What?????
You never heard of Oil Tanks?
You got what you asked for
You never heard of Oil Tanks?
You got what you asked for
IB customers lose $88m trading WTI crude
- Thread starter ZBZB
- Start date
That is sad . I feel your pain.
What happens if IB did not take the required initial margin and actually let the customer overtrade? Initial margin $8k for ten contracts would be €80k margin requirement. Because it seems that the system of IB assume dthat 0 would be the bottom and applied a margin of nil to the contracts that were bought at cero. May IB have a problem with the oversight body?
And is IB not liable for the system failure (not being able to execute negative orders) and as a consequence not being able to limit customer losses? Proove should not be so difficult. IB would only to show how many trades they performed on Monday in negative territory, no? If there aren´t any, so they probably screwed up.
And is IB not liable for the system failure (not being able to execute negative orders) and as a consequence not being able to limit customer losses? Proove should not be so difficult. IB would only to show how many trades they performed on Monday in negative territory, no? If there aren´t any, so they probably screwed up.
Popular trading app lost $88 million because its users bought too much oil
This isn't the first time Interactive Brokers has bailed out its margin traders
Story by David Canellis
US crude oil prices crashed below zero for the first time in history earlier this week, taking much of the world by surprise — including trading platform Interactive Brokers (IB), which has been forced to cover $88 million worth of its customers’ losses because they were holding too many barrels.
A number of IB users had bought oil contracts on margin, the firm explained in a press release, a term for investing with borrowed money.
Investing on margin is risky, as the asset purchased becomes the collateral for the loan. Sure, the profits are faster, but losing them is just as quick — and you can also end up owing money if your bets don’t pan out.
Trading on margin is risky business, whether its oil or the Swiss Franc
That’s exactly what happened to these IB margin traders. When the price of oil sank to the unprecedented low of negative $37.63, it also tanked the value of the equity in their trading accounts, pushing those users, and by extension IB, into debt — $88 million worth of debt.
So, rather than wait for the crude holders to pay up, IB unsurprisingly would rather write off the debt themselves and settle the matter with the users after the fact.
A similar thing actually happened back in 2015, when IB was forced to spend $120 million (roughly 2.5% of its net worth at the time) to bail out its users. Instead of US oil, they’d taken positions on the Swiss Franc just before the Swiss National Bank removed its peg against the Euro, which suddenly pushed its value up.
In any case, while $88 million in losses is surely something to balk at, the Greenwich-based trading firm says it doesn’t believe that it will have “a material effect” on its financial condition. And why would it? IB made $1.2 billion in profit last year.
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/202...ion-losses-traders-bought-too-much-crude-oil/
Yes, that is clear that they step in. But it says that IB would speak to their customers then. But if IB actually messed up with the initial margin and the system freeze, then I would say that IB has to reverse the trades and return every cent to their customer. Not just assume the extra loss. My humble opinion.
Popular trading app lost $88 million because its users bought too much oil
This isn't the first time Interactive Brokers has bailed out its margin traders
Story by David Canellis
US crude oil prices crashed below zero for the first time in history earlier this week, taking much of the world by surprise — including trading platform Interactive Brokers (IB), which has been forced to cover $88 million worth of its customers’ losses because they were holding too many barrels.
A number of IB users had bought oil contracts on margin, the firm explained in a press release, a term for investing with borrowed money.
Investing on margin is risky, as the asset purchased becomes the collateral for the loan. Sure, the profits are faster, but losing them is just as quick — and you can also end up owing money if your bets don’t pan out.
Trading on margin is risky business, whether its oil or the Swiss Franc
That’s exactly what happened to these IB margin traders. When the price of oil sank to the unprecedented low of negative $37.63, it also tanked the value of the equity in their trading accounts, pushing those users, and by extension IB, into debt — $88 million worth of debt.
So, rather than wait for the crude holders to pay up, IB unsurprisingly would rather write off the debt themselves and settle the matter with the users after the fact.
