2015issue C0656
A two-stage liquidity filter for futures contract selection
A listed-futures liquidity rank starts by converting each listing into an equal-dollar contract count on the same three-year range, then multiplies that size by open interest and a volume factor. The result is a descending activity mark. Posted margin is a separate column and is not a liquidity signal.
- Equal-dollar contract count is tick dollar value times the three-year maximum price excursion, so every market in that column is scaled to the same dollar value.
- Relative contract liquidity multiplies that count by total open interest and a volume factor, then ranks the result as descending activity marks.
- Effective percent margin divides dollar margin by the same three-year contract-dollar range and multiplies by 100; a thin posted margin is not a depth filter.
- Each column is a proportional measure and is meaningful only when compared with other entries in the same column.
Size the book before ranking activity
Editorial: treat the archive workflow as a two-stage execution habit. First convert each listing into a contract count that matches the same three-year dollar range. Then use open interest and a volume adjustment to see whether that sized book can actually be worked.
The first stage is the equal-dollar contract count. It equals tick dollar value times the three-year maximum price excursion, so every market in that column is scaled to the same dollar value. That count is how many contracts of one listing are needed to match another listing's potential dollar range.
The second stage is open-interest analysis. Outstanding contract count, together with a volume factor, is the depth input that turns the equal-dollar size into a measure of how easily the full book can be traded.
Relative contract liquidity
Relative contract liquidity is the equal-dollar contract count times total open interest times a volume factor. A listed-futures liquidity rank can be shown as a descending activity mark, with the densest row indicating the most activity and a single mark or none indicating little activity.
That rank is produced by multiplying contract point value, a three-year maximum conceivable price move, open interest, and a low-or-high volume factor usually set between 1 and 4. In the supplied construction the volume factor is the greater of 1 and the exponential of the natural log of volume divided by the natural log of 5000, minus 2.
In the 2015 ranking the E-mini S&P 500 used 5 contracts on the equal-dollar scale and led the activity marks, while the 30-day fed-funds listing used 865 contracts and showed no activity marks.
Contracts needed for equal three-year dollar profit

The source sizes every listing on the same three-year maximum price excursion so the contract counts are equal-dollar, then ranks liquidity separately as that count times open interest times a volume factor. Ranked here are the 43 listings that report a contract count; listings shown only as a liquidity-dot string without a count are omitted.
Margin efficiency is a different comparison
Effective percent margin is dollar margin divided by the three-year price range of contract dollar value, then multiplied by 100, so posted margin can be compared with the same historical range used in the size column.
Each column is a proportional measure and is meaningful only when compared with other entries in the same column.
Share turnover as a stock-market proxy
For listed shares, period volume as a percentage of shares outstanding can be treated as a turnover-rate proxy for trading activity and, by extension, trading liquidity.
Choosing among listed futures
Futures contract selection in this workflow waits until markets have been placed on an equal-dollar footing and then compared on relative liquidity and margin efficiency versus the same three-year range.
The liquidity filter is the screen that ranks listed futures by how readily a dollar-comparable size can be bought or sold, combining price range, activity, and a volume adjustment so low-activity contracts can be set aside before an order is placed.
All readings on this track · 51 readings
- 2002Single-stock futures and the sleeve that belongs on the ticket
- 2007Ethanol futures liquidity lagged the policy boom
- 2010Relative liquidity ranking for futures contract selection
- 2010A liquidity filter for executable futures contract selection
- 2010Screening futures by liquidity, open interest, and equal-dollar size
- 2010Ranking futures liquidity for executable contract choice
- 2010Liquidity and open interest screens for futures selection
- 2010Ranking futures by open interest and equal-dollar liquidity
- 2011Liquidity filter for futures contract selection
- 2011Futures liquidity rank as an execution filter
- 2011Silver contract-selection by size, hours, and carry
- 2011Filtering futures by liquidity, open interest and equal-dollar size
- 2011Liquidity and open interest as a screen for futures selection
- 2011A futures liquidity filter for equal-dollar execution
- 2012Ranking futures liquidity before choosing a contract
- 2013Liquidity-first futures contract selection
- 2013Equal-dollar liquidity filter for futures contract choice
- 2013Futures liquidity filters for executable contract selection
- 2013Filter listed futures by liquidity and open interest first
- 2013Ranking listed futures by liquidity and equal-dollar size
- 2013A pre-trade liquidity filter for futures contract selection
- 2014Why commodity futures are trades, not long-horizon holdings
- 2014Rank futures liquidity before selecting the contract
- 2014Filter futures by equal-dollar liquidity and open interest
- 2015Filter futures contracts by liquidity and open interest
- 2015A two-stage liquidity filter for futures contract selection
- 2015Screen futures contracts by liquidity and open interest
- 2015Equal-dollar futures choice as a liquidity filter
- 2016Evaluate futures liquidity before contract selection
- 2016Ranking futures liquidity before you pick the contract
- 2016Filter listed futures by relative liquidity and open interest
- 2017Evaluating futures liquidity for executable contract selection
- 2017A relative liquidity rank for choosing an executable futures contract
- 2017Constructing a futures liquidity filter for contract selection
- 2017Filter futures by liquidity, open interest, and equal-dollar size
- 2017Rank futures liquidity before contract selection
- 2017Build a futures liquidity filter from open interest
- 2018Evaluating futures liquidity for executable contract choice
- 2018Volume-confirmed pivots versus unregulated spot exposure
- 2018Executable futures selection from a 2018 liquidity board
- 2018Evaluate futures liquidity before contract selection
- 2018Open-interest liquidity filter for futures contract selection
- 2018Construct a futures liquidity filter from open interest and range
- 2018Ranking futures by liquidity, open interest, and equal-dollar cost
- 2019Ranking futures liquidity before contract selection
- 2019Ranking futures liquidity before you pick a contract
- 2019Screening futures by equal-dollar liquidity
- 2020Building an equal-dollar futures liquidity screen
- 2020Use liquidity and open interest as a futures execution screen
- 2020Compact index futures as diversified contract selection
- 2020Filter futures by range-scaled liquidity and open interest