South-East Europe has become one of the most volatile, opaque and structurally fragile electricity regions in Europe. The dysfunction is visible every day on platforms like electricity.trade, where spreads behave less like reflections of economic fundamentals and more like symptoms of a system susceptible to manipulation and structural arbitrage. This is not due merely to the presence of bad actors. It is the direct result of a grid that is mismatched with its generation profile, a regulatory framework that lags behind continental standards, and a market design that unintentionally rewards those who exploit congestion and balancing scarcity rather than those who provide genuine system value.
Manipulation risks in SEE do not emerge in the form of dramatic price shocks or headline-grabbing misconduct. They manifest quietly, embedded within structural constraints, predictable recurring patterns and finely tuned signals that sophisticated traders learn to exploit. These patterns are not new. What is new is the degree to which renewable penetration magnifies them. When a system becomes more dynamic but its governance does not evolve at the same pace, the opportunity space for both lawful arbitrage and unlawful manipulation expands.
Structural arbitrage: Exploiting the gaps the system creates for you
The most profitable opportunities in SEE come not from forecasting supply or demand, but from forecasting failure. Structural arbitrage arises because the system repeatedly breaks in the same places. The HU–RO border fails during Romanian wind surges. The BG–GR border fails during Greek solar peaks. Serbia collapses under two-directional flow stress during evening ramps. Hungary lags but eventually reacts. These recurring fracture points create predictable value windows.
On electricity.trade, traders see these events unfolding in real time: sudden price decouplings, rapid intraday swings, cross-border spreads widening far beyond what fundamentals justify. These are not random occurrences. They are the market telegraphing that the physical system has once again entered a known stress corridor.
Sophisticated traders treat these as structural features, not events. And when an inefficiency becomes structural rather than incidental, the line between arbitrage and manipulation becomes thinner. For example, if a trader anticipates congestion and withholds volume to deepen a spread, is that strategic trading or manipulation? If a participant builds a position that amplifies an existing bottleneck, are they exploiting market design or actively distorting outcomes?
SEE does not yet have the clarity to answer these questions.
The balancing loophole: Strategic behaviour during scarcity
Balancing markets in SEE remain thin, under-resourced and poorly harmonised. This creates an environment where a single participant with access to flexible assets or cross-border capability can influence imbalance prices without technically breaking rules.
Consider the evening ramp in Greece. Balancing scarcity pushes prices upward. A party positioned long on balancing power has an incentive for scarcity to worsen. Renewable forecasting errors or strategically timed nominations can deepen the ramp window, pushing activation prices higher. Because SEE imbalance resolution lacks the robust real-time oversight present in Central Western Europe, it becomes difficult to differentiate opportunistic positioning from abusive practice.
Similar risks exist in Romania, where wind collapses create evening scarcity. A participant who anticipates a scarcity window can reduce scheduled exports or inflate import needs, contributing to a sharper imbalance event. These behaviours may not violate existing rules, because the rules were not designed for a high-renewables environment where imbalance volumes swing by hundreds of megawatts.
The structural loophole arises because SEE balancing markets cannot absorb shocks. When they break, somebody profits. And the system cannot always tell whether the profit was earned or engineered.
Congestion as a tradable instrument — and a manipulable one
Congestion is where SEE manipulation risks become most visible. Cross-border capacity allocation remains partially coordinated but not fully harmonised across the region. This creates a situation in which volumes on one side of a border can materially alter price outcomes on the other side. Croatia–Hungary, Bulgaria–Greece, Romania–Hungary and Serbia–Hungary are especially vulnerable.
A trader who understands the threshold at which a border becomes saturated can deliberately adjust nominations to trigger congestion earlier, widen spreads and monetise positions tied to that divergence. If capacity is firm and rights are financially settled, this can be highly profitable. But to regulators, the difference between congestion exploitation and congestion manipulation is blurred.
Platforms like electricity.trade expose the real-time manifestation of these dynamics: price curves that diverge precisely when nomination patterns cross critical thresholds, spreads that widen sharply despite no change in fundamentals, system behaviour that reacts not to physics but to strategies built around physics.
Intraday liquidity holes and the risk of price steering
SEE intraday markets remain thin. A single large order during a period of low liquidity — often around midday for some zones, or in the last 30–60 minutes of trading for others — can shift price direction. A participant positioned advantageously across interconnections can amplify these moves.
For instance, a trader expecting a Greek-Bulgarian decoupling may submit a deliberate intraday volume to tilt Greece downward or Bulgaria upward, triggering automated responses or threshold-based algorithmic trades. Because liquidity is low, the order does not need to be large. And because order books lack depth, the price response may appear genuine even when it is manufactured.
This is where SEE markets remain exposed. The absence of a broad, deep, algorithmically dominated liquidity pool creates opportunities for sophisticated actors to nudge prices in ways that benefit their positions elsewhere. These nudges may be legal. They may even be small. But they represent manipulation risk that a more mature market would be better insulated against.
The renewable paradox: The more intermittent the system becomes, the easier it is to distort
Renewables create volatility. Volatility creates spreads. Spreads create opportunity. But opportunity becomes distortion when a system lacks transparency and real-time enforcement consistency.
In Greece, a trader with detailed solar forecasting capability can anticipate not only price trajectories but congestion thresholds. If Greek export pressure is about to overwhelm the BG–GR interconnection, a trader can position long Bulgaria/short Greece before the break. But if they also submit timing-specific nominations that accelerate the congestion, what is that behaviour? Arbitrage? Manipulation? A strategic use of rights?
SEE regulators are not equipped to answer this with precision.
In Romania, wind forecasting accuracy varies steeply between market participants. Those with superior models can foresee imbalance events that others cannot. If they reduce cross-border nominations at the right moment, they can intensify the spread. Yet without market coupling of intraday balancing decisions, this behaviour remains in a grey zone.
Structural arbitrage is legal — until it isn’t
The most profitable SEE strategies involve no rulebreaking at all. They exploit physics. They exploit timing. They exploit the systemic mismatch between renewable variability and insufficient interconnections.
But when strategic behaviour begins to shape market outcomes, not merely reflect them, the boundary is crossed. The problem is that SEE has not yet built the enforcement architecture needed to distinguish between lawful and unlawful influence.
This is not a trader problem. It is a system problem.
And as long as the system behaves predictably under stress, sophisticated actors will continue to monetise the cracks.
What happens next: SEE must evolve or become permanently distortion-prone
Between now and 2030, manipulation risk in SEE will rise unless:
interconnections expand,
balancing markets deepen,
transparency increases,
and regulators modernise surveillance.
If this does not happen, spreads on electricity.trade will continue reflecting a system where structural arbitrage is not only possible but rational. The market will remain profitable for traders and hazardous for investors. The region will remain a volatility engine, not a stabilised renewable centre.
SEE is not inherently unstable. It is structurally unfinished. And unfinished markets invite behaviours that polished markets have forgotten how to tolerate.
Powered by electricity.trade
