During the recent climb and collapse in silver prices various commodity exchanges increased margin requirements repeatedly. Supporters applauded the move and said exchanges should have acted sooner, while opponents cried market manipulation. As a result the overall margin issue has become somewhat politicized. At MalHess Analytics we don’t do politics, but we do like looking at numbers.
Futures margin requirements exist because the exchanges guarantee all trades, so they want market participants to put up collateral against future losses. Logically, how much collateral is required should be based on the potential losses on the position. One way of measuring such is to look at market volatility along with the multiplier on the futures contract.
For example, during the April 25 24-hour trading session, Comex Silver had an over 4 pt high to low range. With a multiplier of $5,000 per contract, someone who caught the high and the low could have lost or made over $20,000. Using the then Comex initial margin requirement of $11,745, traders were theoretically risking losing twice their margin capital in one session. To put that into perspective using today’s mini S&P 500
futures contract, the Spoo would have to make an over 100 pt move in the span of one trading session to bust through as much margin capital.
To analyze the thinking behind the seven different margin hikes at the Comex this year, we constructed a ratio of the recent dollar volatility over the prior month before the margin hike to the pre-hike initial margin requirement. (Our dollar volatility was measured as the prior 21-day standard deviation of 1-day moves times the contract multiplier).
As the table below demonstrates, the amount of margin coverage has actually been falling, despite the various hikes, thanks to the exploding volatility in the silver market. The numbers speak more toward the exchange trying to keep up with increasing volatility than an attempt to reign in the market.
Going forward, the bigger question is whether there is anything predictive about changes in margin requirements.
Editor's Note: This article was originally published at MalHess Analytics. For related content, see Rebalancing Frequency.
No positions in stocks mentioned.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.
Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.