2012issue C0277
Filter futures contracts by liquidity and implementation cost
A futures liquidity rank can drop contracts whose activity cannot absorb an order. Open interest and posted margin then become implementation-cost checks on whether the remaining order is executable at all.
- A liquidity filter is a pass-or-fail screen that keeps only contracts whose activity and book can absorb an order over its life cycle.
- Open-interest analysis treats outstanding contracts as evidence of how much size the market can absorb when ranking execution quality.
- Commission analysis converts posted margin and related trading frictions into an implementation-cost comparison before the order is sent.
- Liquidity and margin figures are proportional measures and are meaningful only when compared with other contracts in the same column.
What the screen decides
The archive workflow ranks futures contracts on liquidity and restates posted margin as an effective percent. Both results are filters. They keep or drop an order before it is sent.
A liquidity filter is a pass-or-fail screen that keeps only contracts whose activity and book can absorb an order over its life cycle. Open-interest analysis is a filter that treats outstanding contracts as evidence of how much size the market can absorb when ranking execution quality. Commission analysis is a filter that converts posted margin and related trading frictions into an implementation-cost comparison before the order is sent.
Drop names the book cannot absorb
A futures liquidity rank can be built by multiplying contract point value, a three-year maximum price move, open interest, and a volume factor. That volume factor is usually scaled from 1 to 4 when activity is unusually light or heavy.
Relative contract liquidity can also be stated as contracts-to-trade times total open interest times a volume factor. In that construction the volume factor is the greater of 1 and exp(ln(volume)/ln(5000)) minus 2.
The equal-dollar contract count equals tick dollar value times the three-year maximum price excursion, so every figure in that column represents the same dollar opportunity.
Treat outstanding contracts as absorbable size
Open interest enters both liquidity constructions. It is a multiplier in the point-value rank, and the alternative rank multiplies contracts-to-trade by total open interest and a volume factor.
Used this way, outstanding contracts are not a forecast of direction. They are evidence of how much size the market can absorb when execution quality is ranked.
Convert margin into an implementation-cost comparison
Effective percent margin equals dollar margin divided by the three-year range of contract dollar value, then multiplied by 100. That restatement sits inside commission analysis: posted margin and related trading frictions become a comparison before the order is sent.
TradersWeek editorial reading: treat the effective percent as a margin lock-up check on contracts that already passed the liquidity filter. A large lock-up relative to other names in the same column is a reason to treat the order as not executable on cost grounds.
Use share turnover as an equity liquidity proxy
Equity trading activity can be treated as a liquidity proxy by expressing period volume as a percentage of shares outstanding, which is a share turnover rate. That construction belongs to the same pass-or-fail liquidity idea, with turnover standing in for futures activity.
All readings on this track · 32 readings
- 1985Matching ticket size to negotiable commission schedules
- 1985Minimum tickets can price a small book out of its own exit
- 1992Stop-order slippage as an execution cost filter
- 1993Cost-aware walk-forward evaluation of pattern-detector signals
- 2001Audit high-turnover operating conditions as one procedure
- 2002Front-load futures commission and slippage
- 2005Inactive account fees as hidden implementation cost
- 2010A pre-trade liquidity screen for futures contracts
- 2011Currency option venues, spreads, clearing, and premium cost
- 2012Filter futures contracts by liquidity and implementation cost
- 2012Futures commission versus one tick of cost
- 2012Ranking futures liquidity for executable orders
- 2013Filter option day trades by spread, volume, and fees
- 2013Filter futures by liquidity, open interest, and effective margin
- 2014Book futures data fees as implementation cost
- 2015Use a futures liquidity rank as a pre-trade checklist
- 2015Filter unexecutable futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin
- 2015Futures liquidity ranking as an execution filter
- 2015Filtering option trades by bid-ask width
- 2016Exchange quote fees as execution costs and liquidity filters
- 2016Filter futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin cost
- 2016Comparing dollar-index futures execution costs and liquidity
- 2016A futures liquidity ranking as a screen for executable orders
- 2017Filter a futures board by liquidity, open interest, and implementation cost
- 2017Filter futures contracts by liquidity and margin cost
- 2017How residency rules raise futures implementation costs
- 2018Screen listed futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin
- 2018Contract selection is the first filter on competing bitcoin futures
- 2018Filter futures execution by liquidity and margin
- 2018Commission analysis for brokerage execution costs
- 2019Ranking futures liquidity before you size the order
- 2020Brokerage selection as an implementation-cost problem