Huge part of the reason why negative prices exist in the first place is separation of generation and transmission. With pay-as-clear model negligible-variable-costs generators (i.e. renewables) can bid at zero and pump more into the grid than the local segment can drain, requiring artificial balancing sinks. However, the cost of artificial sinks fall on the grid as transmission costs and are not reflected in the wholesale market.
The REIT ones e.g. are much less clearly positive than this and e.g. the variance swap and co. folks at least have the decency to be so exotic that nobody cares either way.
That's a very bold statement.
Huge part of the reason why negative prices exist in the first place is separation of generation and transmission. With pay-as-clear model negligible-variable-costs generators (i.e. renewables) can bid at zero and pump more into the grid than the local segment can drain, requiring artificial balancing sinks. However, the cost of artificial sinks fall on the grid as transmission costs and are not reflected in the wholesale market.
I'd make the same argument for the other markets they operate in.
The REIT ones e.g. are much less clearly positive than this and e.g. the variance swap and co. folks at least have the decency to be so exotic that nobody cares either way.