Options on the E-mini S&P 500 Futures at the CME: when were EW3, the weekly Monday options and the weekly Wednesday options introduced?
Why do you care? In any case, you can easily Google the answer... Effective Sunday, April 2, 2017 for trade date Monday, April 3, 2017, and pending all relevant CFTC   regulatory review periods, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME” or “Exchange”) will list Monday   Weekly Options on the E-mini Standard and Poor’s Stock Price Index Futures and Standard and Poor’s   500 Stock Price Index Futures contracts (collectively the “Contracts”) for trading on CME Globex and for   submission for clearing via CME ClearPort as described in Appendix A below. Appendix B below provides   the Exchange fee schedule for the Contracts. source "The traditional E-mini S&P500 options (introduced on 09/09/97) already expire on the 3rd Friday, so there's no need for another ""weekly"" option that expires at the same time."
The CBOE site, as well as some other sites and trading platforms, will show the bid/ask and statistics for that option at each individual options exchange, in addition to statistics and the best bid/offer across all exchanges. cboe.com: Delayed Quote Help lists what the single-letter codes mean. A is for the AMEX options exchange, B is for BOX, X is for PHLX, etc. "I'm familiar with and have traded U.S.-listed LEAPS and I've always used the CBOE quotes page you linked to.  So, I too was surprised I couldn't find 3M (MMM) LEAPS quotes at that page, even after checking the ""List all options, LEAPS, Credit Options & Weeklys if avail."" radio button.  Used to work! Fortunately, I was able to get access to the full chain of option quotes from the CBOE's other quotes page:  Go to the ""Quotes & Data"" menu, then select Delayed Quotes - NEW!  Here's how: I think the new interface is terrible: it's too many steps to get to the information desired.  I preferred the all-in-one table of the Delayed Quotes Classic page, the one you linked to. As to why that classic page isn't yielding the full chain, I can only suggest it is a recently introduced bug (software defect).  I certainly was able to get LEAPS quotes from that page before. On Yahoo! Finance option quotes: I don't know why their chain is incomplete – I can't see the logic, for instance, as to why MMM Jan 2012 60 calls are missing.  I thought at first it may be lack of volume or open interest, but nope.  Anyway, I don't trust Yahoo! to provide accurate, reliable quotes anyway, having seen too many errors and missing data in particular in the feed of Canadian stocks, which I also trade. I rely on the exchange's quotes, and my broker's real-time quotes.  I check Yahoo! only for convenience sake, and when it actually matters I go to the other more reliable sources. For what it's worth, though, you can also get full chain option quotes at NASDAQ.  See here for the 3M (MMM) example then click on the ""Jan 12"" link near the top.  However, I would consider CBOE's quotes more definitive, since they are the options exchange." "The SEC regulation on insider trading is ""engage in the purchase and sale of any security on the basis of material non public information"".  The case I remember off the top of my head is Kodak developing an instant photo camera in the 1970s, and about 4 months before Kodak made this knowledge public, the CBOE had to close options trading on Polaroid because they had an excessive buildup of uncovered short positions." There are lots of good answers on here already.  There are actually lots of answers for this question.  Lots.  I have years of experience on the exchange feed side and there are hundreds and thousands of variables.   All of these variables are funneled into systems owned by large financial institutions (I used to manage these - and only a few companies in the world do this so not hard to guess who I work for).  Their computers then make trades based on all of these variables and equations.  There are variables as whacky as how many times was a company mentioned in an aggregate news feed down to your basic company financials.  But if there is a way to measure a company (or to just guess) there is an equation for it plugged into a super computer at a big bank. Now there are two important factors on why you see this mad dash in the morning: Now most of the rest of the day is also automated trades but by the time you are an hour into market open the computers for the most part have fulfilled their calendar buys.  Everyone else's answer is right too.  There is futures contracts that change, global exchange info changes, options expiring, basic news, whatever but all of these are amplified by the calendar day changing. "You avoid pattern day trader status by trading e-mini futures through a futures broker. The PDT rules do not apply in the futures markets. Some of the markets that are available include representatives covering the major indices i.e the YM (DJIA), ES (S&P 500) and NQ (Nasdaq 100) and many more markets.  