Originally posted by saschabr
with these low commish, how would you want to equip
you trading help desk with a competent real traders staff,
if one of these guys costs always > 100k/year ??
Sascha, if I understand you correctly, you're saying, "It's not reasonable for the customer to expect a high level of service when the costs are so low."
Maybe so. But it's not unreasonable to expect that the help-desk has some basic knowledge (of how their product works, of which problems might actually be bugs, of their own commission structure), and a genuine interest in at least trying to be helpful.
(Also, I'll bet you could get equivalently low commissions from O-X in return for a moderate amount of options volume.)
And I don't think that IB's sub-standard practices actually save money for IB: if you look at the examples I gave, and the elpased time involved, then I think you'll see that IB would actually have saved time by simply giving the customer a clear and frank answer at the very beginning.
The only way that this inferior service might be saving money for IB, is by discouraging people from ever requesting support --
an approach that seems to have had its intended effect on you, since you say . . .
my experience: with IB, try figure out yourself, find another.
way to work around a bug, or let it be. it is only the electronics,
the software and you.
Actually, that's what I usually do, with *any* vendor; but some situations are far beyond being amenable to that approach.
with these low commish, how would you want to equip
you trading help desk with a competent real traders staff,
if one of these guys costs always > 100k/year ??
Sascha, if I understand you correctly, you're saying, "It's not reasonable for the customer to expect a high level of service when the costs are so low."
Maybe so. But it's not unreasonable to expect that the help-desk has some basic knowledge (of how their product works, of which problems might actually be bugs, of their own commission structure), and a genuine interest in at least trying to be helpful.
(Also, I'll bet you could get equivalently low commissions from O-X in return for a moderate amount of options volume.)
And I don't think that IB's sub-standard practices actually save money for IB: if you look at the examples I gave, and the elpased time involved, then I think you'll see that IB would actually have saved time by simply giving the customer a clear and frank answer at the very beginning.
The only way that this inferior service might be saving money for IB, is by discouraging people from ever requesting support --
an approach that seems to have had its intended effect on you, since you say . . .
my experience: with IB, try figure out yourself, find another.
way to work around a bug, or let it be. it is only the electronics,
the software and you.
Actually, that's what I usually do, with *any* vendor; but some situations are far beyond being amenable to that approach.
