One hedge fund posted about a 35% gain this year by backing oil and gas services. Anaconda Invest, a Geneva-based firm that manages roughly $150 million, moved as Middle East supply worries rose. Separately, some hedge funds reportedly profited by shorting renewable energy companies after Donald Trump's win. The split shows how politics and regional conflict are redirecting capital across the energy sector.

How one fund bet on oil services

Anaconda Invest moved decisively into energy stocks when the Middle East war began. The fund focused on oil and gas services names. That approach paid off. Chief Executive Renaud Saleur said the fund delivered roughly a 35% return this year.

The firm manages about $150 million. Saleur told reporters they made the call to ignore volatile political commentary from the U.S. President. "We try to ignore Trump," he said. He added that the president "changes opinion 10 times a day."

Anaconda kept buying specific names as prices swung. The fund added to Baker Hughes during March. It also bought shares in SLB and added tanker company Frontline after recent dips. SLB warned that first-quarter 2026 results would be lower than expected because of the Middle East conflict, saying extra costs would cut earnings by about 6 to 9 cents a share.

Markets and the supply shock

Traders and strategists have flagged the conflict as the main driver behind tighter oil markets. Disruptions to shipping lanes and insurance costs have made crude supply more uncertain.

That has pushed commodity strategists to lift price forecasts.

Goldman Sachs raised its average Brent forecast for 2026 to $85 a barrel from $77. The bank also projected Brent could average about $110 a barrel in April as uncertainty over supply disruptions grew. Those figures were cited by market sources discussing where investors put money this year.

Higher price projections make oilfield services more attractive. Firms that drill, maintain rigs, and move cargo see demand rise when producers need to react to outages. That's the basic trade Anaconda ran. It bought providers rather than pure producers. Service firms often benefit from higher drilling activity and rising day rates.

Mastheads

Where the renewables trades come in

At the same time, other hedge funds pursued the opposite wager in the green energy space. After Donald Trump won the U.S. Election, several funds built short positions in renewable energy companies. One estimate put gains from those bets at more than $1.2 billion across 20 stocks.

The short positions came after the political shift. Traders and fund managers saw a changed policy backdrop as an input to valuations. Shorting a company means betting its share price will fall. Those positions generated substantial profits for funds that timed them around the election outcome.

Those two threads ran in parallel. Some managers moved money into fossil-fuel exposure. Others positioned to profit from a potential pullback in renewables valuations tied to political and policy risk. The result was a reallocation of capital inside the broader energy complex.

Who benefits and who bears the pain

Investors and companies on different parts of the energy supply chain will feel the effects. Oilfield service providers benefited from higher activity and improved pricing. Their revenues and cash flows often rise faster than big oil producers when activity picks up. That helped funds that owned those stocks this year.

Companies in the renewables sector faced pressure when hedge funds built short positions. Short sellers profit when a stock falls. That puts extra downward pressure on share prices already sensitive to policy shifts and subsidy changes. Boards and management teams may face added scrutiny if their stock becomes a crowded short.

Retail investors also felt the swings. Some retail players who had held clean-energy positions saw sudden downdrafts. Others followed funds into energy service names and benefited. Exchange-traded funds offered a way for individuals to take sector bets without picking single stocks. Leveraged ETFs can amplify moves but come with higher risk.

Anaconda’s approach shows a specific risk stance. The fund deliberately ignored public statements from President Trump. Instead it focused on market fundamentals tied to physical supply. That trade required conviction and the willingness to hold through volatile headlines.

Shorting renewables required different skills. It often depends on timing, liquidity, and the availability of borrow for short positions. Funds that profited likely managed those operational details well and picked stocks where they judged downside outweighed any rapid policy support that might cushion falls.

Both strategies carry clear risks. Long positions in oil names are exposed to faster than expected easing in supply or demand weakness. Short positions in renewables are exposed to sudden policy support, takeover interest, or short squeezes. Managers run active risk controls to limit losses, but that doesn't remove the market risk entirely.

The pair of moves highlights a bigger trend this year. Capital has flowed more into fossil-fuel linked equities where traders see faster near-term returns tied to higher commodity prices. At the same time, political events have pushed some funds to bet against renewable equities. The two trends moved in opposite directions and produced big gains for those who timed them well.

Those flows also shape corporate behavior. When service firms see stronger share prices, they may find it easier to raise capital or strike deals. When renewable companies face heavy shorting, their financing costs or option strategies can become more costly. Capital markets respond to where money moves, and that can change corporate plans.

Related Articles

Renaud Saleur said the fund "tries to ignore Trump" as it built positions in oil and gas services while managing about $150 million.

This article was created with AI assistance.