You can take as many round-turn trades as you care to...as many or as few times a day  as you like. E-mini futures contracts trade in sessions with ""transition"" times between sessions. -- Sessions begin Sunday evenings at 6 PM EST and are open through Monday evening at 5 PM EST...The next session begins at 6 pm Monday night running through Tuesday at 5 PM EST...etc...until Friday's session close at 5 PM EST. Just as with stocks, you can either buy first then sell (open and close a position) or short-sell (sell first then cover by buying). You profit (or lose) on a round turn trade in the same manor as you would if trading stocks, options, ETFs etc. The e-mini futures are different than the main futures markets that you may have seen traders working in the ""pits"" in Chicago...E-mini futures are totally electronic (no floor traders) and do not involve any potential delivery of the 'product'...They just require the closing of positions to end a transaction.  A main difference is you need to maintain very little cash in your account in order to trade...$1000 or less per trade, per e-mini contract...You can trade just 1 contract at a time or as many contracts as you have the cash in your account to cover.   ""Settlement"" is immediate upon closing out any position that you may have put on...No waiting for clearing before your next trade.  If you want to hold an e-mini contract position over 2 or more sessions, you need to have about $5000 per contract in your account to cover the minimum margin requirement that comes into play during the transition between sessions... With the e-minis you are speculating on gaining from the difference between when you 'put-on' and ""close-out"" a position in order to profit. For example, if you think the DJIA is about to rise 20 points, you can buy 1 contract. If you were correct in your assessment and sold your contract after the e-mini rose 20 points, you profited $100. (For the DJIA e-mini, each 1 point 'tick' is valued at $5.00)" "As mentioned in other answers, you find out by reading the Rulebook for that commodity and exchange.  I'll quote a couple of random passages to show how they vary: For CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) Random Length Lumber Futures, the delivery is ornate: Seller shall give his Notice of Intent to Deliver to the Clearing   House prior to 12:00 noon (on any Business Day after termination of   trading in the contract month. 20103.D. Seller's Duties If the buyer's designated destination is east of the western boundaries of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska,   Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma, and the western boundary of Manitoba,   Canada, the seller shall follow the buyer's shipping instructions   within seven (7) Business Days after receipt of such instructions. In   addition, the seller shall prepay the actual freight charges and bill   the buyer, through the Clearing House, the lowest published freight   rate for 73-foot railcars from Prince George, British Columbia to the   buyer's destination. If the lowest published freight rate from Prince   George, British Columbia to buyer's destination is a rate per one   hundred pounds, the seller shall bill the buyer on the weight basis of   1,650 pounds per thousand board feet. The term ""lowest published   freight rate"" refers only to the lowest published ""general through   rate"" and not to rates published in any other rate class. If, however, the buyer’s destination is outside of the aforementioned   area, the seller shall follow the same procedures except that the   seller shall have the right to change the point of origin and/or   originating carrier within 2 Business Days after receipt of buyer’s   original shipping instructions. If a change of origin and/or   originating carrier is made, the seller shall then follow the buyer's   revised instructions within seven (7) Business Days after receipt of   such instructions. If the freight rate to the buyer's destination is not published, the   freight charge shall be negotiated between the buyer and seller in   accordance with industry practice. Any additional freight charges resulting from diversion by the buyer   in excess of the actual charges for shipment to the destination   specified in the shipping instructions submitted to the Clearing House   are the responsibility of the buyer. Any reduction in freight charges   that may result from a diversion is not subject to billing adjustment   through the Clearing House. Any applicable surcharges noted by the   rail carrier shall be considered as part of the freight rate and can   be billed to the buyer through the CME Clearing House. If within two (2) Business Days of the receipt of the Notice of Intent   the buyer has not designated a destination, or if during that time the   buyer and seller fail to agree on a negotiated freight charge, the   seller shall treat the destination as Chicago, Illinois. If the