Terms must be listed
In the first educational contract, the parties agree on one hundred units of an underlying measure and a price of 100. We explicitly set cash settlement only at the end of the term, with no interim contributions. In the second model, we use a linear futures contract on the same one hundred units, with periodic settlements of changes in value. Both examples exclude interest, costs, default and a mismatch in the underlying measure. These exclusions compare the path of money; they do not assert equal real-world risk for the two forms. Any changed term requires a separate model.
Let the interim settlement price be 105 and the final price 102. In the first contract, the long receives at the end (102 − 100) × 100 = 200 monetary units. In the second model, it first receives (105 − 100) × 100 = 500 and then pays (102 − 105) × 100 = minus 300. The sum is also 200. But the sequences differ in dates and resource needs. A terminal match before the time value of money is considered does not mean the whole cash result matches after financing interim receipts and payments.
Standardization and customization
An exchange specification sets contract parameters, including size, quotation unit and method of performance. MOEX considers deliverable and cash-settled types of futures.[23](#source-cm-futures) With an individual contract, parties may agree different parameters, but this does not mean freedom from all requirements and rules. Legal permissibility, accounting treatment and infrastructure for a particular transaction must be checked separately. For comparison, the name “forward” or “futures” is not enough: check how the underlying, volume and date correspond to the participant’s actual cash flow.
A standard size may prevent an exact quantity match. Customization, in turn, does not prove that a liquid exit market exists before maturity. If one party wants to terminate early, possibility and cost depend on the contract and on participant consent or applicable infrastructure. The right to close an exchange position is not a guarantee of a particular price, and the right to negotiate a contract is not a guarantee of free termination. A comparison table should show the assumed exit separately rather than silently treating it as identical.
A central counterparty does not insure the price
MOEX describes the division of risks between the trading organizer and clearing center and the central counterparty’s role in performing obligations.[24](#source-cm-clearing) This is different from a change in the underlying asset’s value for the position holder. If a contract produces a negative mark-to-market, clearing does not turn it into zero. In bilateral performance, identify the counterparty and collateral terms. But it is also wrong to attribute lack of collateral or one identical default process to every OTC contract: read the structure rather than guessing from the label.
As a checking counterexample, let the settlement price first fall from 100 to 95 and then rise to 102. A long futures position on 100 units first requires a payment of 500 and then produces a receipt of 700; the terminal amount remains 200 before costs. If the first payment cannot be funded, the actual path may stop before the terminal comparison. In another case, two contracts use different settlement measures under similar asset names. Then even the terminal arithmetic need not match. These questions show why the whole contract must be analyzed rather than stopping at “future price minus agreed price.”
Compare the complete obligation
Compare the underlying object, size, dates, performance, interim settlements, collateral, counterparty and exit. [Introduction to derivatives](/guides/futures-and-options/) provides the basis, [OTC risk](/guides/otc-counterparty-risk/) checks the other party, and [profit and cash](/guides/profit-vs-cash/) distinguishes result from liquidity. This material does not recommend a contract form, calculate an optimal hedge or transfer foreign regulations to a Russian transaction. Its result is an understanding that the same terminal difference does not describe all obligations.
Checking the terminal equality
In our example, the amounts match only before costs and the time value of money. If an interim receipt can be invested or an interim payment must be financed, an additional result appears. It must not be silently included in one contract and excluded from the other. A comparable analysis must state the same rule for cash-flow dates.
Nor should the entire forward market be called one bilateral unsecured contract. Our model explicitly set no interim contributions; it did not discover a universal property of every instrument with that name. If the actual contract has collateral, mark-to-market or central clearing, describe it under those terms. This separation preserves the comparison’s usefulness and avoids turning an educational simplification into a false market rule. A correctly read contract matters more than the familiar contrast between two short terms.