NISM Professor

Liquidity risk

Also written Illiquidity risk

The risk of being unable to get out of a position at or near the quoted price — because the contract is bilateral, because the order book is thin, or because volumes dry up near expiry.

In plain language

Every profit and loss you see on a screen is notional until you can actually close the position. Liquidity risk is the gap between the two.

It shows up in two quite different places in this paper, and they are examined separately.

In the forward market it is structural. A forward is written to one pair of parties' exact requirements and is not listed anywhere, so no third party wants it or can find it. There is no exit before maturity except by agreement with the original counterparty.

In the exchange-traded derivatives market it is a matter of depth. The contract is standardised and anyone can trade it — but only if somebody is on the other side right now, at a sensible price, in the quantity you need. When they are not, you are holding a loss you cannot stop.

How it works

The workbook is specific about when the exchange-traded version bites: trading volumes in stock futures and options typically fall as the contracts near their expiry date, and clients holding positions in such contracts may find it difficult to close them. The far-month contract and the deep out-of-the-money strike are thinly traded all the time.

The damage arrives through two channels at once. First, the bid-ask spread widens, so the round trip costs more. Second, impact cost rises, because the size you need to shift is large relative to the quantity resting at the best quote. Both are the price of demanding immediacy from a market that has stopped offering it.

The workbook is equally specific that counterparty risk is generally not applicable to a client trading exchange-traded equity derivatives, because settlement is guaranteed by the exchange and the clearing corporation. Liquidity risk is not removed by that guarantee. The clearing corporation promises that the trade you did will settle. It does not promise that somebody will be there to take the other side of the trade you now want to do.

A worked example

A trader is long 3 lots of a mid-cap stock future, lot size 1,100, entered at Rs 640.

Contract value = 3 × 1,100 × 640 = Rs 21,12,000

Two days before expiry the contract is quoted at Rs 612. On screen the loss looks like:

(612 − 640) × 3,300 = −Rs 92,400

Now he tries to square off 3,300 shares. The order book has thinned as expiry approaches:

Buy qtyBid (Rs)
400610.20
900607.50
2,000604.80

His sell order walks all three levels:

Actual price = (400 × 610.20 + 900 × 607.50 + 2,000 × 604.80) ÷ 3,300
             = (2,44,080 + 5,46,750 + 12,09,600) ÷ 3,300 = Rs 606.19

Realised loss = (606.19 − 640) × 3,300 = −Rs 1,11,573

Rs 19,173 worse than the screen said, and the best bid was already Rs 1.80 below the last traded price before he started. Nothing went wrong with his view on the stock. The extra loss is the cost of needing to leave a market that had already emptied out.

In the same expiry week the near-month contract on an index would have absorbed the whole order inside the spread. Same trader, same conviction, different contract, Rs 19,173.

Why NISM asks about it

Liquidity risk appears twice. Chapter 3, section 3.1, lists it as the first limitation of forwards — tailor-made contracts are not accessible to other participants, so exiting before maturity is very difficult. Chapter 10, section 10.1, lists it as one of the three risks of trading equity derivatives, alongside market risk and counterparty risk, with the expiry-week volume point attached. Questions typically ask you to attribute a described situation to the right risk, so keep the three apart: market risk is the price moving against you, liquidity risk is not being able to get out, counterparty risk is the other side not paying.

Common exam traps

  • Liquidity risk is not counterparty risk. They are listed as separate limitations of forwards and as separate risks in Chapter 10. A question describing "unable to exit before maturity" is liquidity; "the other party refuses to deliver" is counterparty.
  • The clearing corporation guarantee does not cure liquidity risk. It removes counterparty risk for exchange-traded derivatives and nothing else.
  • Illiquidity is worst exactly when you need liquidity most — near expiry, in far-month contracts, in deep out-of-the-money strikes, and in a falling market.
  • Liquidity risk is measured, in practice, as impact cost. If a question links the two, it is not a trick; they are the same phenomenon seen from two sides.
  • A forward's illiquidity comes from customisation plus the absence of a listing, not from the size of the contract.

Check yourself

  1. 1.Why is counterparty risk generally NOT applicable to clients trading in exchange-traded equity derivatives?

    1. a)Because counterparties are always creditworthy
    2. b)Because settlement of such transactions is guaranteed by the exchange or clearing corporation
    3. c)Because SEBI compensates any defaulted amount
    4. d)Because all trades are settled in cash
    Show the answer

    Answer: (b) Because settlement of such transactions is guaranteed by the exchange or clearing corporation

    Counterparty risk is the risk arising out of the default of a counterparty to the transaction. It is generally not applicable to clients trading in exchange-traded equity derivatives because the settlement of such transactions is guaranteed by the exchange or clearing corporation.

    That guarantee is the central benefit of an exchange-traded market over an OTC one, and it is why the clearing corporation sits between every buyer and seller.

    The other two main risks do apply: market risk — the price moving unfavourably — and liquidity risk, the inability to liquidate a loss-making position, which worsens as trading volumes typically fall as contracts near their expiry date.

  2. 2.Why is it very difficult to exit a forward contract before its maturity?

    1. a)Because exchanges impose a regulatory lock-in on all forward contracts
    2. b)Because forwards are tailor-made and are not listed or traded on exchanges, so other participants cannot easily access them
    3. c)Because the clearing corporation refuses early termination requests
    4. d)Because forward contracts carry a very high exit penalty fixed by SEBI
    Show the answer

    Answer: (b) Because forwards are tailor-made and are not listed or traded on exchanges, so other participants cannot easily access them

    This is liquidity risk. Forward terms are set to the specific requirements of the two parties, so other market participants may not be interested in that contract. And because forwards are not listed or traded on exchanges, others cannot easily reach either the contract or the contracting parties.

    Options A, C and D all invent a regulatory or institutional barrier. The real barrier is simply that nobody else wants your uniquely shaped contract, and there is no marketplace in which to offer it.

Where this is taught

Free preparation for NISM Series XIX-E

Related terms

← All terms
Something look wrong? Report it