buyer   does not designate a carrier or routing, the seller shall select same   according to normal trade practices. To complete delivery, the seller   must deposit with the Clearing House a Delivery Notice, a uniform   straight bill of lading (or a copy thereof) and written information   specifying grade, a tally of pieces of each length, board feet by   sizes and total board feet. The foregoing documents must be received   by the Clearing House postmarked within fourteen (14) Business Days of   the date of receipt of shipping instructions. In addition, within one (1) Business Day after acceptance by the   railroad, the Clearing House must receive information (via a telephone   call, facsimile or electronic transmission) from the seller giving the   car number, piece count by length, unit size, total board footage and   date of acceptance. The ￼date of acceptance by the railroad is the   date of the bill of lading, signed and/or stamped by the originating   carrier, except when determined otherwise by the Clearing House. For some commodities you can't get physical delivery (for instance, Cheese futures won't deliver piles of cheese to your door, for reasons that may be obvious) 6003.A. Final Settlement There shall be no delivery of cheese in settlement of this contract.   All contracts open as of the termination of trading shall be cash   settled based upon the USDA monthly weighted average price in the U.S.   for cheese. The reported USDA monthly weighted average price for   cheese uses both 40 pound cheddar block and 500 pound barrel prices. CME gold futures will deliver to a licensed depository, so you would have to arrange for delivery from the depository (they'll issue you a warrant), assuming you really want a 100 troy oz. bar of gold: CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS The contract for delivery on futures contracts shall be one hundred   (100) troy ounces of gold with a weight tolerance of 5% either higher   or lower. Gold delivered under this contract shall assay to a minimum   of 995 fineness and must be a brand approved by the Exchange. Gold meeting all of the following specifications shall be deliverable   in satisfaction of futures contract delivery obligations under this   rule: Either one (1) 100 troy ounce bar, or three (3) one (1) kilo bars. Gold must consist of one or more of the Exchange’s Brand marks, as provided in Chapter 7, current at the date of the delivery of   contract. Each bar of Eligible gold must have the weight, fineness, bar number, and brand mark clearly incised on the bar. The weight may be   in troy ounces or grams. If the weight is in grams, it must be   converted to troy ounces for documentation purposes by dividing the   weight in grams by 31.1035 and rounding to the nearest one hundredth   of a troy ounce. All documentation must illustrate the weight in troy   ounces. Each Warrant issued by a Depository shall reference the serial number and name of the Producer of each bar. Each assay certificate issued by an Assayer shall certify that each bar of gold in the lot assays no less than 995 fineness and weight of   each bar and the name of the Producer that produced each bar. Gold must be delivered to a Depository by a Carrier as follows: a. directly from a Producer; b. directly from an Assayer, provided that such gold is accompanied by   an assay certificate of such Assayer; or c. directly from another Depository; provided, that such gold was   placed in such other Depository pursuant to paragraphs (a) or (b)   above." I am just a C student with no hope for grad school, so you are going to have to walk me through this... The ECB (until recently), Japan, and the Swiss have been running QE programs equal to that of the Fed's in 2009 for the last couple of years.  That's an extraordinary amount of money being created... what's more, is that the Swiss are even buying shitloads of American equities with it.    Perhaps my understanding of M2 is flawed, but how would the Swiss national bank buying $63B in equities change M2?  It's not like the fed is printing the money specifically for the transaction.  The amount of QE being pumped into a healthy economy over the last couple years should be concerning, if only because it's unprecedented, especially since some of it is being directly invested into equities.  I don't think there is a viable argument that can truthfully say that it isn't a pretty large variable in the market today.... but I could be wrong.  Also, I've read enough, and heard enough, on how the inflation rate is measured to cultivate a healthy skepticism for the entire metric. The way they choose baskets, while obviously the best possible, is not something that lends itself to precision.    Please be kind to my grammar. Yeah, but how many 1970s gold bugs invested early? Paul strikes me as typical of the breed: reactive and reactionary. Probably  acquired a stack of double eagles and gold stocks in 1975, at the peak of the Arab oil embargo inflation--as did others I know.  