2011issue C0437
Silver contract-selection by size, hours, and carry
A silver price view can occupy different risk regimes once listed size, session length, and holding costs are treated as the first choice. This archive article reads those vehicle differences as contract-selection for a weeks-to-months book.
- Silver views were described as implementable through exchange-traded funds, foreign-exchange products, futures, futures options, or physical bullion, each with different access and cost constraints.
- A metal-backed-fund share was described as tracking the metal itself, while mining-equity funds add firm- and industry-specific risks that can detach results from the silver price.
- Overnight-margin, tick-value, session-mismatch, and borrow-interest were described as changing how large and how continuously a silver position moves, even when the price view is unchanged.
- Physical bullion and listed silver options were described as carrying bid-ask-friction, storage costs, or elevated premiums that change the holding regime of a silver view.
Why vehicle choice comes first
Silver price views were described as implementable through exchange-traded funds, foreign-exchange products, futures and futures options, or physical bullion. Each path was described as carrying different access and cost constraints.
TradersWeek editorial reading: those paths are not interchangeable silver exposure. Contract-selection is the step that matches one market view to listed size, venue hours, and holding costs before the position is placed in a weeks-to-months book.
Metal-backed-fund shares and mining funds
A metal-backed-fund share was described as representing 10 ounces of silver and as tracking the metal rather than mining-company equity. Short sales of those shares were described as requiring borrowed shares and borrow-interest.
Silver funds that hold mining equities rather than the metal were described as adding firm- and industry-specific risks that can detach results from the silver price.
Those metal-backed-fund listings were described as trading about nine hours a day while silver values continued to reprice around the clock. That gap is session-mismatch: the instrument is closed while the underlying market still moves.
Access limits and physical bullion
Then-current U.S. intermediation rules were described as preventing domestic futures and forex firms from offering silver or gold through a forex account. That constraint was described as limiting how a silver view could be housed in a forex book.
Physical bullion was described as adding storage, insurance, and shipping costs plus wide dealer spreads. Observed gaps of two to three dollars an ounce versus spot or nearby futures were described as part of that bid-ask-friction.
Standard futures and the mini-contract
The standard listed silver future was described as 5,000 troy ounces. It was described as needing 10,056 dollars of overnight-margin and as having a tick-value of 50 dollars per one-cent move, so a 50-cent session implied about 2,500 dollars of daily swing.
A mini-contract sized at one-fifth of that unit was described as changing by 10 dollars per penny, or about 500 dollars on a 50-cent day. One venue was described as trading that mini-contract nearly 22 hours without share borrow-interest. A competing mini listing was described as illiquid.
TradersWeek editorial reading: overnight-margin and tick-value set the leverage regime, while the longer mini-contract session reduces session-mismatch relative to a nine-hour fund share.
Options and bid-ask-friction
Listed silver options were described as having wide bid-ask spreads and elevated premiums that make outright long-option speculation difficult. That bid-ask-friction is another reason the same silver view can occupy a harder-to-hold regime once options are the vehicle.
How contract-selection changes the book
TradersWeek editorial reading: a weeks-to-months silver view first has to choose among a high-swing futures unit, a smaller mini-contract, a shorter-session metal-backed-fund with borrow-interest on the short side, physical metal with storage and dealer spreads, or options with wide markets. Those choices change the risk regime the position occupies even when the price opinion is unchanged.
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