You don't have your money at IB because you have said you don't trade there. You would rather put your money at some bullshit little broker with fewer than 25 clients that clears thru Penson than deal with the much larger company. You are just a fucking moron and your posts only back that fact up.
Interactivebrokers & Citibank
- Thread starter Aaron Copland
- Start date
You don't have your money at IB because you have said you don't trade there. You would rather put your money at some bullshit little broker with fewer than 25 clients that clears thru Penson than deal with the much larger company. You are just a fucking moron and your posts only back that fact up.
I have OldTrader on ignore. I have no need or desire to listen to his ridiculous shilling.
To say that trying to determine where one stands when dealing with a legal document as dense as IB's customer agreement is 'messing with semantics' is ludicrous - I hope that was one of Oldtrader's contentions (it sounds like the type of thing he might say) and not yours, def. Ever heard the saying 'read the fine print'? Ever heard 'the devil is in the details'? You don't think it has ever happened that a client of a company has assumed he's protected only to find out that the fine print made it clear he's not?
If contracts weren't based on the nuances of semantic differences in word strings, there would be no legal profession.
I read the agreement when I signed up, unlike 75% of the small retail guys who open accounts there. I am conveying my impressions about my reading of it, and I am saying that I don't agree with your suggestion that IB will completely cover any client losses that accrue as the result of the failure of another business.
western is also 100% correct above - IB is as good as and probably better than any other retail brokerage you can name. As I have said I have two accounts there and I have even recommended IB to friends and will continue to do so.
I read what you said and was responding to it, that is all. This is in an effort to keep things real. I have made my point, so I won't pursue it further.
The problem here is that you obviously have no clue how the law works. There are certain regulatory requirements set forth by the NASD, the SEC, and the CFTC regarding brokerage accounts. You, as a customer, can't make an agreement with a brokerage firm that would violated some of these regulations.
Accordingly, securities firms must maintain a certain amount of net capital. Likewise, they must handle their customer accounts in certain prescribed ways. IB, or any other brokerage firm, cannot waive their obligations under these regulations by having a customer sign something.
The bottomline is that any customer deposit at any brokerage firm is an obligation of the firm, and must be paid to the extent of the firms net capital. Really simple. SIPC, and then private insurance kick in following that.
My suggestion to you is that you hire someone with some legal background to read what you signed. Have someone with some expertise interpret it for you, someone who is also familiar with the SEC, NaSD, and CFTC rules and regulations.
OldTrader
And because he has got you on ignore I'll quote you. Of course there is a fair chance that the wanker has me on ignore as well. Lets see ...
Thought you might find this interesting. I reviewed the US Customer Agreement, and the Canadian Customer Agreement (since my understanding is that TraderNik is a Canadian).
I was unable to find any clauses of the type that TraderNik refers to, involving IB's responsibilities to it's customers in terms of their account balances.
If TraderNik can provide a quote from the Customer Agreement I'd like to see it. That goes for anyone else reading this thread. I don't think it exists.
So to summarize, when you deposit funds with IB it becomes an obligation of IB, to the extent of it's net capital. My suggestion is that you review IB's financial statements, in particular, the balance sheet. You will find that IB, in compliance with SEC and NASD requirements, has more net capital than required, and more net capital than the total indebtedness of customer balances.
If a circumstance were to arise where IB had deposited some of your balance in a bank that defaulted, and IF this balance were uninsured by FDIC, and unrecoverable in a liquidation and/or sale of the bank, nothing in IB's Customer Agreement relieves them of the obligation to the Customer for that balance. IB's broker capital is your first line of security, if you will. IF for some reason this capital was insufficient, the SIPC and the private insurance would kick in.
All security accounts in the US are operated by the rules and regulations of the NASD, SEC, and CFTC. In other countries, there may be additional authorities. Suffice it to say though, that IB can't write something into their Customer Agreement that would cause a violation of these rules and regulations. And more importantly, they have not done so.
OldTrader
What the hell did IB ever do to you for being such a pain? All points you have made so far in all your anti IB posts are all narrow minded and not well funded. Mostly reading your posts things like âdoes he actually (really) trade or is it just IB heâs after?â come to my mind. Get a life!!!