Even worse, Paul's leveraged equities short fund would have destroyed him over the same period. So the unanswered critical question remains: when did he dive into gold and shorts? I think George's answer explains fairly well why the brokerages don't allow this - it's not an exchange rule, it's just that the brokerage has to have the shares to lend, and normally those shares come from people's margin, which is impossible on a non-marginable stock. To address the question of what the alternatives are, on popular stocks like SIRI, a deep In-The-Money put is a fairly accurate emulation of an actual short interest.  If you look at the options on SIRI you will see that a $3 (or higher) put has a delta of -$1, which is the same delta as an actual short share. You also don't have to worry about problems like margin calls when buying options.  The only thing you have to worry about is the expiration date, which isn't generally a major issue if you're buying in-the-money options... unless you're very wrong about the direction of the stock, in which case you could lose everything, but that's always a risk with penny stocks no matter how you trade them. At least with a put option, the maximum amount you can lose is whatever you spent on the contract.  With a short sale, a bull rush on the stock could potentially wipe out your entire margin.  That's why, when betting on downward motion in a microcap or penny stock, I actually prefer to use options.  Just be aware that option contracts can generally only move in increments of $0.05, and that your brokerage will probably impose a bid-ask spread of up to $0.10, so the share price has to move down at least 10 cents (or 10% on a roughly $1 stock like SIRI) for you to just break even; definitely don't attempt to use this as a day-trading tool and go for longer expirations if you can. Low volatility trading tends to be a hallmark of the late summer as Wall Street by and large goes on summer vacation. When all those traders and hedge fund managers return to work full-tilt in September,  the market tends to become more volatile - either upwards or downwards. If you are wondering why these months have been particularly poor relative to others, than I don't think anyone knows the reason why. There is most likely an error in the WSJ's data.  Yahoo! Finance reports the P/E on the Russell 2000 to be 15 as of 8/31/11 and S&P 500 P/E to be 13 (about the same as WSJ). Good catch, though!  E-mail WSJ, perhaps they will be grateful. In India, in the money options get exercised automatically at the end of the day and is settled at T+1(Where T is expiry day). This means, the clearing house  takes the closing price of the underlying security while calculating the amount that needs to be credited/debited to its members. Source: - http://www.nseindia.com/products/content/derivatives/equities/settlement_mechanism.htm The two answers given previously provide excellent information. In relation to your statement: If I buy the above future contract, does that mean I pay $1581.90 on June 13th You cannot buy the futures contract at that price. The 'price' you are seeing quoted is not a dollar value, but rather a value in points. Each contract has a point value, and this varies from one contract to another according to the specifications set out by the exchange. The point value is in dollars, and it therefore acts as a multiplier for the 'price' that you've seen quoted. Let's look at an example for the E-Mini S&P futures. These trade electronically on the Globex exchange, the ECN order book of the CME, and carry the ticker symbol ES.  The ES contract has a point value of $50. If the quoted price for the ES is 1581.75, then its dollar value is 50 x 1581.75 = $79,087.50 So in order to buy this contract outright, with absolutely no use of leverage, then one theoretically requires $79,087 in one's account. In practice though, futures are traded on margin and so only a deposit amount is required at the time of purchase, as CQM has explained. The CBOE Rule Book, Section 5.5 explains exactly what programmes are available, how and when they will start listing and expire. The super-concise summary is: It's a per-underlying decision process, though there's some rules that may provide you with a minimum set of options (e.g. the quarterly programme on highly capitalised stocks trading for more than $75, etc.) For greater detail, for better or worse, you will have to scan the New Listings service regularly. "Bob should treat both positions as incomplete, and explore a viewpoint which does a better job of separating value from volatility. So we should start by recognizing that what Bob is really doing is trading pieces of paper (say Stocks from Fund #1 or Bonds from Fund #2, to pick historically volatile and non-volatile instruments.*) for pieces of paper (Greenbacks).  In the end, this is a trade, and should always be thought of as such.  Does Bob value his stocks more than his bonds?  