Beware - critical flaw in IB Ideal Pro

Thought this post was worth reposting seeing that someone had posted a small part of it.
Quote from IBj:

Answer: Too much name-calling and other irrelevancy. We (I) prefer to operate with serious traders who are trying to work WITH us to build the best possible platform. It is more efficient and productive.

This thread started with TraderTony describing a problem he experienced. As far as I can tell without searching through every post, his comments were accurate and appropriate. His problem was being reviewed outside of E-T and was evaluated on the merits of the problem, and not on what anyone said here. Based on what he posted, I believe his issue was resolved to his satisfaction.

I am aware of the problem with partials. It wsn't a problem when the platform was young and all activity happened against the banks. But as more clients actually trade with each other (and create 'partials' situtions), we have seen this 2-3 times. As long as the problem is reported promptly, we cover it. In the meantime, we have been working on a major release for the FX interface and the permanent solution will be included therein.

The comments about 'shading' and other such silliness aren't worth addressing. We have explained how the platform works in detail. Assuming one accepts the design statement as accurate, it is obvious that this does not happen.
More...
Guys, if we want IB to respond to questions here we have to avoid giving the threads over to those whose entire ET life seems devoted to amplifying (to the ridiculous) any thread that has a problem at IB.

For any newbies reading these threads - ask yourself why IB is such at topic of conversation. Its because most of us retail traders are IB's customers (and love them despite the odd little difficulty).

On the other hand there are those scurrilous losers out there who can't take responsibility for their trading performance and just want to blame it on anything but the real problem. Cheers :)
 
Quote from kiwi_trader:

LOL. And not wishing to take away from the good work explaining it. LMAO, you anti-ib trolls are so rude ... who's stupid now :)
More...

Since you brought this up may be you want post here the exact links where you got those terms from and second point out the intentional ACT words in the clause.
 
I will give you hand, the text posted by ddunbar is simply referring to information contained on the website and is not like in IBs case business terms that you have to sign before joining. So i still cant see terms and conditions of other brokers that exclude liability for Intentional Act.

So looks like IB is the only one kiwi.
 
Quote from Eagle Eye:

I will give you hand, the text posted by ddunbar is simply referring to information contained on the website and is not like in IBs case business terms that you have to sign before joining. So i still cant see terms and conditions of other brokers that exclude liability for Intentional Act.

So looks like IB is the only one kiwi.
More...

No, they are each refering to the use of their electronic interfaces for trading just like IB's paragrah 30. And each indemnifies themself for any and all actions including but not limited to "intentional acts." Intentional acts refers to things like purposefully disconnecting service for upgrades or other problems which will reduce the firm's liability. Every single brokerage firm has a clause similiar to this but either words it differently or ambiguously enough to cover intentional acts. Even exchanges have a clause similiar to "intentional acts" such as having to halt trading due to various reasons or cancelling trades. All an intentional act is, is an action the firm wilfully takes in order to protect itself and sometimes other customers from catastrophic liability/loss. That could include such things as liquidating a margin account if they assess that risk is too great, deliberately ceasing access to their trading interface if a problem is detected that might cascade, etc etc. Brokerages are not end users nor "manufacturers" (as the clause about fitness of their system alludes to) but are agents just like exhanges. They are simply intermediaries. And as such are allowed to protect themselves in all reasonable manners which include intentional, undelcared or unannounced actions to do so at their discretion. Further, they are indemnified by the boilerplate "Investing or trading in dah dah dah may invlove serious financial risk. "

You can't harp on exact wording when it comes to the law. You have to look at the "spirit of the letter" as well as what is covered semantically.
 
Quote from ddunbar:

All an intentional act is, is an action the firm wilfully takes in order to protect itself and sometimes other customers from catastrophic liability/loss. [/B]
More...

The most important point of the meaning "intentional act", which you failing to include, is how the broker like IB could use it.

Its not included in every single brokers terms and not even in the mojority of them.

Drop the links where you got those DISCLAIMER from...
 
Eagle eye,

You and your silly little friends just don't get it. You must be the most naive bunch of newbies out there.

Do us all a favor and stop wasting IB's time so they can work on the accounts of real traders - go and find another broker to work out your newbie, failure trader angst.

Ddunbar,

You're wasting your time trying to explain things to some of these people. Cscott, Eagleeye, and a few quarterwits from the past never ever get it. And as you'll note, they don't make useful contributions to ET ... all they do is moan about IB ... makes you wonder how any "real" person could be so stupid doesn't it?

The good thing is that they don't master trading either and in a little while they won't be bothering us at ET anymore. How sad :)
 
Thought this post was worth reposting seeing that someone had posted a small part of it.
Quote from IBj:

Answer: Too much name-calling and other irrelevancy. We (I) prefer to operate with serious traders who are trying to work WITH us to build the best possible platform. It is more efficient and productive.

This thread started with TraderTony describing a problem he experienced. As far as I can tell without searching through every post, his comments were accurate and appropriate. His problem was being reviewed outside of E-T and was evaluated on the merits of the problem, and not on what anyone said here. Based on what he posted, I believe his issue was resolved to his satisfaction.

I am aware of the problem with partials. It wsn't a problem when the platform was young and all activity happened against the banks. But as more clients actually trade with each other (and create 'partials' situtions), we have seen this 2-3 times. As long as the problem is reported promptly, we cover it. In the meantime, we have been working on a major release for the FX interface and the permanent solution will be included therein.

The comments about 'shading' and other such silliness aren't worth addressing. We have explained how the platform works in detail. Assuming one accepts the design statement as accurate, it is obvious that this does not happen.
More...
Guys, if we want IB to respond to questions here we have to avoid giving the threads over to those whose entire ET life seems devoted to amplifying (to the ridiculous) any thread that has a problem at IB.

For any newbies reading these threads - ask yourself why IB is such at topic of conversation. Its because most of us retail traders are IB's customers (and love them despite the odd little difficulty).

On the other hand there are those scurrilous losers out there who can't take responsibility for their trading performance and just want to blame it on anything but the real problem. Cheers :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top