Quote from Bob111:
That what i keep telling them for few months already. they even agree on it. their answer to me-why don't you make a suggestion in suggestion box, on IB website about those incorrect margin rates. then-maybe some one will change them on website to 100% initial,100% maint. they not willing to change the rate,they not even willing to change information on their own website, misinforming existing and potential customers and likely violating few things..
you can't advertise 35% rate and apply 100. it's just plain wrong..then-what is the maintenance margin for? if they applying initial rate?
as i said to them-it should be big red sign on bond margin page-ALL BOND PURCHASES or POSITIONS ARE NOT MARGINABLE!!! you will not be able to borrow from us,even if you hold AAA bonds
Time to address various misconceptions:
(1) Last autumn, as markets collapsed and corporate bonds dropped rapidly in price and liquidity, IB made the INITIAL margin for corporate bonds 100%. The reasons were as follows:
(a) with vanishing liquidty, the prices became unreliable. We saw cases of different bonds from the same issuer, having similar properties (time to maturity, coupon structure, etc), but widely divergent prices (one bond might be 40 while another would be reported at 60). With such high uncertainty as to the valuation, we set initial margin high to limit the degree clients could get into positions in these highly illiquid contracts.
(b) it was not necessary to specifically notify clients that the INITAL margin was increased because it only affected the NEXT trade, we can't see into the future to understand who MIGHT buy a bond, and only a small percentage of the client base has any interest in these markets. As initial margin only applies to NEW positions, no client with
existing positions was impacted at the time of the change.
(2) At the same time we reviewed MAINTENANCE MARGINS:
(a) we DID notify all clients that maintenance margins were changing (mostly increasing)
(b) the assertion about GE being AAA seems to forget the rumors about GE Capital's financial distress and the rapid collapse of the stock price at the same time. During this period, it is hard for me to think of ANY corporate bond that was truly AAA (forget the ratings agencies: they were clearly far behind the curve).
(c) remember: marginability defines the amount of money IB is willing to lend against an asset. If the account becomes under margined, IB would liquidate the asset to meet the margin call. At that moment, it will not matter what the rating of the company is; it only matters the price at which the asset could be liquidated. If the bond is "worth" 60 but the only buyer is at 40, then 40 defines the upper limit of how much we should lend. It is all about price reliability and liquidity, not value. The banking crisis was created as much by the sudden lack of buyers for real estate, as the fall in 'real' value. No buyers means no ability to foreclose (=liquidate collateral).
(3) It seems several of the posts in this thread are confusing INITIAL and MAINTENANCE margins. Looking at the margin report posted by Bob111 on 6-29-09 02:11 PM, my points 1 and 2 appear to be properly reflected on this statement.
(4) Furthermore, the same reports shows maintenance margin rates that I think are reasonable (or at least not unreasonable). AIG is effectively government guaranteed and it is a short term note; most of the other financials also have government protection, direct or implied so the reality of the firm's credit worthiness is less relevant than the implied safety net to creditors. Still, the liquidity for these remains generally unreliable. WM is bankrupt and we have no ability to rate its buyer's appetitie for its debt. Ergo no willingness to lend against this asset.
(5) There are certain industries -- financial services and automotives are obvious examples -- that are under particular pressure in the current economic environment. There are others industries, of course, as well affected, but these ones were of such high profile that we manually established margin requirements that may be higher than the default as posted on our web site. GM, F, C etc. The margin requirements are reported on the following web page:
http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/p.php?f=margin&ib_entity=llc . Please evaluate the margin requirements in your account according to this list as it overrides the default model of 35%/50%/70%. If you find an inconsistency, please email me via E-T. [this is answer to JackR's statement on 6/29 at 04:19 PM]
(6) IB is not a bond trading house; we don't have a dealing desk. Accordingly, because the public information flow about valuations is poor, we are very conservative in the leverage we allow on these illiquid assets (marginability) and will remain so for the foreseeable future. We are aware of some inconsistencies in the margin rates for similar bonds; we are actively working on harmonizing these cases; in general, this will mean increasing the maintenance margin on the bond that is lower than its peers. We will notify any affected clients prior to deploying the new margin rates.
(7) Clients who want more leverage immediately on corporate bonds than IB is willing to grant will have to consider using another broker or bond house who are more specialized in these instruments. We will become more fluent in this asset class, but it isn't going to happen overnight.
(8) The formula for buying power can be found here:
http://ibkb.interactivebrokers.com/node/100
(9) I will look at the margin report. It is calculating the margin ratio at 99% which may be factually accurate if we cared about initial margin. I find maintance margin to be more useful. We will re-label or change the report. But I do not expect this non-realtime report to have anything to do with the real-time ability to trade the account.
I hope this clarifies most of the issues.