It is kind of funny that people complain about decimalization, and at the same time complain about an 8 cent spread on SSF. Before decimalization a 1/16 spread would be 6.25 cents anyhow. But now people are used to 1 or 2 cent spreads on stocks, and don't like the 6 to 10 cent spreads currently available on SSF.
People don't like the wobbly feeling of trading SSF where there is usually very slim liquidity. The bid and ask is almost always from the market makers, and it looks like they can be pulled at pretty much any moment. I watched this happen this week, where there was an 80 cent spread on a SSF (Citicorp) for about 15 minutes, then the quotes went blank on that SSF altogether. When that happened, I posted my own bid and ask at about a 50 cent spread. A minute or two after I did that the market maker quotes came back on at an 8 cent spread. It just doesn't quite feel like you're standing on solid ground yet with the SSF.
We know that IB tends to be overstrict in its interpretations of rules, to avoid any potential trouble. It's clear from IB's documents that it will not allow use of multiple accounts to avoid the CBOE "unbundling" rule for Options. If there is any similar proscription on the IB site (other than the general counsel's recent posted message) against using multiple accounts to get around the PDT rules, I haven't been able to find it.
My quote about small traders being targeted was not in reference to IB. It was in reference to the whole regulatory witchhunt.