New disclaimer from IB

Quote from jimrockford:

Well, it seems to me something is new. I think that in the past, we at least had the right to get back whatever funds we had on deposit with IB. This new disclaimer seems to say a customer has no rights at all to the return of his own money, beyond whatever commissions he generated over the past 6 months. So it seems like if IB just doesn't feel like returning our funds, it doesn't have to do so. We can only rely on IB's desire to maintain its business reputation, as an incentive to return our funds to us.

But what if IB went bankrupt? If IB went bankrupt, then IB would have no incentive to maintain its reputation. Would the new disclaimer mean we are not entitled to sue to get our funds returned? Would the new disclaimer eliminate the protections and priorities normally afforded to securities and futures trading accounts? Would the bankruptcy judge rule that IB owes its customer nothing, beyond the past 6 months of commissions generated by that customer?

I've always argued that IB provides superior protection against the risk of broker bankruptcy, but now I am concerned that this new disclaimer may change everything.
More...

i`m with JR on this one....that is a very open ended disclaimer that puts up a big red flag for me.there seems to be alot going on behind the scenes over at IB.....& not just their IPO......
 
OldTrader,
Agree, most unilateral agreements aren't perfect and usually unfair for a customer. I just can't recall anything so much silly. Give us example of worse agreement if you can.
 
Quote from jimrockford:

Does this mean that if IB made an accounting error, or perhaps a theft, resulting in a million dollars missing from the account of a customer who generated only $1,000 in commissions over the past six months, the customer could sue IB for only $1,000, and would have no legal remedy by which to recover the remaining $999,000?
More...
I don't see how you could ever reach that interpretation. Clearly your money is your money, this is referring to limiting recouping losses/damages suffered.

Further, how is that substantially different then what was in the agreement before?

http://www.interactivebrokers.com/download/IB_LLC_Agreements_and_Disclosure_Package_10-13-04.pdf

See Item 36:
IN NO EVENT SHALL IB'S LIABILITY, REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION AND DAMAGES SUFFERED BY CUSTOMER, EXCEED THE HIGHEST AGGREGATE MONTHLY COMMISSIONS AND FEES PAID BY CUSTOMER TO IB.
More...
 
Quote from GTS:

I don't see how you could ever reach that interpretation. Clearly your money is your money, this is referring to limiting recouping losses/damages suffered.

Further, how is that substantially different then what was in the agreement before?

http://www.interactivebrokers.com/download/IB_LLC_Agreements_and_Disclosure_Package_10-13-04.pdf

See Item 36:
More...

Well, I'm glad you posted that GTS. I must have missed that earlier provision when I read that earlier agreement, or perhaps I didn't read that particular revision of the agreement. So it seems that I was wrong, and that the disclaimer is not entirely new. The old disclaimer, I suppose, was even worse, because it limited liability to one month of commissions, while the latest limits it to 6 months.

I also think that earlier in this thread, I was reading the disclaimer out of context. The context of the provision, I now think, limits it to damages for outages of IB systems. I think gumtrader was right about this, and that I was wrong to raise questions about this. I am no longer concerned, as I was earlier in this thread, that the provision applies to other types of claims, like claims for return of customer property. I guess that the literal language of the provision was so jarring to me, especially since it somehow escaped my previously careful attention, that I just wasn't able to see its context in the paragraph containing it. Thanks to GTS for helping to wake me up. I no longer fear that this disclaimer has any relevance to issues like broker bankruptcy risks.

I hope that if any IB employees are reading this, that they will accept my apologies for my having had so much difficulty understanding the agreement, and for my raising fears and concerns that were unfounded.

My interpretation, at this point, is pretty much in agreement with Oldtrader's, that IB wants disputes about system performance to be resolved as a business decision by IB, rather than as a judicial decision by the courts. This doesn't mean IB intends to cheat people, it just means IB wants to control the decision-making process, and to limit its liability, in the event IB systems hiccup, stumble, or explode.
 
Quote from jimrockford:

I suppose, was even worse, because it limited liability to one month of commissions, while the latest limits it to 6 months.
More...
Actually I read the new disclaimer as saying it limits liability to the highest one month of commissions from the past 6 months whereas previously it was your highest month of commissions without any time restriction (thus it is a little worse). Otherwise why would the words "highest total monthly" be in there, they would just say the total past 6 months commissions period.

IN NO EVENT SHALL IB'S LIABILITY, REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION AND DAMAGES SUFFERED BY CUSTOMER, EXCEED THE HIGHEST TOTAL MONTHLY COMMISSIONS PAID BY CUSTOMER TO IB OVER THE 6 MONTHS PRIOR TO ANY INCIDENT.
More...
Regardless its peanuts either way, similar to a ski resort saying their liability is limited to the price you paid for the lift ticket even if their gross negligence causes your accidental death.

What would be really interesting is to take the old and new disclaimers and perform a diff comparison on them to see what actually changed....alas I don't have the motivation to do this myself.
 
Quote from GTS:

Actually I read the new disclaimer as saying it limits liability to the highest one month of commissions from the past 6 months whereas previously it was your highest month of commissions without any time restriction (thus it is a little worse).

Regardless its peanuts either way, similar to a ski resort saying their liability is limited to the price you paid for the lift ticket even if their gross negligence causes your accidental death.

What would be really interesting is to take the old and new disclaimers and perform a diff comparison on them to see what actually changed....alas I don't have the motivation to do this myself.
More...

Wow, once again, GTS has shown yet another surprising way in which I misread both the old and the new disclaimers.
 
OK, now that that part is a bit sorted out, this is the part I don't like. It basically says customer has no recourse if his account is hacked and funds are diminished with the eastern-european pump-and-dump scan.

4. Responsibility For Customer Orders and Customer Trades:
Customer understands that IB is unable to know whether someone other
than Customer has entered, or is entering, orders using Customer's user
name and password. Unless otherwise specified to and agreed by IB,
Customer will not permit any other person to have access to Customer's
account for any purpose. Customer shall be responsible for the
confidentiality and use of, and any Customer orders entered with,
Customer's user name and password. Customer agrees to report any loss
or theft of Customer's user name or password, or any unauthorized access
to Customer's account, immediately by e-mail to IB Customer Service at
help@interactivebrokers.com. However, Customer shall remain
responsible for all orders entered using Customer's user name and
password.
 
Contrast IBs policy with etrades policy. Etrades policy makes me feel good and safe...

https://us.etrade.com/e/t/jumppage/viewjumppage?PageName=cpg


Our promise to you is simple: E*TRADE Securities LLC or E*TRADE Bank will cover any loss that results from the unauthorized use of our brokerage, banking or lending services1. Furthermore, we are continually updating our security measures to keep your account and other online information safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top