could some prop firms comment on the allowable submission:execution ratio with them? one specific example is OPG orders. i am guessing right now many trade OPGs via IB. they will have to move somewhere, might as well be the prop firm with the best flexibility about non-marketable orders (and good commissions of course).
IB : the end of excessive messaging?
- Thread starter TraDaToR
- Start date
I also got the warning too, my ratio being a "very high" 10.37
No automated trading here.
Of course if you place a couple of orders without a fill your ratio is infinity, then what? Surely there should some threshold of messages before the ratio is calculated.
If IB is serious about this should give us a running update of these numbers during the day, say, within the Account Balance section, then it is easy to track.
If they are more specific about the rules and potential charging then we can make a decision as to whether we move our business elsewhere or keep an IB account and stay within the boundaries. This vaguely threatening message just p***es off their customers.
Anyone here from IB care to respond?
No automated trading here.
Of course if you place a couple of orders without a fill your ratio is infinity, then what? Surely there should some threshold of messages before the ratio is calculated.
If IB is serious about this should give us a running update of these numbers during the day, say, within the Account Balance section, then it is easy to track.
If they are more specific about the rules and potential charging then we can make a decision as to whether we move our business elsewhere or keep an IB account and stay within the boundaries. This vaguely threatening message just p***es off their customers.
Anyone here from IB care to respond?
Bones, Here are the messaging benchmarks per product:http://www.cmegroup.com/globex/files/benchmarks.pdf
I am sure you know this PDF. Those benchmarks are only applied during RTH and only to the listed products. I only trade unlisted instruments during RTH and some of listed ones during the overnight session. So I have never ever exceeded the exchange messaging rules and IB has never heard of me from the exchanges...
Reality is that on some of my instruments, it's virtually impossible to get under 1/100 ratio. The book moves in sync with other markets, updating every second or so for one print( not necessarily mine ) per minute or less...Everybody making markets on those names are consuming the same bandwidth, some FCM must allow them to do so...I am sure there are plenty of TT autospreaders that even have less fills than me. I have never heard of any FCM restricting messaging more than the exchanges, except IB.
I am sure you know this PDF. Those benchmarks are only applied during RTH and only to the listed products. I only trade unlisted instruments during RTH and some of listed ones during the overnight session. So I have never ever exceeded the exchange messaging rules and IB has never heard of me from the exchanges...
Reality is that on some of my instruments, it's virtually impossible to get under 1/100 ratio. The book moves in sync with other markets, updating every second or so for one print( not necessarily mine ) per minute or less...Everybody making markets on those names are consuming the same bandwidth, some FCM must allow them to do so...I am sure there are plenty of TT autospreaders that even have less fills than me. I have never heard of any FCM restricting messaging more than the exchanges, except IB.
"I have never heard of any FCM restricting messaging more than the exchanges, except IB."
So, to that end this thread serves a very useful purpose to other ET members - namely, increasing awareness that certain trading strategies involving even modest levels of message submission can be restricted and/or compromised by IB customer policies.
Three choices: 1. Protest with your pocketbook and move your account elsewhere, 2. Protest with your voice via direct feedback to customer service and give IB plenty of crappy reviews here and elsewhere on the web. Find every conceivable avenue on the web, including the IB website itself, to make your displeasure known, and 3. Do nothing.
Nice big shit sandwich and they want all of their retail customers to take a bite. Sux.
So, to that end this thread serves a very useful purpose to other ET members - namely, increasing awareness that certain trading strategies involving even modest levels of message submission can be restricted and/or compromised by IB customer policies.
Three choices: 1. Protest with your pocketbook and move your account elsewhere, 2. Protest with your voice via direct feedback to customer service and give IB plenty of crappy reviews here and elsewhere on the web. Find every conceivable avenue on the web, including the IB website itself, to make your displeasure known, and 3. Do nothing.
Nice big shit sandwich and they want all of their retail customers to take a bite. Sux.
Just as a general sidenote, I have been working my way through exchange quoting issues since the mid-90's.
I use the "SmartQuote", "Slop", and throttle settings on TT Pro to control my message submissions. In essence, I don't actively quote until the price level is where I intend to do my damage. Away from the market, my orders are passive and resting - they flip into the que and become active with the bid/ask only when my price level is reached, then I am injecting orders like crazy and getting it done.
Honestly, if you are actively quoting away from the market, then you are begging for trouble from the exchange.
I use the "SmartQuote", "Slop", and throttle settings on TT Pro to control my message submissions. In essence, I don't actively quote until the price level is where I intend to do my damage. Away from the market, my orders are passive and resting - they flip into the que and become active with the bid/ask only when my price level is reached, then I am injecting orders like crazy and getting it done.
