Skip to main content
Track Commission analysis
17 / 32
Library

2015issue C0556

Filter unexecutable futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin

A historical execution screen ranks listed futures by how readily size can be bought or sold, multiplies an equal-dollar contract count by open interest, and reads posted margin against the three-year dollar range so implementation cost is judged from dollars at risk.

  • A liquidity filter ranks futures by activity intensity, historical range, and volume so thin books are rejected before an order is placed.
  • Open-interest analysis multiplies an equal-dollar contract count by outstanding open interest so the book, not recent prints, decides whether the ticket is absorbable.
  • Posted percent margin and effective percent margin must be read together, because face margin can understate implementation cost.
  • Contracts with one activity mark or none are treated as harder to enter and exit and less suitable for speculative tickets.
Entries in this reading3 entries

A pre-trade screen for listed futures

A futures liquidity filter can rank contracts by combining point value, the largest three-year price excursion, open interest, and a volume adjustment, then scoring activity so thicker books sit above thinner ones. The screen ranks how readily size can be bought or sold and rejects thin markets before an order is placed.

Rank contracts by how readily size trades

The liquidity filter uses activity intensity, historical range, and volume so thin markets are rejected before an order is placed. Contracts with one activity mark or none are treated as harder to enter and exit and therefore less suitable for speculative tickets.

Put every listed market on one dollar scale

The equal-dollar contract count is tick dollar value multiplied by the three-year maximum price excursion. That step places every listed market on one potential-dollar scale before liquidity is compared, so ranks are not distorted by contract size.

Let open interest decide whether the ticket fits

Relative contract liquidity is that equal-dollar contract count times total open interest times a volume factor, so open-interest analysis sits at the center of the execution rank. The sizing check multiplies the equal-dollar contract count by outstanding open interest so the book, not just recent prints, decides whether the ticket is absorbable.

Adjust the rank for trading activity

The volume factor is the greater of 1 and the exponential of the natural log of volume divided by the natural log of 5,000, minus 2. The scalar lifts busy markets and penalizes quiet ones against a 5,000-contract baseline.

Read posted margin against the three-year range

Posted percent margin and effective percent margin must be read together. Effective percent margin is margin dollars divided by the three-year dollar range of the contract, then scaled to a percentage. Commission analysis compares face margin against that range-adjusted figure so implementation cost is judged from dollars at risk, not the posted percentage alone.

Face margin can understate implementation cost. Eurodollar, two-year notes, and 30-day fed funds showed 0.1, 0.1, and 0 percent posted margin but 81.9, 26.7, and 85.6 percent effective margin, and needed 507, 183, and 873 contracts on the equal-dollar scale.

Compare rows, not isolated figures

Figures in any one comparison column are proportional and only meaningful against other rows in that column, because every contract is already scaled to a common dollar-profit unit.

An equity analog for activity

Equity trading activity can serve as a liquidity proxy when period volume is expressed as a percentage of shares outstanding. That share-turnover rate is the turnover of the float.

Posted margin versus effective margin across listed futures

A listed haircut near zero can still lock up most of the three-year dollar range. Thirty-day fed funds and eurodollar post almost no margin yet show effective rates above 80 percent, while corn and wheat post double-digit margins that sit close to their ranges. Every figure is copied from the May 2015 Stocks & Commodities futures-liquidity table.
A listed haircut near zero can still lock up most of the three-year dollar range. Thirty-day fed funds and eurodollar post almost no margin yet show effective rates above 80 percent, while corn and wheat post double-digit margins that sit close to their ranges. Every figure is copied from the May 2015 Stocks & Commodities futures-liquidity table.Listed U.S. commodity and financial futures · May 2015

Effective percent margin is posted margin in dollars divided by the contract’s three-year dollar range, then times 100. Rows keep the source order from most to least liquid.

Educational research material, not investment advice. Historical source context does not establish present-day performance.
17 of 32 in the Commission analysis track
201556-56 pp.Next on Commission analysisFutures liquidity ranking as an execution filterA liquidityFilter starts with activity marks and sets aside listings with one mark or none, which the archive treats as little activity.
All readings on this track · 32 readings
  1. 1985Matching ticket size to negotiable commission schedules
  2. 1985Minimum tickets can price a small book out of its own exit
  3. 1992Stop-order slippage as an execution cost filter
  4. 1993Cost-aware walk-forward evaluation of pattern-detector signals
  5. 2001Audit high-turnover operating conditions as one procedure
  6. 2002Front-load futures commission and slippage
  7. 2005Inactive account fees as hidden implementation cost
  8. 2010A pre-trade liquidity screen for futures contracts
  9. 2011Currency option venues, spreads, clearing, and premium cost
  10. 2012Filter futures contracts by liquidity and implementation cost
  11. 2012Futures commission versus one tick of cost
  12. 2012Ranking futures liquidity for executable orders
  13. 2013Filter option day trades by spread, volume, and fees
  14. 2013Filter futures by liquidity, open interest, and effective margin
  15. 2014Book futures data fees as implementation cost
  16. 2015Use a futures liquidity rank as a pre-trade checklist
  17. 2015Filter unexecutable futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin
  18. 2015Futures liquidity ranking as an execution filter
  19. 2015Filtering option trades by bid-ask width
  20. 2016Exchange quote fees as execution costs and liquidity filters
  21. 2016Filter futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin cost
  22. 2016Comparing dollar-index futures execution costs and liquidity
  23. 2016A futures liquidity ranking as a screen for executable orders
  24. 2017Filter a futures board by liquidity, open interest, and implementation cost
  25. 2017Filter futures contracts by liquidity and margin cost
  26. 2017How residency rules raise futures implementation costs
  27. 2018Screen listed futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin
  28. 2018Contract selection is the first filter on competing bitcoin futures
  29. 2018Filter futures execution by liquidity and margin
  30. 2018Commission analysis for brokerage execution costs
  31. 2019Ranking futures liquidity before you size the order
  32. 2020Brokerage selection as an implementation-cost problem
All 37 readings tagged Commission analysis
Also on Commission analysis5 readings