is IB's action legal

Quote from smithi:

IB could just force all customers to get the security device. They are not because they know a large number of customers would not want this approach. IB seems to just be using this as an excuse to try to cover itself.. which does not look completely right

Broker should be liable or not based on what the law says. If the law say they are not liable then they are not. There is no need to use this as a tool to corner customers for a signature.

Other brokers including the one mentioned in your Washington Post article offer and inform the customers about the security token cards, but IB seems to be the first I know of with this particular approach
More...

You don't know the history here. IB would actually prefer to force all clients to use the device but there are clients for one reason or another that want to opt out.

FYI, I believe the broker is not liable but we want to make it clear that opting out is not in the clients best interest. If by pointing out the risk to clients means that we are covering ourselves, then so be it. Personally I think the use of the device is in both the clients and IB's self-interest.

cokezero,
via account management under acct administration, there is a choice to restrict use to a specific IP address.
 
>via account management under acct administration, there is a choice to restrict use to a specific IP address.

Didn't know that. This is great! Thanks Def!
 
Quote from cokezero:

>via account management under acct administration, there is a choice to restrict use to a specific IP address.

Didn't know that. This is great! Thanks Def!
More...

I don't believe that IP restrictions negate the daily auto-logoff feature built into TWS. I think that you can utilize a batch-type 3rd party feature tho to get around it, provided you are not using the security device.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top