Honestly, if you are actively quoting away from the market, then you are begging for trouble from the exchange.
It seems our communication is being over-interpreted. Clarification time:
1) NO ONE HAS BEEN CHARGED A SINGLE PENNY. The only clients who will be ever affected by our system load policy are those who refuse to improve their highly inefficient systems and continue to submit hundreds of thousands of useless and wasteful orders, and never actually interact with the normal NBBO.
2) The email was intended for HEAVY ABUSERS. It was intended for people, most using automated systems, who submit 200'000 orders and do 2 trades. Or they send in orders on 10000 stocks in the pre-market, all orders 10% from the last sale, hoping to catch someone making a stupid error, not making the exchange cut-offs for a mistrade request, thereby gaining a low/no risk 10% on the trade.
3) It seems we sent it to an overly wide audience. We were targeting users with order/exec ratios in excess of 1000+ range, and these users can easily improve their quoting algos to reduce stupid order modifications, they just need to have a reason to. We have a few users whose order/trade ration is over 20K:1. This slows down the system for everyone else.
Clients who send in 200 orders and get 10 fills are not the audience.
Clients who submit 200'000 orders but trade 100'000 times are not the audience (we configure special systems that allow them to act without degrading the overall performance).
We care about the heavy and INEFFICIENT users. Some of these have contacted IB and worked with our API team to improve their quoting. We have not seen enough data to make a statistically significant statement, but the cocktail napkin calculation suggests our clients can reduce order load by 80% without missing any trading opportunities.
4) This was a POLICY email, designed to lift awareness. It probably went to too wide an audience. If you don't send in at more than 2000 orders in a day, you probably should not have even received the communication.
We will contact the worst offenders and work with them to get their system utilization to more manageable levels. I dont expect any problems for anyone who is willing to respect the intent of our policy.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
1) NO ONE HAS BEEN CHARGED A SINGLE PENNY. The only clients who will be ever affected by our system load policy are those who refuse to improve their highly inefficient systems and continue to submit hundreds of thousands of useless and wasteful orders, and never actually interact with the normal NBBO.
2) The email was intended for HEAVY ABUSERS. It was intended for people, most using automated systems, who submit 200'000 orders and do 2 trades. Or they send in orders on 10000 stocks in the pre-market, all orders 10% from the last sale, hoping to catch someone making a stupid error, not making the exchange cut-offs for a mistrade request, thereby gaining a low/no risk 10% on the trade.
3) It seems we sent it to an overly wide audience. We were targeting users with order/exec ratios in excess of 1000+ range, and these users can easily improve their quoting algos to reduce stupid order modifications, they just need to have a reason to. We have a few users whose order/trade ration is over 20K:1. This slows down the system for everyone else.
Clients who send in 200 orders and get 10 fills are not the audience.
Clients who submit 200'000 orders but trade 100'000 times are not the audience (we configure special systems that allow them to act without degrading the overall performance).
We care about the heavy and INEFFICIENT users. Some of these have contacted IB and worked with our API team to improve their quoting. We have not seen enough data to make a statistically significant statement, but the cocktail napkin calculation suggests our clients can reduce order load by 80% without missing any trading opportunities.
4) This was a POLICY email, designed to lift awareness. It probably went to too wide an audience. If you don't send in at more than 2000 orders in a day, you probably should not have even received the communication.
We will contact the worst offenders and work with them to get their system utilization to more manageable levels. I dont expect any problems for anyone who is willing to respect the intent of our policy.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
not sure why you see yourself as a heavy hitter in terms of commission generation. One single of my fx orders puts your "hundreds" of sub dollar commission trades to shame. Think about it logically for one second, no business will cut off its own hand, maybe you are really not all the way up in the pecking order as you think... just some food for thought...
Bone, I agree. At least for me my automated trading on IB was just a marginal part( 1/5 ) of my monthly trading income so I can still live until I get a new solution. I am not sure it is the case for everyone on this thread and I feel for them...Especially those who spent countless hours programming.
Anybody who has ever dealt with IB customer service wouldn't choose solution 2. Average response time for a sample non conflictuous question is like 2 months... Since yesterday, there must an overflow of trouble tickets. I will just work on an other solution with my other broker and follow this thread to see how IB is enforcing their policy.
Anybody who has ever dealt with IB customer service wouldn't choose solution 2. Average response time for a sample non conflictuous question is like 2 months... Since yesterday, there must an overflow of trouble tickets. I will just work on an other solution with my other broker and follow this thread to see how IB is enforcing their policy.