Broker with most available shares to short?

debitspread said:
I'm not free to speak about my own experiences, but I'm well acquainted with shops that have traded tens or hundreds of millions $ worth.
More...
Are they doing something closer to OTC trading where they line up a counterparty and then trade? I'm just not seeing any bid/ask any time I look on anything but maybe the top 20 traded stocks. Is there a trick I'm missing here, I'd love to be able to trade these.
 
Sig said:
Are they doing something closer to OTC trading where they line up a counterparty and then trade? I'm just not seeing any bid/ask any time I look on anything but maybe the top 20 traded stocks. Is there a trick I'm missing here, I'd love to be able to trade these.
More...

You're on the right track -- there's an OTCish aspect to it, at least for now. IB (part owner of 1Chi) has tried to push the rock on the retail side but MMs haven't really signed on yet. Do call or write Mark at 1Chi -- super friendly, super knowledgeable. He'll give you the real story.
 
Last edited:
I was looking over IB's fixed stock commission structure, but the examples they provide don't add up;
100 Shares @ USD 25 Share Price = USD 1.00
1,000 Shares @ USD 25 Share Price = USD 5.00
1,000 Shares @ USD 0.25 Share Price = USD 1.25
(Fixed Minimum Per Order: 0.005 per share USD, Maximum Per Order: 0.5% of trade value, Minimum commission 1.00)

Can someone explain to me why line 3 of the example is not 5.00? It seems they are doing a completely different calculation using the share price (.25x.005)x1000 to reach that number... whereas line 1 & 2 are not using the share price at all in the equation
 
rmorse said:
Low priced stock. Max comm. of .5%. Of value of trade.
More...

Thanks, but I just can't wrap my head around this; I thought the "maximum per order" fee was there to protect against very expensive commissions, but not override a low commission of $5 - which line 3 should have if it used the same rules as line 1&2

Why is the maximum per order fee kicking in on line 3 but not lines 1&2? Is there a rule Im not aware of, an exception for low price stocks?

Edit, I was just thinking about this more and the only way I understand this is if the fees are viewed as "either or" where the lowest fee wins; such as "If" the maximum order fee is 1.25 and the normal commission fee is $5 - then $1.25 is your rate, but such as on line 2 "If" the commission is $5 and the maxiumum order fee is 125 - then $5 wins and is your rate. Is this the case?
 
Last edited:
povstanets said:
Thanks, but I just can't wrap my head around this; I thought the "maximum per order" fee was there to protect against very expensive commissions, but not override a low commission of $5 - which line 3 should have if it used the same rules as line 1&2

Why is the maximum per order fee kicking in on line 3 but not lines 1&2? Is there a rule Im not aware of, an exception for low price stocks?

Edit, I was just thinking about this more and the only way I understand this is if the fees are viewed as "either or" where the lowest fee wins; such as "If" the maximum order fee is 1.25 and the normal commission fee is $5 - then $1.25 is your rate, but such as on line 2 "If" the commission is $5 and the maxiumum order fee is 125 - then $5 wins and is your rate. Is this the case?
More...


Because total commissions as a % of traded value would be too big. IBKR needs to incentivize the customer to trade penny shares.
 
povstanets said:
Thanks, but I just can't wrap my head around this; I thought the "maximum per order" fee was there to protect against very expensive commissions, but not override a low commission of $5 - which line 3 should have if it used the same rules as line 1&2

Why is the maximum per order fee kicking in on line 3 but not lines 1&2? Is there a rule Im not aware of, an exception for low price stocks?

Edit, I was just thinking about this more and the only way I understand this is if the fees are viewed as "either or" where the lowest fee wins; such as "If" the maximum order fee is 1.25 and the normal commission fee is $5 - then $1.25 is your rate, but such as on line 2 "If" the commission is $5 and the maxiumum order fee is 125 - then $5 wins and is your rate. Is this the case?
More...

You pay the fixed fee as long as it is less than .5% of total value. It is to enable trading in Otc stocks that trade at low prices with lower commissions. Most traders that trade these stocks look for deals with ticket charges vs per share.
 
rmorse said:
You pay the fixed fee as long as it is less than .5% of total value. It is to enable trading in Otc stocks that trade at low prices with lower commissions. Most traders that trade these stocks look for deals with ticket charges vs per share.
More...

Yes, that makes sense now; appreciate the help, I just had a hard time grasping the wording.

Their fees seem to really shine with high priced stocks or penny stocks; like you could trade $100K worth of Google for $1 if I'm understanding this correctly... pretty cool
 
IB's SLB list can be found here. Currently > 10,000,000 shares AAPL available.
IB has extensive relationships with all the major lenders and has an active SLB desk that will seek out shares for clients for the US markets.
https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=shortableStocks&p=shortable

I don't know what your borrow cost is at your current firm but I suspect IB's lending rates (not to mention financing an interest rates) are also substantially lower.

In addition, I know of no other firm that doesn't specifically cater to institutional clients that will actually pay clients who lend out their fully paid long shares. If you're holding long shares and not using margin and want potentially obtain additional yield, check out our Stock Yield Enhancement Plan.
details here: https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=shortableStocks&p=stockyield
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top