Energy traders bullish on capital growth: 2025 research insights

Energy and commodity traders are betting big on growth — nearly a quarter expect their capital to jump by more than 50% in the next two years. But there’s a catch: 57% also expect tighter trading restrictions, and nearly half see mismatched hedging as their biggest risk. This disconnect between ambition and operational reality could determine who thrives in the next market cycle.

To get a better understanding of the needs and expectations of these markets, we commissioned a research study of energy and commodity traders in North America and Europe, whose firms collectively manage tradable assets of $1.4 trillion.

We found that, while bullish on growth, the group expects changes in trading restrictions and limits on portfolio and risk management, as volatility increases and hedging complexity intensifies.

Optimism is strong amongst energy and commodity traders

Nearly a quarter (24%) of the energy and commodity traders surveyed expect their available capital to climb by more than 50%. Overall, European respondents are expecting 25% to 40% higher capital growth than North American ones.

large

This widespread confidence in market expansion over the next 24 months is highlighted across various commodity sectors:

• Oil, power, and natural gas: more than half (52%) of respondents anticipate growth in overall market trading levels to exceed 25%, with 4% believing it could rise by 75% or more. Two in five (39%) foresee an increase of up to 25%. Just 3% say they expect a decline in trading levels.
• Renewable products: the overwhelming majority predict an uptick in trading, with 32% anticipating growth to exceed 50%; 27% expect it to be between 25% and 50%, and 37% foresee an increase of up to 25%. Only 4% of respondents say they expect trading levels to decrease.
• Metals, agricultural, and soft commodities: 31% project growth above 50%; around one in four (24%) anticipate a 25% to 50% rise; over a third (39%) predict growth between 10% and 25%; and only 6% foresee a decline in trading.

Many see speed limits ahead

A large percentage of the traders we surveyed expect the number and size of internal trading constraints and portfolio limits to expand in the year ahead. Nearly six out of 10 (57%) predict greater restrictions with 6% forecasting significant expansion over the period. Just 3% think restrictions will ease, and 40% foresee no changes in what they can trade or additional limits on their risk management and portfolio metrics.

Despite the heightened restrictions, traders are also expecting a rise in risk management challenges with mismatched or inadequately hedged positions seen as the biggest threat, by 48% of traders. They also expect a range of risk management concerns to increase, including liquidity management and stress testing constraints as well as the use of higher risk capital strategies.

The chart below breaks down which operational challenges survey respondents expect to grow.

large

Risk priorities vary by role

Executives were twice as likely to say that liquidity constraints and the need for more sophisticated tools would increase over the next year. For their part, quants and analysts were 30% more likely to think that the size of P&L deviations would increase the most.

Need to move faster with better models

The winners will be those that treat risk management technology as a competitive tool, not just a compliance requirement. With volatility here to stay and trading complexity increasing, the question isn’t whether you’ll need better tools, it’s whether you’ll have them deployed before competitors do.

About this research

Beacon by CWAN commissioned independent research company Pure Profile to interview 100 senior energy and commodity traders at specialist trading firms, hedge funds, fund managers and investment banks responsible for total capital allocated or assets under management for trading of $1.4 trillion. Respondents were based in the US, UK, Europe and Canada. The research was conducted during March 2025 using an online methodology.