Then he should probably draw from Fund #2.  If he values his bonds more, he should probably draw from Fund #1. However, both Bob and his financial adviser demonstrate an assumption: that an instrument, whether stock bond or dollar bill, has some intrinsic value (which may raise over time).  The issue is whether its perceived value is a good measure of its actual value or not. From this perspective, we can see the stock (Fund #1) as having an actual value that grows quickly (6.5% - 1.85% = 4.65%), and the bond (Fund #2) as having an actual value that grows slower (4.5% - 1.15$ = 3.35$).  Now the perceived value of the stocks is highly volatile.  The Chairman of the Fed sneezes and a high velocity trader drives a stock up or down at a rate that would give you whiplash. This perspective aligns with the broker's opinion.  If the stocks are low, it means their perceived value is artificially low, and selling it would be a mistake because the market is perceiving those pieces of paper as being worth less than they actually are.  In this case, Bob wins by keeping the stocks, and selling bonds, because the stocks are perceived as undervalued, and thus are worth keeping until perceptions change. On the other hand, consider the assumption we carefully slid into the argument without any fanfare: the assumption that the actual value of the stock aligns with its historical value.  ""Past performance does not predict future results.""  Its entirely possible that the actual value of the stocks is actually much lower than the historical value, and that it was the perceived value that was artificially higher.  It may be continuing to do so... who knows how overvalued the perceived value actually was!  In this case, Bob wins by keeping the bonds.  In this case, the stocks may have ""underperformed"" to drive perceptions towards their actual value, and Bob has a great chance to get out from under this market. The reality is somewhere between them.  The actual values are moving, and the perceived values are moving, and the world mixes them up enough to make Scratchers lottery tickets look like a decent investment instrument.  So what can we do? Bob's broker has a smart idea, he's just not fully explaining it because it is unprofessional to do so.  Historically speaking, Bobs who lost a bunch of money in the stock market are poor judges of where the stock market is going next (arguably, you should be talking to the Joes who made a bunch of money. They might have more of a clue.).  Humans are emotional beings, and we have an emotional instinct to cut ties when things start to go south.  The market preys on emotional thinkers, happily giving them what they want in exchange for taking some of their money.  Bob's broker is quoting a well recognized phrase that is a polite way of saying ""you are being emotional in your judgement, and here is a phrasing to suggest you should temper that judgement."" Of course the broker may also not know what they're doing!  (I've seen arguments that they don't!)  Plenty of people listened to their brokers all the way to the great crash of 2008.  Brokers are human too, they just put their emotions in different places.  So now Bob has no clear voice to listen to.  Sounds like a trap! However, there is a solution.  Bob should think about more than just simple dollars.  Bob should think about the rest of his life, and where he would like the risk to appear.  If Bob draws from Fund #1 (liquidating stocks), then Bob has made a choice to realize any losses or gains early... specifically now.  He may win, he may lose.  However, no matter what, he will have a less volatile portfolio, and thus he can rely on it more in the long run. If Bob draws from Fund #2 (liquidating bonds) instead, then Bob has made a choice not to realize any losses or gains right away.  He may win, he may lose.  However, whether he wins or loses will not be clear, perhaps until retirement when he needs to draw on that money, and finds Fund #1 is still under-performing, so he has to work a few more years before retirement.  There is a magical assumption that the stock market will always continue rewarding risk takers, but no one has quite been able to prove it! Once Bob includes his life perspective in the mix, and doesn't look just at the cold hard dollars on the table, Bob can make a more educated decision.  Just to throw more options on the table, Bob might rationally choose to do any one of a number of other options which are not extremes, in order to find a happy medium that best fits Bob's life needs: * I intentionally chose to label Fund #1 as stocks and Fund #2 as bonds, even though this is a terribly crude assumption, because I feel those words have an emotional attachment associated to them which #1 and #2 simply do not.  Given that part of the argument is that emotions play a part, it seemed reasonable to dig into underlying emotional biases as part of my wording.  Feel free to replace words as you see fit to remove this bias if desired."