A similar thing actually happened back in 2015, when IB was forced to spend $120 million (roughly 2.5% of its net worth at the time) to bail out its users. Instead of US oil, they’d taken positions on the Swiss Franc just before the Swiss National Bank removed its peg against the Euro, which suddenly pushed its value up.
In any case, while $88 million in losses is surely something to balk at, the Greenwich-based trading firm says it doesn’t believe that it will have “a material effect” on its financial condition. And why would it? IB made $1.2 billion in profit last year.
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/202...ion-losses-traders-bought-too-much-crude-oil/
Wonder if anyone was short, and couldn't cover because of the NEG GLITCH, and made a killing when they were forced to hold till -37 .
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
And fwiw , who was responsible for making sure the TWS software could handle negative oil
They can handle negative spreads, but the coders were not up to date with the CME
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
And fwiw , who was responsible for making sure the TWS software could handle negative oil
They can handle negative spreads, but the coders were not up to date with the CME
The system never showed a price below zero so I doubt there were manyMaybe somebody wanted to sell at -40 and could not
Btw a trade when they closed my position at -37.63 is not even in the list so in my reports it looks like I bought it but never closed. Maybe that’s how they close an expired futures (never held it till expiry) but more likely it’s another sign that negative prices were not linked to their software
Wasn't it settled (so no trade)?The system never showed a price below zero so I doubt there were many
Btw a trade when they closed my position at -37.63 is not even in the list so in my reports it looks like I bought it but never closed. Maybe that’s how they close an expired futures (never held it till expiry) but more likely it’s another sign that negative prices were not linked to their software
Hi,
Just as Creator, I found myself locked with 2 contracts when the price went negative.
I had bought those contracts above $5 and was actlively monitoring the market.
When my TradingView platform indicated a negative price, I made MANY attemps to enter some exit orders, whithout success since IB woudn't allow me to enter null or negative prices. I was hands tied, looking the prices dip further while IB platform was still showing me 0.01 prices. The worst is that there is no record of these attempts, since it was not feasible.
I think that they settled all positions at -$37.63, but I am not sure if they liquidated some positions at different prices whithin the last 15 minutes.
I sent them a complaint, making clear that I hold them accountable for unallowing me to liquidate my position when we crossed 0. Again, I was not overleveraged and actively monitoring the position.
I am looking at various angles to make my case:
- Inability of the platform to manage and recognize negative prices.
- The cutoff policy might also be an interesting lead though I am not sure what it means exactly.
In addition, the inability of IB (15% of open interest at expiry) and some other platforms to adapt margin requirements to negative prices acted as fuel on the fire since it enabled customers to overleverage some positions at the very last moment (when the price approached 0).
- Also I would be interested to know how other platforms reacted:
1) Have they enabled their customers to stop their positions?
2) Have their margin requirement tool work properly?
My guess is that a lot of them performed better.
Just as Creator, I found myself locked with 2 contracts when the price went negative.
I had bought those contracts above $5 and was actlively monitoring the market.
When my TradingView platform indicated a negative price, I made MANY attemps to enter some exit orders, whithout success since IB woudn't allow me to enter null or negative prices. I was hands tied, looking the prices dip further while IB platform was still showing me 0.01 prices. The worst is that there is no record of these attempts, since it was not feasible.
I think that they settled all positions at -$37.63, but I am not sure if they liquidated some positions at different prices whithin the last 15 minutes.
I sent them a complaint, making clear that I hold them accountable for unallowing me to liquidate my position when we crossed 0. Again, I was not overleveraged and actively monitoring the position.
I am looking at various angles to make my case:
- Inability of the platform to manage and recognize negative prices.
- The cutoff policy might also be an interesting lead though I am not sure what it means exactly.
In addition, the inability of IB (15% of open interest at expiry) and some other platforms to adapt margin requirements to negative prices acted as fuel on the fire since it enabled customers to overleverage some positions at the very last moment (when the price approached 0).
- Also I would be interested to know how other platforms reacted:
1) Have they enabled their customers to stop their positions?
2) Have their margin requirement tool work properly?
My guess is that a lot of them performed better.