Looking for a broker to replace IB, any suggestions?

truetype said:
We all 'get' that Sig's an IB h8r. But what broker is more financially solid, other than the bulge-bracket FCMs (JP, GS, BAML et al) who aren't even taking midsized institutional accounts, let alone retail? The only 'comp' to IB I can think of offhand (in terms of being a large, publicly traded firm) is ADM, and I'm not sure what their threshold is for new clients. Bear in mind, MFG and PFB were small, private firms -- they didn't have analysts combing over every number in their quarterly filings...
More...
Like Enron, Worldcom, Tyco....Again, all financially solid public companies with dozens of analysts combing over every number in their quarterly filings. You're displaying an incredibly naive view of how and if financial fraud can occur. Hint, the CEO having a lot to lose has nothing to do with it!
 
truetype said:
As you wish. Again, tell me what FCM (1) accepts small retail accounts and (2) is sturdier than IB?
More...
Schwab OptionsXpress, to name one off the top of my head. Also a company that has a non-zero chance of failing however, even though their CEO has a lot to lose and they're publically traded, and their CEO isn't a "worthless POS".....Just trying to inject a little logic into your thought process here.
 
truetype said:
Schwab is a securites firm with tiny OptionsX bolted on. IB and ADM are true, long-time FCMs.
More...
Let's summarize this conversation. You assert that we can't compare IB to any other failed broker because "Peterffy is a highly reputable multi billionaire with a lot to lose. Corzine was a worthless POS, as was Wasendorf." When it's pointed out that every CEO of every company has a lot to lose and you were using circular reasoning on Wasendorf and Corzine, you pivot to "they didn't have analysts combing over every number in their quarterly filings." When it's pointed out that a number of large public firms with analysts combing over every number failed under accounting scandals, you pivot to "tell me what FCM (1) accepts small retail accounts and (2) is sturdier than IB?" When one is pointed out at random, you pivot to saying it somehow doesn't count because it's not a "true, long-time FCM"? Are you getting dizzy yet with all this pivoting? Do you see your rationale getting sillier and sillier as you go on? First rule of holes, when you find yourself in one stop digging!
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, and clearly you've forgotten if you ever knew yourself. There is no question that IB, and any other single broker, has a non-zero chance of failing no matter what metric you measure by, so the OP's questions were valid. There's no reason, except perhaps that you and IB-AN are the same person, for you to reduce yourself like this to argue against this simple fact.
 
truetype said:
You're playing Clintonesque word games. Everything I said is true and important.
More...
That is stunning logic and support, just stunning. You're actually starting to sound more and more like an IB employee, or at least someone with the intellect of an IB employee, come to think of it.
 
OK, you're an IB h8r, understood. "Asked and answered, counselor." But... IB is as solid as any top-of-league table FCM that takes retail'ish accounts -- and ADM is the only real comp. You can rant all day, but that doesn't change the key facts.
 
truetype said:
OK, you're an IB h8r, understood. "Asked and answered, counselor." But... IB is as solid as any top-of-league table FCM that takes retail'ish accounts -- and ADM is the only real comp. You can rant all day, but that doesn't change the key facts.
More...
You doth protest too much, methinks. What's your relationship with IB exactly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top