You truly work for IB? With that level of typing ability? No offense intended, but something is very off in the way you have been typing out your responses in this thread.
Indeed.
I'm developing the fanciful and counterintuitive theory - admittedly with, so far, only two examples supporting it - that there's actually an inverse proportionality between how good a broker is, overall, and how they represent themselves in trading forums...
(I just gave myself a headache. Ow. )@ids: That's great. Thanks for the further info. Coming from the FICC OTC background, I was very much used to high notional derivative books with no problem at all if properly hedged. That's why it could be so easy for me to run up large gross exposure with IB ever since I started trading actively after I retired. Good to know those rules clearer. Thanks.JKG77,
Here is a bit more on the topic. At one time we did auto-liquidate on this but we do not any longer. While it is used as a pre-order check and we will not accept an order that violates the initial GPV ratio, we simply monitor if the higher, maintenance GPV is hit and contact the client if we think it necessary for them to act to reduce.
It wasn't clear to me that they actually got in trouble for the autoliquidation, or simply that they misidentified that a human entered the trade instead of an algorithm. If it's the former than IB ought to be really worried. If it's the latter than it's more of a yawn.