That you deemed your post necessary speaks volumes to the quality of ET posters.Because brokerages by SEC regulation must mark their books to market every single day. No hiding of asset valuations.
That you deemed your post necessary speaks volumes to the quality of ET posters.Because brokerages by SEC regulation must mark their books to market every single day. No hiding of asset valuations.
How? Can you be more specific?
Sure. Whale client X has a margin account or has sold a stock short. A major event happens regarding that stock and suddenly that client's account has been wiped out. IBKR may be on the hook to cover any losses that were not covered by the assets in the client's account.
Theoretically, IBKR would close out the position before the losses would hit them. Practically, that might not even be possible in certain scenarios.
For example, when shorting a stock, losses can be much more than the amount that was put up to short the stock.
A short squeeze in particular is a quite scary scenario. The client who sold short at $1 might just decide to go bankrupt it the stock hits $1000, but IBKR is on the hook to deliver that stock if their client defaults so they have to pay the $1000 price.
A $1 million loss by a client could become a $1 billion loss for IBKR in this scenario.
The Gamestop situation exposed a major flaw in the system when there isn't adequate reporting of open short interest to all the various players in the system in a timely enough manner for the brokerages to protect themselves.
I'll give IBKR credit that Peterffy seems to at least be aware of this risk.
I suspect that worst case scenario for IBKR would be a big, stepwise move in all the markets simultaneously. Like what might happen if China invaded Taiwan. If that happened at a time when the markets are closed, they might not be able to close out positions before losses start hitting IBKR directly.
(Just my opinion.)
%%I don’t think brokerage accounts should have the same risks. Their job isn’t to invest your “deposit” the way a bank does. They earn on commissions and on interest margin spread (ie they repo at X and charge you x+y).




Yeah but this can happen at any time. Why scrutinize now all of sudden?
Don't understand why scrutinize IB? Imo many brokers are at even more risk than IB. If anyone is concerned about broker risk, IB would be the last one that they should worry about.
I don’t think brokerage accounts should have the same risks. Their job isn’t to invest your “deposit” the way a bank does. They earn on commissions and on interest margin spread (ie they repo at X and charge you x+y).
The thing that sticks out with IBKR is their low margin rates. And that they quote rates up to a $3.5 million borrow amount.
That would suggest to me that they have multiple clients borrowing at least 3.5 million. They seem to be specifically targeting customers who want to buy on margin.
Imagine a world event causes a 50% downturn in the market, and that event happens when the market is closed.
Unlike a buy and hold cash account broker, IBKR would have to be out there selling to protect themselves. Even if there even was just a brief flash crash, IBKR would have to panic sell and lock in losses.
IB has very stringent margin policy and many times pre-emptively adjust them in participation of higher volatility and many times, imo unnecessarily no. So in this case, this "whale client X" wouldn't have been able to short a large amount in the first place. And second, I don't know if you are aware, IB has very strict force liquidation rule, at any time, when it sees that your position might not meet the margin requirement, it doesn't wait until you are in a huge loss and not able to pay up, it would liquidate your position without your consent.
Actually, if you have a margin account they loan out your shares.