$52k gone from my IB account. What next, sue IB?

Quote from OldTrader:

Nothing happens if he doesn't double click. Spin it the way you see it.

OldTrader
More...

The way I SEE it is you probably still haven't read the full LOG of events.

The way I SEE it is that you have some fetish to defend IB in any circumstance.

I SEE an OLD TRADER that can't admit when he is wrong.

I SEE a person who thinks they have to add to something to this debate; when in fact you haven't added diddle-y-squat.

IMO, it doesn't matter if Zap clicked the mouse 100 times at 10am.

NO Orders were even created! There were NO order NUMBERS given. NONE; I repeat: they were rejected.

TWS disconnected and when it reconnected (This happened more than a quarter of a DAY later) TWS CREATED a phantom order (They even have order numbers!). DUE TO an obvious BUG IN THE SOFTWARE.

I would pay 52k to see this happen to your account(s); just to see how you would react.

The rest is history; as you should have been from this topic a long time ago.

Quote from LOG:

RB 10:30:02:583 AWT-EventQueue-0: "SELL 66 6BZ7 FUT at 1.9889"

YOUR ORDER IS NOT ACCEPTED.
IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE DESIRED POSITION YOUR
NET LIQ IN USD DENOMINATED ASSETS [92374.8] MUST EXCEED
THE MARGIN REQ [98010] FOR THOSE ASSETS
RB 10:30:02:596 AWT-EventQueue-0: "SELL 66 6BZ7 FUT at 1.9889"

No such order: prior submit/motify was rejected
 
Quote from RAY:

IMO, it doesn't matter if Zap clicked the mouse 100 times at 10am.

NO Orders were even created! There were NO order NUMBERS given. NONE; I repeat: they were rejected.
More...

Certainly there has to be some responsibility put on a person who clicks the mouse 100 times on a submit order button! As to whether 2 times is as bad as 100 times, that is the eye of the beholder.

I know if I had accidentally double clicked transmit and only one order showed up, I probably would have contacted IB just in case. But that's because I'm paranoid and because I know when I double-click on something as opposed to single-clicking.

The most disturbing thing about this problem is that the original poster potentially played around with an unintended position. If he had a $52k gain after the news came out, I bet you this thread would have not been created. The real issue here is whether the original poster knowingly was riding this position because he had no risk: 1. If it goes for him he closes it out for a nice profit or 2. If it goes against him, complain to IB and get the money back. Until the original poster comes on here and definitively says that he had no idea he had the position on and did not play around with it before the news, then this question is still up in the air. Again, I find it hard to believe that a trader would not check his positions and discover the discrepancy and contact someone ASAP.
 
"Certainly there has to be some responsibility put on a person who clicks the mouse 100 times on a submit order button! As to whether 2 times is as bad as 100 times, that is the eye of the beholder.

I know if I had accidentally double clicked transmit and only one order showed up, I probably would have contacted IB just in case. But that's because I'm paranoid and because I know when I double-click on something as opposed to single-clicking."

certainly your argument is fallacious. order entry software is the responsibility of the broker. if i put an order to be transmitted, it can be transmitted only once no matter how many i hit the transmit the button.

as for the second paragraph it is hypothetical. maybe you would or maybe you wouldn't. either it is on the pending page or it is not.
 
Quote from zdreg:


certainly your argument is fallacious. order entry software is the responsibility of the broker. if i put an order to be transmitted, it can be transmitted only once no matter how many i hit the transmit the button.
More...

That is wrong. There are some people that need to fire off rapid orders in quick succession. Being able to press the submit button rapidly makes this possible. I guess it all depends on what platform you are using and what you expect from it. I personally want a platform where multiple clicks mean multiple orders.

as for the second paragraph it is hypothetical. maybe you would or maybe you wouldn't. either it is on the pending page or it is not.
More...

I always check my positions when I log in. Period. No hypotheticals. Anyone who doesn't is borderline irresponsible in my opinion.
 
IBj has PMed me with an explanation, and asserted that "my" structure of these events might be incorrect. So far I do not understand how his explanation shows this...

I am willing to be show the LIGHT! :)

So, I will recant my position until I am hopefully shown why I (and Zap for that matter) am wrong.

Thank You.

I would also like to extend an apology to OLD (regardless if I am right or wrong) as to my previous post in which I allowed some frustration to be vented. If I had anything to say (really poor assumptions) directly about OLD; I should have PM him private.
 
Quote from RAY:

IBj has PMed me with an explanation, and asserted that "my" structure of these events might be incorrect. So far I do not understand how his explanation shows this...

I am willing to be show the LIGHT! :)

So, I will recant my position until I am hopefully shown why I (and Zap for that matter) am wrong.

Thank You.

I would also like to extend an apology to OLD (regardless if I am right or wrong) as to my previous post in which I allowed some frustration to be vented. If I had anything to say (really poor assumptions) directly about OLD; I should have PM him private.
More...

I accept your apology Ray. Frankly, I'm glad you posted when you did. I just read your prior post and was about to reply in a way that would have had me apologizing as well. LOL. Takes a big man though to apologize in public...something you don't see much of around here, so I wanted to acknowledge it.

