2005issue C101-2
A two-gate liquidity filter for futures order routing
Treat futures execution as two gates: keep only a contract size and book you can enter and exit, then route the order to the concentrated venue instead of the faster-looking screen.
- A liquidity filter keeps only contract sizes and venues where an order can be placed and closed without outsized implementation cost.
- Order routing should send that executable order to the primary market, where depth, pricing, and exits were described as concentrated.
- Electronic matching can confirm fills when an open-outcry pit is congested, but electronic-only access can leave the order off the main book.
- A reduced-size contract lowers notional exposure per fill before the routing choice is made.
Two gates for an executable order
The archive describes futures execution as a choice of contract size, matching method, and marketplace. TradersWeek editorial: read that workflow as two gates. First run a liquidity filter so only a contract size and book you can enter and exit remain. Then route the surviving order to the concentrated venue rather than the faster-looking screen.
A liquidity filter is a pre-trade screen that keeps only contract sizes and venues where an order can be placed and closed without outsized implementation cost. Implementation cost is the combined effect of spread, impact, and venue choice on the price received versus the intended price.
Keep only a size you can exit
The archive used a reduced-size crude oil futures contract as the first-gate example. That listing was described as half the notional size of the standard contract, lowering exposure for a given position.
A reduced-size contract is a listed futures specification with smaller notional exposure than the standard contract, used to lower capital at risk per fill. The filter is not a forecast of price. It only keeps an order that can be placed and closed without outsized implementation cost.
Match electronically when the pit is congested
Electronic matching of that smaller energy contract was presented as a way to obtain quicker, more accurate fills and confirmations when open-outcry pits were congested by volume and volatility. Electronic matching is screen-based matching that can run nearly around the clock and confirm fills when a floor book is congested.
An open-outcry pit is floor-based matching that, in this period, still hosted the main book for several futures products. Several widely traded futures products were described as remaining mostly or only executed in open-outcry pits rather than on electronic platforms. Speed of the screen does not, by itself, make the book executable.
Route to the primary market
Order routing is the choice of marketplace that receives an executable order, based on depth, spread, and expected fill and exit quality. Order flow was described as gravitating to the marketplace with the deepest liquidity, on the presumption of fairer pricing, better execution, and easier exits.
The primary market is the venue that holds most volume and is treated as the reference for pricing and exit. In one archive comparison of a single day, an incumbent gold futures venue printed more than 56,000 contracts while a newer electronic listing printed about 1,100, or 1.9 percent of total 100-ounce gold futures volume. Attempts by one exchange to take share from an incumbent were characterized as typically struggling to dislodge the liquid primary market.
What electronic-only access can miss
Access limited to electronic markets was said to risk trading away from the primary venue, where liquidity, pricing, and execution were often superior, and in some cases to prevent trading certain products altogether.
TradersWeek editorial: a faster-looking screen is not the second gate if it is not the primary market. After the liquidity filter keeps a size and book you can enter and exit, route the order to the venue that actually holds the concentrated book.
All readings on this track · 30 readings
- 1988Why instant basket routing overwhelms specialist liquidity
- 2004Retail forex tickets as implementation-cost contracts
- 2005A two-gate liquidity filter for futures order routing
- 2006Manual after-hours routing and open-outcry fill risk
- 2010A futures brokerage quote is an execution specification
- 2011Smart order routing, maker-taker, and midpoint execution costs
- 2012Compare equivalent listings before routing
- 2012Rebate-aware routing and execution cost
- 2012Platform routing, fees, and server-side stops
- 2013Compare equivalent listings, then route the order
- 2013Confirm routing, margin, and fill cost before a live forex order
- 2013Brokerage choice as an execution-cost and routing filter
- 2014Order routing, pass-through rebates, and liquidity choice
- 2014Comparing exchange venues before routing the order
- 2014Selecting a futures broker as an execution-architecture problem
- 2014Commission shopping is the wrong first filter for a futures order
- 2015Routing orders when equivalent products trade on multiple venues
- 2015Forex venue checks for speed, margin, and implementation cost
- 2015Backup venues and symbol splits in futures routing
- 2016Route orders across competing exchange venues
- 2016Filter exchange venues before routing orders
- 2017Venue choice as an order-routing filter
- 2017Venue routing for equivalent listed contracts
- 2017Forex broker checks for fill speed, quote honor, and margin
- 2017Brokerage choice as an execution-speed and commission filter
- 2018Routing equivalent contracts across competing venues
- 2018Forex venue selection by fill speed, margin terms, and price honor
- 2019Forex execution filters for routing, cost, and liquidity
- 2020Routing equivalent listings across competing exchanges
- 2020Brokerage filters for routing, commissions, and liquidity