IB put my account to close only status.

Buy and sell orders for different accounts with common beneficial ownership or control that are entered with the intent to negate market risk or price competition shall also be deemed to violate the prohibition on wash trades. Additionally, no person shall knowingly execute or accommodate the execution of such orders by direct or indirect means.

Every exchange - including options and futures - has similar language. It's not the wash sale for tax purposes - it's the negates risk issue. IB will be compelled to report it to FINRA. I suspect there is more to this story that has been omitted.
 
ajacobson said:
Buy and sell orders for different accounts with common beneficial ownership or control that are entered with the intent to negate market risk or price competition shall also be deemed to violate the prohibition on wash trades. Additionally, no person shall knowingly execute or accommodate the execution of such orders by direct or indirect means.

Every exchange - including options and futures - has similar language. It's not the wash sale for tax purposes - it's the negates risk issue. IB will be compelled to report it to FINRA. I suspect there is more to this story that has been omitted.
More...
just one instance every 10 thousand trades. The key is “intent”. I have no intent.
 
This thread is becoming total bullshit. Why didn't just transfer the positions on the clearing level?
I assume you have limited POA and couldn't. We'll crowdfund your defense even if it takes years to get you out.
 
ajacobson said:
This thread is becoming total bullshit. Why didn't just transfer the positions on the clearing level?
I assume you have limited POA and couldn't. We'll crowdfund your defense even if it takes years to get you out.
More...
You thought too much. Just a simple case. If you manage multiple accounts, this does occur once in a while.
 
I will add some high level color and not go into specifics but we are in a world where there are many rules. Not all the rules are clear or intuitive to the end clients. However, brokers must follow them or face substantial risk. The case above may be small but imagine hundred others like it. If a broker ignores inconsistencies amongst accounts, ignores incidental cross trades etc thus creating a pattern where regulators don't look kindly. The short of it is, if you get a surveillance question, just answer it. The vast majority of times it is an innocent error, simple change or having the client understand the potential bad behavior and the broker and client can move on. My two cents - don't make a mountain out of a molehill and look on both sides of the equation.
 
def said:
I will add some high level color and not go into specifics but we are in a world where there are many rules. Not all the rules are clear or intuitive to the end clients. However, brokers must follow them or face substantial risk. The case above may be small but imagine hundred others like it. If a broker ignores inconsistencies amongst accounts, ignores incidental cross trades etc thus creating a pattern where regulators don't look kindly. The short of it is, if you get a surveillance question, just answer it. The vast majority of times it is an innocent error, simple change or having the client understand the potential bad behavior and the broker and client can move on. My two cents - don't make a mountain out of a molehill and look on both sides of the equation.
More...
Thanks for clarification. It is my mistake ignoring the inquiry thinking just a 50 share question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top