Good! Defend yourself!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ib must be selling order flow on options
- Thread starter monstercat
- Start date
Good! Defend yourself!
Quote from riskfreetrading:
Look. You got to my nerves. I read your f*king answers as well as the answer of others. You come here and try to defend something that should not be defended. You make money on the back of the customers in many ways:
1. Timber hill
2. Exchanges
3. Other market makers/etc
You fill orders such that you maximize everything you can get after commission.
There is worst! Even if it were acceptable to do the above, if you had two scenarios that maximize the IB side, there is nothing there that says let us optimize for the client even if IB loses nothing.
So you come here and give us you shit about what is meant or not meant by some f*king words. You understood what the client said: he does not want to be sticked? What do not you understand.
This is about money. You maximize what you can get, and you never think of the client. Period. The only thing that saves the client is the LIMIT price. Thanks god the limit price exists.
When other brokers will come out and meet IB's commissions, you will see what will happen. People will desert you, and when that day comes you will pay back the client part of whatever you receive on his order, and beg them to stay.
People have memories. They will never forget if someone took their money unjustly.
Never come here and try to show people who take the risk and make experiments to prove what they say, and give them that sort of f*cking answer.
I have had a long day, and i did not want to spend time reading and answering your shit.
I couldn't disagee with anything this person says except that limit orders don't save you. Even here you get your butt kicked by these guys.
Same here. Are you an IB customer?Quote from riskfreetrading:
I have had a long day, and i did not want to spend time reading and answering your shit.
If not, please shut your profane and ignorant trap. The IB folks come here to try and help. We appreciate it. They don't need to see your worthless opinion.
You can go away now. Thanks.
Quote from Wayne Gibbous:
Same here. Are you an IB customer?
If not, please shut your profane and ignorant trap. The IB folks come here to try and help. We appreciate it. They don't need to see your worthless opinion.
You can go away now. Thanks.
Do you work for IB? If no, do you receive money from them?
Where is the help that IB gave in this thread? Trying to shut a poor but intelligent soul who did his homework and defend his case. Many reached a conclusion that his case is solid. What do you have to say to that Mr. ignonant!
This forum does not belong to you. If it does, I would leave immediately. If you were the type of IB worker to whom I would speak on the phone, you would simply hang up on me.
You can not hung up a phone in this forum.
Face the music, and don't dance.
Quote from IBsoft:
The NBBO is 6.2 at 6.4.
You submit the bid to buy at 6.3.
You become the new NBB.
I do not see what is wrong with that. Could you please clarify?
Thank you.
How come you do not see the problem?
Here is what I understand him saying: at a time T he placed an order at IB for 6.30.
At a time T+(big) Delta, he placed the same order with another broker for 6.30.
He got filled with the othe broker (who received a similar order at same price, but BID DELTA after his order at IB). Not only he got filled with the other broker, I understand IB did not even filled him at that price.
The market is open for everyone! IB had more time and did not do the work, and he said it happend more than once! Everyone has access to the same market! Do you see the potential problem there?
Unless the poster is not telling the truth (I have no reason to doubt so far) it seems to me that his story is clear.
If I were I would just come clear on this. Tell the facts as they are. If it is part of your business model, that is fine. But, please do not try to deviate the issue or hide behind words. People want just to know the truth and know what to expect so that they make their caculations and go for what is good for them overall.
It is possible that IB is better overall. I do not think you should cloud the issues. Go straight to the chase or do not answer at all.
