Beware - critical flaw in IB Ideal Pro

Quote from Eagle Eye:

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...
More...

Links coming up shortly.

No, the point you are missing is twofold. One paragraph 30 only refers to IB systems and software. The other is the strigency of IB's language as oppossed to just stating something ambiguous.

Links:

Lind waldock, which I used to have an account with. Go to their website lindwaldock.com. Navigate to open an account. Then navigate to self directed. Then nav to open an account. Then download their PDF forms.

For Goldman:
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/disclaimer/

It's the exact same wording on their account forms which are also available by PDF and refers to their online trading interfaces.

And yes, this type of disclaimer is boilerplate for all brokerages who maintain an electronic trading interface for their clients.

It used to be worded differently 15 years ago when you could only reach your broker by phone. But they indemnified themselves in similiar manner.

Hey, have fun reading Etrade's legalese: Scroll down to section 7

https://us.etrade.com/e/t/estation/help?id=1209031000

Are you willing to go on record that the 1st paragraph bars them from "intentional acts?" They can shut off service and claim that they did so for system upgrades. How could you prove otherwise?
 
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.
 
Quote from ddunbar:

Agreed. Over and out.
More...

ddunbar, actually i had left it earlier at the best possible way, i will try again because I am not intending to go into detailed discussion of credibility and difference between disclaimers excluding the liability for the content on the website, its not relevant.


take care
 
Quote from kiwi_trader:
[color=9CEFBE]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.[/color]
More...
OK, kiwi. I'll let you have the last word. I even requoted you. Hope you like the color change. :D
 
Quote from IBj:

It is actively being worked on. It isnt so simple. Banks dont want 5K orders. They don't really want 25K orders. Their target order is 1M. I think we are 2 months away from fully releasing a series of enhancements. 1 month if things go smoothly.
More...

Any update from anyone, please? Thanks.
 
A scenario is an initial order of 45,000 units with two profit-taking levels, after a partial fill of 25,000 units at the first profit-taking level the order now becoming 20,000 units.

Later even the market price has once reached and passed the second profit-taking level but it cannot be filled due to below the requirement of minimum order size.

Finally the price could reverse (Not uncommon in FX market!) back to a level of far below its initial entry price point, producing a losing position with 20,000 units.

And the trader is still required to close the losing position by using IDeal conversion with extra commission.

Please correct me for anything wrong in the above hypothetical case.
 
Hi all,

I had the same problem today. Just starting with IDEALPRO.

Tried to sell 25.000 eur at market. At first only 10.000 was filled. The other 15.000 was not filled at all. So I could not take full opportunity of the market at the moment I wanted.

Later on when closing the position I had to use IDEAL paying more than necessary on commissions and spread.

regards,
Ivo
 
Quote from ivob:

Hi all,

I had the same problem today. Just starting with IDEALPRO.

Tried to sell 25.000 eur at market. At first only 10.000 was filled. The other 15.000 was not filled at all. So I could not take full opportunity of the market at the moment I wanted.

Later on when closing the position I had to use IDEAL paying more than necessary on commissions and spread.

regards,
Ivo
More...

As I learned that 25,000 units (or USD Value?) is a minimum order size, your 10,000 units of partial fill should be a problematic issue, imo.
 
Quote from OddTrader:

As I learned that 25,000 units (or USD Value?) is a minimum order size, your 10,000 units of partial fill should be a problematic issue, imo.
More...

and we continue to wonder why bucket shops continue to thrive.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top