Skip to content
All library documents

How Opening and Closing Trades Change Futures Open Interest

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Zhanxiong

Summary

The document explains why a futures trade can increase, decrease, or leave open interest unchanged. The key is that “new” and “closing” refer to positions in the same listed contract, rather than separate contracts with different maturities. When both traders open positions, the trade adds an outstanding contract; when both close existing positions, it removes one. If one trader opens and the other closes, the contract remains open but effectively changes hands, so open interest is unchanged.

The discussion distinguishes open interest, the count of outstanding contracts, from volume, which counts transactions during a session. It also notes that clearing and delivery processes do not require the original counterparties to remain matched over time. This is a conceptual explanation supported by trade scenarios, not an empirical study. It does not address how open interest should be used as a trading signal, and delivery mechanics can vary by contract.

Key ideas

  • Open interest counts outstanding futures contracts, not the number of trades executed.
  • When both sides open positions, open interest increases by one contract.
  • When both sides close positions, open interest decreases by one contract.
  • When one side opens and the other closes, open interest stays constant as the position transfers.
  • Clearing and delivery can match remaining positions with counterparties other than the original traders.

Tags

Full text
# Open Interest Change in Futures Trading


# Open Interest Change in Futures Trading












To Problem 2.22 in Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives (8th edition) below:

> When a futures contract is traded on the floor of the exchange, it may be the case that the open interest increases by one, stays the same, or decreases by one." Explain this statement.

the Solution is:

> If both sides of the transaction are entering into a new contract, the open interest increases by one. If both sides of the transaction are closing out existing positions, the open interest decreases by one. If one party is entering into a new contract and the other party is closing out an existing position, the open interest stays the same.

I can understand the "increases by one" case but have difficulty in understanding the latter two cases, probably I did not fully understand the "closing out" process. By my understanding, "closing out" means "executing a reversing transaction that is exactly the same as his original trade" and "the positions is usually closed out by entering into a new arrangement with another party" (source). Therefore, "closing out the existing position" does not necessarily imply that the original contract is gone (hence "decreases the open interest by one").

To be more specific, let $A$ and $B$ denote the two parties that traded the new futures contract $x$. Suppose $A$'s existing position is the long position of contract $y$, and $B$'s existing position is the short position of contract $z$. Here both $y$ and $z$ were settled prior to the time that $x$ was settled, which is denoted by $t$. By assumption, $x, y, z$ have the same maturity time $T > t$. In addition, at $t$, $A$ shorts $x$ and $B$ longs $x$. Under this setting, the number of long positions did not decrease by one, but increases by one (in addition to $y$, there is a new outstanding $x$).

Where did I my understanding go wrong?

## Answer by dm63 (score 3, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/74000

There seems to some confusion about the language. The book is referring to trades that are all on the same futures contract , just done at different times and different prices. So when it says ‘new contract’ it should really say ‘new trade on the same contract ‘. Then it should become obvious. If you are long 1 contract of the TYH3 for example , then you enter into a new trade where you sell one contract later at a different price, you have closed out your position. Now when you sell a futures contract, there is some participant in the other side who buys it. If that person is also closing out a position, the open interest has decreased. If that person is entering a new long, then the effect is just to transfer your long to someone else, so there is no change in open interest. Does this help. ?

## Answer by AKdemy (score 3)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/74053

@dm63 answer is correct, I just wanted to add some details that helped me when I first started learning about Open Interest (OI). I think it was also helpful to also look at Volume at the same time.

OI is defined as the total number of contracts (listed option or futures) that have not been closed (offset), liquidated, or delivered. With this definition, each transaction can affect OI in one of 3 ways

• Increases • Decreases • Remains unchanged

Volume on the other hand starts every day from zero and counts every transaction.

The below is a simple illustration of the impact on OI and volume for trades during a single session:

- The first and second examples should be clear.

- The third reduces OI because the transaction closes out existing contracts of A and D.

- The fourth is the one you seem to have trouble with. To best understand this (as well as the third example), you need to understand how delivery works.

The following graphic from the CME shows that in the central counterparty clearing model, CME clearing confirms, clears and settles all CME Group trades.

It also regulates delivery, among other things. Cash settlement is easy to understand, because it is just dollar payments that need to be distributed correctly. Physical settlement is the tricky part and I suggest reading any contract's details on the respective website for the specifics. In the example of CME lumber, all participants with remaining long and short positions will be matched with an emphasis on keeping size together for Exchange delivery. Once matches are made, the party providing shipping instructions has two business days to do so. Therefore, the contracts do not need to have the same counterparties over time. If B "lost" A, it will just be matched to someone else (if B does not close out prior to expiry as well).

This link desribes the delivery of US treaury futures (most importing for your purpose is the section: "The role of the clearing firm").

The same logic applies to any exchange. Hope this helps.

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.