because ib directs orders were they match the nbbo to there choice of exhanges which they clearly state is the exchange which gives them the biggest order flow payment. so if people on this board know that ise has the best fills surely ib knows this so the question becomes are they screwing customers and the answer is yes. 10 contracts on a 10 cent per difference is $100. multiply that but 10k contracts a day and do they math.but whats hugely in ib's favor is probably few know this as you'd have to have 2 brokers and place the same order. now in ib's defense what they're doing is the norm in the industry. mb trading was the worst
Quote from monstercat:
because ib directs orders were they match the nbbo to there choice of exhanges which they clearly state is the exchange which gives them the biggest order flow payment. so if people on this board know that ise has the best fills surely ib knows this so the question becomes are they screwing customers and the answer is yes. 10 contracts on a 10 cent per difference is $100. multiply that but 10k contracts a day and do they math.but whats hugely in ib's favor is probably few know this as you'd have to have 2 brokers and place the same order. now in ib's defense what they're doing is the norm in the industry. mb trading was the worst
That is the reason why I trade only liquid options with tight spread (QQQQs and IWM). The Penny Pilot program is god sent to the retail customer. The penny (or even pip) quotes should be general to every security in the industry. Those who say it will hurt liquidity I think are saying it just to defend their cake (i.e. the fat/easy bid-ask spread).
I've been trading thru IB for years. I have made very many suggestions for bug fixes and improvements to IB's SMART order routing algorithms, which IB did implement. This gives me some experience and insight into IB's decision-making and ethics.
I believe that IB's intent is to provide the best possible execution for its customers. I believe that IB never intends to benefit itself by providing inferior executions. I have encountered many types of situations which suggested a way to improve SMART's order-routing performance, but where it was difficult to get the change made, because I needed to persuade IB decision-makers that a particular change really would benefit customers. It wasn't because they were trying to rip us off, it was because recognizing the correctness, or lack thereof, of a suggested improvement to SMART is often quite difficult. The IB bureaucracy does have flaws which add to this difficulty, but this has nothing to do with a scheme to benefit IB at the expense of execution quality given to the customer.
The particular problem discussed in this thread, I think, provides IB with an excellent opportunity to introduce some improvement to the way it routes non-marketable orders. I have, for years, suggested that IB add strategies to SMART for taking advantage of "hidden liquidity". I think that the failure to scan systematically thru all auto-ex market centers, for hidden liquidity, is the root cause of this thread's problem, and that a hidden liquidity scanning procedure would be a great improvement for SMART.
I am greatly disturbed by the extraordinarily abusive tone directed against IB in this thread. I, for one, am very grateful for the services IB provides, and also for the fact that its developers communicate with us customers directly on this board and on IB's private board. I think that such communication is a big part of what makes IB such a great broker, and I'll bet this thread will produce an improvement to SMART which will give an example of how this sort of public discussion helps make IB superior and helps IB to keep improving.
Please keep up the good work, IB, and please don't let the shocking behavour of some hooligan discourage your very valuable participation on this board. I also think that the owner of this website should intervene to keep these discussions reasonably civil and productive.
I believe that IB's intent is to provide the best possible execution for its customers. I believe that IB never intends to benefit itself by providing inferior executions. I have encountered many types of situations which suggested a way to improve SMART's order-routing performance, but where it was difficult to get the change made, because I needed to persuade IB decision-makers that a particular change really would benefit customers. It wasn't because they were trying to rip us off, it was because recognizing the correctness, or lack thereof, of a suggested improvement to SMART is often quite difficult. The IB bureaucracy does have flaws which add to this difficulty, but this has nothing to do with a scheme to benefit IB at the expense of execution quality given to the customer.
The particular problem discussed in this thread, I think, provides IB with an excellent opportunity to introduce some improvement to the way it routes non-marketable orders. I have, for years, suggested that IB add strategies to SMART for taking advantage of "hidden liquidity". I think that the failure to scan systematically thru all auto-ex market centers, for hidden liquidity, is the root cause of this thread's problem, and that a hidden liquidity scanning procedure would be a great improvement for SMART.
I am greatly disturbed by the extraordinarily abusive tone directed against IB in this thread. I, for one, am very grateful for the services IB provides, and also for the fact that its developers communicate with us customers directly on this board and on IB's private board. I think that such communication is a big part of what makes IB such a great broker, and I'll bet this thread will produce an improvement to SMART which will give an example of how this sort of public discussion helps make IB superior and helps IB to keep improving.
Please keep up the good work, IB, and please don't let the shocking behavour of some hooligan discourage your very valuable participation on this board. I also think that the owner of this website should intervene to keep these discussions reasonably civil and productive.
