2013issue C0561
Filter option day trades by spread, volume, and fees
Listed options are not equally executable. Rank a name by bid-ask width and average daily option volume, then reject strikes whose spread or commission drag cannot be recovered inside a short-horizon order.
- Listed options across several thousand stocks, funds, and indexes are not equally executable, so a liquidity filter belongs before the short-horizon order.
- Bid-ask width is the first cost screen, and average daily option volume is the ranking used for short-term executability.
- Apply the screen to front-month and weekly expiration contracts, and treat gaps on a one-minute at-the-money chart as a fill-quality warning.
- Commission drag can erase percentage results on deep out-of-the-money contracts; after both filters, at-the-money strikes are the more balanced default.
Treat executability as a gate
Across several thousand optionable stocks, funds, and indexes, listed options are not equally executable. A liquidity filter is required before a short-horizon order is placed.
Editorial reading: rank a name by quote width and printed volume first. Then reject strikes whose bid-ask spread or commission drag cannot be recovered inside the order's life.
Start with bid-ask width
Bid-ask width is a primary liquidity filter. When typical liquid-option spreads ran 0.25 to 0.50, covering a buy-the-offer and sell-the-bid round trip required about a 0.50 move. That bid-ask spread is the first visible cost of buying the offer and selling the bid.
A 2006 penny-increment listing program for the most active names allowed some options to quote only pennies wide. By then the list covered 370 stocks and funds, described as roughly the top tenth by liquidity.
Rank names by printed volume
Sorting names by total average daily option volume is presented as the decisive ranking for short-term executability. One snapshot placed a large-cap technology name first at 2,789,112 contracts.
Screen the tenor you will trade
Short-horizon traders often use front-month and one-week Friday expirations rather than longer-dated contracts. The liquidity filter should be applied to those weekly expiration and front-month tenors, not only to the underlying name.
Gaps on a one-minute at-the-money call or put chart are treated as a warning that spreads or prints are too thin for frequent in-and-out trading. The chart-gap screen is that fill-quality check.
Add the commission filter
Deep out-of-the-money contracts can show less quoted slippage, but commission drag can erase percentage gains or deepen losses. Deep in-the-money contracts can still widen even in otherwise liquid names.
After those spread and commission filters, at-the-money options are presented as the more balanced default for short-horizon execution. The at-the-money strike is typically the most two-sided listing in a name.
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