Disputing an IB trade

yeah, this happens to me all the time. Cripes, sometimes I log in and the entire page has disappeared. Like you said, no big deal 'cause it's easily fixed. Glad to see it's not just me. In the grand scheme of things I'd much rather that kind of bug than something where my orders get messed up...

-eLindy

Quote from bpl1000:

This is probably not the best place to post this... but since the thread is talking about bugs- has anyone noticed any ticker symbols randomly "disappearing"??

Not a big deal, since it's quick to reinput the symbol, but I was wondering if it was happening to anyone else.
More...
 
Quote from GTC:

How old TWS version do you use? :) You should be able to attach an order as in my examples.
More...

Please, don't try to make a fool of me....I worked with every TWS version and all beta's in the past 6 years.. (maybe I know quite a bit of it...).

I just tried to create a Buy Limit-order, and a attached Buy Limit Order with a different Lot-size (as in your example)....There are 3 types of Attached-orders, and a Limit-Buy is not one of it (the attached is meant to be used for a position close, not a scale-in with another Buy), but TWS allows it to change the Sell (or the attached) in a Buy, and the Stop into a Limit...BUT...it is not possible to change the lot-size (which is actually correct)..TWS gives me a popup warning: "You cannot modify the size of an attached Order".

So ...how did YOU change the lot-size of an attached (during the period that it is in attached-modus, which you said is possible in your example).

PS: you don't need to test this in your real-account...just use the demo-account to reproduce your alleged bug...if you can reproduce your size-reporting bug (the one you started your postings with)...then IB is all ears to learn from you how you did it (and will solve it as well)...
 
Quote from Choad:

I don't understand. The audit trail should show what was entered and what was executed.

IB can have problems, but over 4 years and thousands and thousands of limit order trades, I've never seen something like that happen.

Are you sure you didn't just accidently click in the order when the "limit price pulldown" popup was showing 10.20, or maybe you had the default order type set to MKT and didn't realize it?

Strange...
More...
=================

Choad
Actually have made that mistake before ,its real easy to do;
& plan is I am supposed to ''double check it''

Its even easier to do when the market is moving ;
& want in or want out:cool:

Another reaon to do more trends than counter trends;
BOTH can still make a profit with errors like that,
but probabilities still favor the former.
 
Hoi! If you read my posts carefully, you would find out that I mentioned I already did let IB know about the details of the problem. The representative understood and said that the developers would be notified about it for a fix. More than one trader ran into this bug not too long ago. It is alright if you cannot reproduce the bugs. This bug probably will not directly effect you in that event. I am not very sure if you are the official software tester of IB. Besides, a true IB professional most like would not use all CAPS to refer its client(s). Regardless, if your/IB's testplans do not include a particular test, then it would not matter how long you have been testing IB. Thanks for trying to help out IB any way. My posts did not intend to offend you in any manner.

According to IB, decreasing a position is synonymous to "close" out, and increasing a position is synonymous to "open" a position. IB CSR correctly pointed out that in an attached order, the second order triggers only when the 1st order is completely filled, and IB's system also does not care in what combinations the attached order is set with respect to the 1st order, e.g., BUY-BUY, BUY-SELL, SELL-SELL or SELL-BUY. IB's attach order works as OTO ("one triggers other") or OSO ("one submits other"). IB's CSR also initially mentioned that there were no share ratio limitations in the ordinal or attached order.

Here are a couple of scenarios when a trader might want to use the attached orders as I mentioned.
Scenario 1: Suppose you have shorted 999 shares of LMN stock at $36. The stock is currently trading at $35.05. Using attached order, you can submit buy(-to-cover) order for part of 999 shares at $35, and buy(-to-cover) order for part of the remaining short holdings with an attached buy T-STOP (or limit) order.
Scenario 2: You bought 200 shares of OPQ stock at $70 at 9AM and another 400 shares at $70.5 at 10AM. Now at 11AM you want to sell 300 shares of OPQ at $71 and attach a BUY T-STOP order if you think AAPL may keep going up.

Not all real trades do paper trading at IB, or deal with IB's demo/paper-trading account---which falls under IB's less prioritized tasks. IB's demo/paper-trading account has its shares of bugs and do not have all the features as the real account. If you do not use any of the above strategy, then you probably do not have to worry about the bug.

If IB's developers' intention was to have the attached order only in a very limited fashion e.g., for decreasing a position, then IB's order accepting system should be made robust enough not to allow transmitting any order that it cannot execute the way the order was accepted.
 
Quote from GTC:
Hoi! If you read my posts carefully, you would find out that I mentioned I already did let IB know about the details of the problem. The representative understood and said that the developers would be notified about it for a fix. More than one trader ran into this bug not too long ago. It is alright if you cannot reproduce the bugs.
More...

Sorry, but you were NOT clear at all, in your posts. You never wrote, that “IB-representatives acknowledged the problem, could reproduce and that programmers were working on it”. Your posts were even not clear to AlanM and IBsoft, who replied to your posts as well.

PS: I’m not an IB-official and I use CAPS because the ET-editor has no Italic of bold fonts to accent (or I can not find it).

Quote from GTC:
IB's system also does not care in what combinations the attached order is set with respect to the 1st order, e.g., BUY-BUY, BUY-SELL, SELL-SELL or SELL-BUY. IB's attach order works as OTO ("one triggers other") or OSO ("one submits other").
More...

What you found and used is an “undocumented feature”, which also implies that its behavior can change in the future, or can have unwanted side effects. I already told you that the attached-order is not primarily designed for it and not that long ago it even didn’t work when a user changed the attached Stop in a StopLimit.


Quote from GTC:
IB's CSR also initially mentioned that there were no share ratio limitations in the ordinal or attached order.
More...


This is NOT true. And I told that in my previous post that you can not modify the Order-Size of an Attached Order (TWS gives a error popup)…I asked to try it out yourself (by the use of a edemo-account) but you apparently did not want to face the true, or tell us the procedure how you could change the Order-Size (I really like to know).
Remember that you started your posts with accusation of an Order size bug, and you gave an example of two attached Orders with different Order sizes. For the second time I ask you: how could you enter an Attached-order with a different size! It is not allowed because the IB-systems are originally designed for Attached-orders in a Bracket or position-Close of the same order size as the Open order.

Quote from GTC:
Here are a couple of scenarios when a trader might want to use the attached orders as I mentioned.
More...

Sure!.. I can think of many nice scenarios how to use an OTO or OSO structure. But again, the CURRENT Attached-order is not designed for it. And if IB decides to release such a feature (which I encourage) than they will probably implement it slightly different than an Attached (because the Attached-bracket has a functional obligation to have the same Order-sizes as the Open-Order).

Quote from GTC:
If IB's developers' intention was to have the attached order only in a very limited fashion e.g., for decreasing a position, then IB's order accepting system should be made robust enough not to allow transmitting any order that it cannot execute the way the order was accepted.
More...

I 100% agree with this quote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top