Quote from jimrockford:
I've been trading thru IB for years. I have made very many suggestions for bug fixes and improvements to IB's SMART order routing algorithms, which IB did implement. This gives me some experience and insight into IB's decision-making and ethics.
I believe that IB's intent is to provide the best possible execution for its customers. I believe that IB never intends to benefit itself by providing inferior executions. I have encountered many types of situations which suggested a way to improve SMART's order-routing performance, but where it was difficult to get the change made, because I needed to persuade IB decision-makers that a particular change really would benefit customers. It wasn't because they were trying to rip us off, it was because recognizing the correctness, or lack thereof, of a suggested improvement to SMART is often quite difficult. The IB bureaucracy does have flaws which add to this difficulty, but this has nothing to do with a scheme to benefit IB at the expense of execution quality given to the customer.
The particular problem discussed in this thread, I think, provides IB with an excellent opportunity to introduce some improvement to the way it routes non-marketable orders. I have, for years, suggested that IB add strategies to SMART for taking advantage of "hidden liquidity". I think that the failure to scan systematically thru all auto-ex market centers, for hidden liquidity, is the root cause of this thread's problem, and that a hidden liquidity scanning procedure would be a great improvement for SMART.
I am greatly disturbed by the extraordinarily abusive tone directed against IB in this thread. I, for one, am very grateful for the services IB provides, and also for the fact that its developers communicate with us customers directly on this board and on IB's private board. I think that such communication is a big part of what makes IB such a great broker, and I'll bet this thread will produce an improvement to SMART which will give an example of how this sort of public discussion helps make IB superior and helps IB to keep improving.
Please keep up the good work, IB, and please don't let the shocking behavour of some hooligan discourage your very valuable participation on this board. I also think that the owner of this website should intervene to keep these discussions reasonably civil and productive.
This is a thoughful response. I do not have any problem with IB--I did not agree with the response (see why below) that was given by some posts which I do not know whether they reflect IB or not. My point of views were directed at the posters not at IB.
All what I would expect is simply a logical point of view. I will respect such point of view even if I were to disagree with it. Your point of view is logical,and I respect it, even if I do not agree with everything in it. It is true that IB is good, but they are not perfect as you indicate yourself. Those who commented as if IB were perfect/NoRoomforChange should be open to the debate, otherwise how could one make a change if one cannot even listen. Someone made the issue as a wording issue, and later pointed out he/she still did not understand. One then starts to question the sincerety of that point of view.
Best wishes to you, to the other readers, and to the good people from IB. There must be some great people there, otherwise they would not be able to offer a low commission rate. The tough comments are in response to some posts, and are not directed to IB and those in it who make things work well.
Thank you.
I tend to agree with Jim. I had a beef with IB once and I wasn't particularly pleased with the way they resolved it, but on balance they are excellent. Those of us who have been around a while know what it was like before IB revolutionized futures and options brokerage. IB has prospered by offering a far better deal to the customer.
I am not an apologist for IB, but honestly, I cannot see what they did wrong here. Some brokers might have posted this order to ISE, but I'll wager the majority would have done just what IB did, go to CBOE, which does the most volume.
Personally, I like to use ISE and always direct limit orders there. Getting a limit bid hit is a very rare occurrence on any options exchange. Most of the time, you get filled when they trade through your price, and all this discussion is academic. I defy anyone to prove that any broker has the ability to get your limit bid hit. You just don't understand how orders are filled if you believe that.
I am not an apologist for IB, but honestly, I cannot see what they did wrong here. Some brokers might have posted this order to ISE, but I'll wager the majority would have done just what IB did, go to CBOE, which does the most volume.
Personally, I like to use ISE and always direct limit orders there. Getting a limit bid hit is a very rare occurrence on any options exchange. Most of the time, you get filled when they trade through your price, and all this discussion is academic. I defy anyone to prove that any broker has the ability to get your limit bid hit. You just don't understand how orders are filled if you believe that.