2015issue C0356
Use a futures liquidity rank as a pre-trade checklist
A futures liquidity rank multiplies contract point value, a three-year maximum price excursion, open interest, and a volume factor so contracts can be ordered by how easily they can be transacted. Editorial framing treats that table as a pre-trade checklist: apply a liquidity-filter first, confirm open interest can absorb the equal-dollar size, then read margin and contract-count columns as a cost screen.
- Apply a liquidity-filter first: activity dots, open interest, and volume must support the intended order, and a single marker or none is treated as thin activity.
- Open interest is an open-interest-weight in relative-contract-liquidity, multiplying contracts-to-trade and the volume-factor so outstanding inventory can absorb the equal-dollar size.
- Read the equal-dollar count next to percent margin and effective-percent-margin as a cost screen for implementation-cost, including the commission load that comes with extra contracts.
- In the March 2015 snapshot, the E-mini S&P 500 needed 5 contracts and led the relative-liquidity list, while 30-day fed funds needed 823 contracts and showed no activity markers.
A ranking table as a pre-trade screen
A futures liquidity rank is built by multiplying contract point value, a three-year maximum price excursion, open interest, and a volume factor so contracts can be ordered by how easily they can be transacted.
The volume adjustment in the rank is the greater of 1 and an exponential of the log of volume divided by the log of 5000, minus 2. The volume-factor is a low-or-high activity multiplier, typically from 1 to 4, that penalizes thinly traded contracts in the liquidity rank.
Relative-contract-liquidity is the comparative score that multiplies the equal-dollar contract count by open interest and a volume adjustment so listed futures can be ordered from easiest to hardest to transact.
Apply a liquidity filter first
Relative liquidity is marked with activity dots. A single marker or none is treated as thin activity and therefore a weaker candidate when a speculator needs an executable size.
A liquidity-filter keeps only contracts with enough activity markers, open interest, and volume to support the intended order.
Confirm open interest can absorb the size
Open interest enters the relative-liquidity score as a direct multiplier of the equal-dollar contract count and the volume factor.
Open-interest-weight is the outstanding contract inventory used as a multiplier when judging whether an intended size is executable.
Screen contract count and margin
The equal-dollar column states how many contracts of one market must be traded to match another market's three-year dollar range, so required size, and the commission load that comes with that size, can be compared across names. That figure is contracts-to-trade: how many contracts of one futures market must be worked to match another market's three-year dollar price range.
Effective percent margin is margin dollars divided by the three-year dollar range of the contract, then multiplied by one hundred. Percent margin and effective percent margin are shown together so capital lockup can be compared with each contract's historical dollar range before an order is sent.
Effective-percent-margin is initial margin expressed as a percentage of the contract's three-year dollar price range, used to compare how tightly capital is locked relative to historical range. Implementation-cost is the combined drag from extra contracts needed for equal dollar exposure, margin lockup, and poorer fill conditions in thin names.
What the March 2015 list showed
In the March 2015 snapshot, the E-mini S&P 500 required 5 contracts for equal dollar profit and sat at the top of the relative-liquidity list, while 30-day fed funds required 823 contracts and showed no activity markers.
Editorial note: the contrast is a checklist example, a name with activity and a small contracts-to-trade count versus a name with no activity markers and a large required size.
Equal-dollar contract count by futures market, March 2015

The source defines the count as tick dollar value times the three-year maximum price excursion, so every bar stands for the same dollar-profit potential. Rows follow the printed relative-liquidity order rather than being resorted by count.
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