IB disconnected many times

[TMTrader]

Quote from Magna:

Sounds good in theory, not so clean-cut in practice. Do you pick? That is, let's say you're long. When you're first filled do you send out just a target limit order that resides on globex? Or how about just a stop-limit order that resides on globex? If so, then you're not covered if the market moves the other way, that is if just a target then you've got no stop, or vice versa if just a stop then you have no target. But if you send out both, that is a normal OCA pair, and if IB's server goes down then both your orders are sitting on Globex without the capability of self-cancelling when one gets hit since Globex doesn't know anything about OCA. This means, if you sent out a pair and one gets hit you're left stranded with the un-hit order still sitting there live. If the market reverses, as it often does, without IB's servers to cancel the other half of the pair you could easily be filled in the opposite direction when you thought you were out of the position. I don't know a good solution for this, but I didn't want to leave it out there that this was all so simple.

This is a very good point BUT I would like to believe that the reliability of the systems and connections between IB and Globex are much better than between IB and me. After all there are many more possible "breakpoints" between me and IB than between IB and the exchanges.

Gotta trade

TM trader

 

[CalTrader]

Quote from Magna:

.... But if you send out both, that is a normal OCA pair, and if IB's server goes down then both your orders are sitting on Globex without the capability of self-cancelling when one gets hit since Globex doesn't know anything about OCA. This means, if you sent out a pair and one gets hit you're left stranded with the un-hit order still sitting there live. If the market reverses, as it often does, without IB's servers to cancel the other half of the pair you could easily be filled in the opposite direction when you thought you were out of the position. I don't know a good solution for this, but I didn't want to leave it out there that this was all so simple.

This is a key point and in my mind, a big problem. Of course there are risk mitigation strategies but the way I see it, if a vendor offers this feature then they need to eat the problem if the issue resides in the vendors servers/connections and are unable to unwind the position. There are ways to make the failover very fast - clusters and redundant network topologies etc - and to document in real time where the problem occurred to establish accountability with GLOBEX.

 

[TMTrader]

Quote from CalTrader:



This is a key point and in my mind, a big problem. Of course there are risk mitigation strategies but the way I see it, if a vendor offers this feature then they need to eat the problem if the issue resides in the vendors servers/connections and are unable to unwind the position. There are ways to make the failover very fast - clusters and redundant network topologies etc - and to document in real time where the problem occurred to establish accountability with GLOBEX.

Another good point.

 

[easyguru]

IB just blinked. Since yesterday this is the fifth time it is happening.

 

[ditaln1]

Quote from Pabst:



I'd say $12-$15 is a lot more than a little more!

I guess it's a matter of opinion.. How much are you willing to pay for your security? Yes, you can trade for $5 a round turn all you want, but one crash, and you can't get out of a position, there goes all your profits for the year.. That money you saved on commission really doesn't matter much then, does it?

 

[Magna]

Quote from TMTrader:

I would like to believe that the reliability of the systems and connections between IB and Globex are much better than between IB and me.

I would certainly like to believe that too. But I'm not so sure that's the issue, that is, you're suggesting that if the connection between IB and you goes down you've still got a good chance of the "stronger" connection between IB and Globex. But the problem I was describing is if the IB servers simply go down then your OCA pairing information sitting on their server could easily be null 'n void... as if you had never placed it. And before their servers are up 'n running again (not to mention the time lag in your ability to re-establish a connection) the market could have easily reversed filling that 2nd part of the OCA pair still sitting on Globex.

 

[tango29]

I use IB still for my equity options and equity trades, but for futures or equity daytrading if you have a problem go elsewhere! There are now a few brokers that offer equal or lower where you can get someone on the phone right away when you have a problem. I'm at $4.88 and get a broker 1st ring when I have a problem. there are a couple lower, but I've been with this one for awhile and don't need to switch, other than moving to x-trader where I can get lower commissions as my volume increases. It'll be with the same broker though. Def seems reasonable, but to be honest I have had problems with IB, and nothing else on my computer and the response has always been..."It's not on our end". As soon as someone comes out with $1 options contracts, I'll be gone for good unless I stop having the dropouts and shutdowns. Just my opinion, and I will say the people I talk to at IB have all been nice, just not much for answers.

 

[vulture]

Quote from ditaln1:




I guess it's a matter of opinion.. How much are you willing to pay for your security? Yes, you can trade for $5 a round turn all you want, but one crash, and you can't get out of a position, there goes all your profits for the year.. That money you saved on commission really doesn't matter much then, does it?

depending on how much volume you do, trying to rationalize tripling your commissions based on, perhaps one anomaly, does not make good business sense. You would be well advised to simply try to offset your system crashes with ETF's like spyders or qqq's instead.

 

[BKuerbs]

Quote from Magna:

I would certainly like to believe that too. But I'm not so sure that's the issue, that is, you're suggesting that if the connection between IB and you goes down you've still got a good chance of the "stronger" connection between IB and Globex. But the problem I was describing is if the IB servers simply go down then your OCA pairing information sitting on their server could easily be null 'n void... as if you had never placed it. And before their servers are up 'n running again (not to mention the time lag in your ability to re-establish a connection) the market could have easily reversed filling that 2nd part of the OCA pair still sitting on Globex.

If you want to avoid this situation, you should use an OCA pair where the stop-loss order is a native GLOBEX order, residing on the exchange and the target is a simulated order, choose market for the GLOBEX. This order will be simulated by the IB-server, because it is not a native order-type for GLOBEX.

When the connection between IB and the exchange crashes, your position will be protected by a native stop-loss. Of course, it may happen, you open a position, the connection between IB and the exchange fails, your target is reached, but your position is not exited, because of the situation, and then the market turns around and triggers your stop-loss.

This is not nice, but maybe better than the situation Magna describes, because in his scenario you are left with a completely unprotected position, while in the scenario above you are flat (at a loss).

Best of worlds would be the exchanges implement the OCA feature...?

Regards

Bernd Kuerbs

 

[iceman1]

Quote from a5519:

There is also one more problem that disturbs - daily account statements. The are created in a random way, in particular on weekend. Sometimes are available on Sa., sometimes only late on sunday. Statement for 04.08 is still missing today. On the basis of daily statements I am running portfolio analysis and it's a big problem, at least to me. I didn't notice that somebody else complain.

there is nothing to complain about with respect to daily statements... heck for years I had to rely on snail mail to get confirms!

>>>>The only thing I would like IB to correct is the grouping of my open options positions in a semblance of order, like by the underlying. (LOL). Anyone else have this issue?

>>>Right now they come in with a random presentation of overnight options positions. SO, i.e., if I have short calls on MNX and the puts as well...... they are not grouped alphabetically or in any other logical way (that I can discern); for example by the (mini NDX's) option symbol MQX... as an example, so all open positions are grouped together for easy reference.

I have accounts at a couple other brokers that I wish had email and not US Mail... would save a lot of trees.



Ice



p.s. I might add that on said daily statements the "transactions" are indeed....... grouped together..... by underlying; but not 'overnight' open options positions as mentioned above.