Don't know what IBj PM'd you about, but I'm guessing it had to do with your idea that there was no order stemming from that double click. If I understood correctly, there was in fact an order floating around the system, which later became the "phantom order". Now, I think TWS handled it incorrectly. But it was nonetheless Zzzzap's order. Otherwise, it would not have been a duplicate of his orginal order.

Either way, IB seems to have accepted their responsibility in this up to the point where Zzzzap should have been aware of his "phantom" position, so that my opinion about the double click is probably irrelevant.

I would just say that any time we click, we give an instruction. Multiple clicks may well "confuse" the software since this type of use might well be beyond what the developer intended. I think it's possible where too many clicks could well lead to unintended consequences. All just my opinion of course.

OldTrader
 
Quote from GTS:

Wow, what an IB-apologist version of events. Convenient how you ignore the fact that TWS did not give any feedback about the double set of orders and that due to software bugs, mismanaged the orders eventually lead to orphan order being revived some 7 hours later by the purely random chance event of a TWS disconnect.

Nope, all you focus on is the double click - what a joke.

The double-click wasn't the problem here in case you missed it. How TWS handled the double-click was the problem. If TWS had given indication about the double set of orders at the time they were submitted the OP could have managed his mistake at that point. Simply boiling this down to, "the OP double-clicked so its his fault" is ludicrous but I expect nothing less from the IB zealout community.
More...


IBj: "clicked submit for the basket twice in very rapid succession"

(1) Double-clicking with a mouse is universal behavior...
People double-click 1,000,000 times per day.

(2) After entering perhaps 600,000 orders via TWS...
I'm not aware of any way that I can send a Double Order by double-clicking.

(3) IB stone-walled the OP for 5 weeks...
And then decided to cut their losses when this thread surpassed 10,000 hits.

(4) IB is the ONLY source of hard log information...
And the events were presented as infinitely complicated by IB...
Thus muddying the waters as much as possible.

(5) IB is trying to pay off $0.20 on the dollar...
As I predicted in the first few pages...
Because NASD arbitration could potentially result in huge fines.

(6) With this thread as evidence... winning NASD arbitration may be a slam-dunk.
How you can penalize a trader for a THEORETICAL "double-click" is beyond me.

(7) This thread has definitely cost IB many, many times the original 52K in lost business.

(8) Very scary.
 
Quote from QuantPlus:

IBj: "clicked submit for the basket twice in very rapid succession"

(1) Double-clicking with a mouse is universal behavior...
People double-click 1,000,000 times per day.

(2) After entering perhaps 600,000 orders via TWS...
I'm not aware of any way that I can send a Double Order by double-clicking.

(3) IB stone-walled the OP for 5 weeks...
And then decided to cut their losses when this thread surpassed 10,000 hits.

(4) IB is the ONLY source of hard log information...
And the events were presented as infinitely complicated by IB...
Thus muddying the waters as much as possible.

(5) IB is trying to pay off $0.20 on the dollar...
As I predicted in the first few pages...
Because NASD arbitration could potentially result in huge fines.

(6) With this thread as evidence... winning NASD arbitration may be a slam-dunk.
How you can penalize a trader for a THEORETICAL "double-click" is beyond me.

(7) This thread has definitely cost IB many, many times the original 52K in lost business.

(8) Very scary.
More...
There is nothing in the above post that I do not agree with. Well said!
 
Quote from QuantPlus:

IBj: "clicked submit for the basket twice in very rapid succession"

(1) Double-clicking with a mouse is universal behavior...
People double-click 1,000,000 times per day.

(2) After entering perhaps 600,000 orders via TWS...
I'm not aware of any way that I can send a Double Order by double-clicking.

(3) IB stone-walled the OP for 5 weeks...
And then decided to cut their losses when this thread surpassed 10,000 hits.

(4) IB is the ONLY source of hard log information...
And the events were presented as infinitely complicated by IB...
Thus muddying the waters as much as possible.

(5) IB is trying to pay off $0.20 on the dollar...
As I predicted in the first few pages...
Because NASD arbitration could potentially result in huge fines.

(6) With this thread as evidence... winning NASD arbitration may be a slam-dunk.
How you can penalize a trader for a THEORETICAL "double-click" is beyond me.

(7) This thread has definitely cost IB many, many times the original 52K in lost business.

(8) Very scary.
More...

(1) Don't tell me you can't tell the difference between single clicking and double clicking something.

(2) Probably true.

(3) IBj has already said it was his fault the problem was not escalated in a timely manner. Is this considered "stonewalling"? Only if 95% of your posts are IB bashing posts (like yours are).

(4) Don't know. There is the audit log that you can turn on through the TWS, but it is probably not as detailed as IB's internal log.

(5) What, so if you notice you have a position that you never entered an order for, you will trade it to see if you can make a profit? If you make a profit, you take the money and run? If you don't make a profit, you complain about your loss? I guess that is where you are getting your $0.20 on the dollar figure. Besides, we still don't know what IB's final decision will be.

(6) IBj has already stated IB will compensate for the error. The question remains, did the original poster play around with a position he knew he did not enter? If so, this is where the compensation issue gets tricky.

(7) I doubt it.

(8) No, it isn't.

and

(9) Do you trade with IB? If so, it would probably do you good to leave for another brokerage as the pyschological torture IB puts you through on a daily basis is really showing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top