export subsidiary began secretly selling zinc futures far beyond authorised limits. By June 1997, the manager had privately sold 256,800 tonnes of zinc contracts, bringing the total short position to 420,000 tonnes — nearly three times the company's annual production capacity of 150,000 tonnes. International traders, led by a major Swiss trading house, identified the oversized position and launched a short squeeze. Zinc prices surged from around $1,000 per tonne to over $1,700 per tonne in mid-1997.

The total loss reached $175.8 million (approximately 1.4 billion yuan at the time), nearly bankrupting the company. The case became a landmark example of how Chinese state-owned enterprises lost control of overseas derivatives trading in the 1990s.

Why it happened

  • A company manager secretly sold 256,800 tonnes of zinc futures without authorisation, bringing total short positions to 420,000 tonnes — three times annual production — with no oversight.
  • The company's hedging mandate was ignored from the start — trading was speculative from 1992, and losses were hidden rather than reported.
  • International traders identified the oversized position and launched a short squeeze, exploiting the lack of position limits on a single Chinese SOE.
What it cost$176M loss nearly bankrupted a state-owned enterprisecatastrophic

The lesson

When a trader can secretly sell three times the company's annual production on an exchange, there is no hedging policy — only the trader's judgment, and that is not a policy.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →