PUT options liquidated at worst possible prices

Rockford makes his case.

Cash covered NPs are allowed and that's how this position would be treated in a cash acct.

The margin req. is strike + put price. The strike would be covered. But since IV was exploding, it's possible in a cash account that he had a margin call.
 
Quote from OldTrader:

Just a few general comments. While I agree that we really don't have enough information to understand everything about this situation, we do have enough information to draw a few conclusions.

First, when the liquidation took place they legged out of the position. I think this is a major flaw in the liquidation engine. If you're going to liquidate some spreads, liquidate them as spreads, not as single option positions. This alone exposes the account holder to needless risk. And on that particular day a one minute (or 3 minute) difference in the time one leg was liquidated versus another was enough to literally destroy an account. If that is what IB did, and it certainly looks as if that's what they did, I think that this could be construed to be gross negligence on the part of IB. That's a problem that IB needs to address.

Second, there was a story about IB liquidating positions in after hours at huge bid-ask spreads. Again, gross negligence.

These are both things that IB CAN do something about, and certainly should. And further, I think IB should address this forum more generally about the workings of the auto-liquidation setup.

And finally, although it is not clear to me how IB prices options, certainly I would hope it is not pricing them exclusively off of a bid-ask with no trades. And I think it is clear that IB's software could be written to flag an account where a massive change in pricing has occurred in a very small time period. Auto-liquidation under those circumstances with review is a problem.

OldTrader

This all sounds reasonable.

What is strange is that the workings of the auto-liquidation algorithm does not appear to be discussed on IB's website. It is a bad situation where IB's own customers cannot find anything in writing which outlines the actual risks and contingencies they would face in a situation like the May 6th market crash.

An IB rep on here said you get 10 minutes warning. If that is true, it should be in writing on the IB website, and on the customer legal agreement. Being told you have 10 minutes, verbally on an internet message board, is legally worthless, they could change that policy overnight and you are screwed.

The one thing they do say on the website is that you get 3 warnings - when you are 5% from margin deficiency, when you are at it, and when the engine is about to auto-liquidate.

IMO the best approach would be to have some human oversight. That will cost money but a few risk managers at the firm level to double check liquidations when things are down 20%+ or 5 standard deviations+ should not be too hard and is definitely worth the cost.

In any case, the current silence from IB is deafening, and hardly confidence inspiring. I'll be on the phone to some other major brokers who don't give you this issue, and if IB don't act on these concerns, I'll be forced to switch from them.
 
Quote from Cdntrader:

Huh?? you've just described exactly why I love IB. That's their whole buisness model. I assume you are not a client.

No human has interacted with my account since I opened it 8 years ago .

If you had long $1 million stock hedged by short $1 million ES futures, and got liquidated at market in the ES and your stocks at 0.01 bid, would you "love" IB for doing that?
 
Quote from ZeroSigma:

The auto-liquidation process makes one fundamental assumption that requires re-examination: that liquidation is always a risk-reducing activity. It is clearly not:

- after hours (and before hours), when portfolio is evaluated on the basis of prices quoted by active market-makers (i.e. susceptible to gaming),

- for portfolios containing offsetting positions, including: static hedges such as option debit spreads, and hedges established by the customer in temporarily closed markets or in temporarily halted securities,

- under exceptional market conditions, when the risk of mistrades is very high,

So here are some solutions that may deal with the above problems:

1) collecting a database of typical bid/ask spreads for most underlyings and their typical combinations (e.g. those 'buliding blocks' that can be entered using TWS tools such as Spread Trader) and preventing the auto-trading bot from making any trades when the current market spread is 'excessive' (e.g. exceeds a pre-defined multiple of the typical spread, volatility-adjusted via multiplication by the current volatility level over its median level),

2) when the current bid/ask spread is wider than the typical one, using limit orders initially pegged to the opposite-side price and gradually moved towards midpoint, or even better - towards 'fair value' price (which a market-making firm should be easily able to compute, not only for options); note that this requires starting the auto-liquidation process earlier than at the last moment,

3) starting the liquidation process with the most capital-intensive instrument first, using the 'Check Margin' functionality code to assess the post-liquidation margin requirements (in a special case when no liquidation can release liquidity, i.e. when the portfolio is optimally hedged, liquidating it in its entirety or better - leaving intact),

4) preserving the information about combination orders initiated via TWS tools such as Option Trader, Spread Trader etc. and their API equivalents, to subsequently treat such combos during the liquidation process in their entirety, evaluating their combined margin impact and liquidating with offsetting spread orders rather than legging out of them (which can create a 'margin cascade'),

5) when excessively wide spreads preclude liquidation, IB can use 'liquidation substitutes' such as:

- dynamic hedging of the short option position (using the most liquid underlying available, and using IB's proprietary capital to offset the delta risk of the customer's position, of course at customer's expense, as an elective service, with commissions and hedging losses charged to his account afterwards; note that 'deficit' liquidations could be more risky for proprietary capital than such 'pro-active' hedging service), or

- in case of liquid instruments, 'shorting against the box' i.e. opening a hedge in the same (or substantially the same) contract as the losing one (e.g. when the customer's hedging instrument is quoted on a temporarily closed exchange or has just been halted or cannot be shorted when used by customer for delta-heding, etc.),

6) customers usually open positions with adequate funds, and critical margin deficits are typically created by sustained periods of losses, so it is important for the auto-liquidation to become 'pro-active' , i.e. starting earlier than the last moment, i.e. when a rapid downward trend in available funds becomes apparent (e.g. when an average daily return over a 10-day moving window gets below -5% per day and yet the customer refuses to close the losing position),

7) please post other ideas than may improve IB's auto-liquidation process (just brainstorming, i.e. without evaluation).

All these points you suggested should *already be implemented*. IB are in fucking amateur hour here, they are looking more and more like a useless bucket shop, not a professional brokerage firm.
 
Quote from donnap:

Rockford makes his case.

Cash covered NPs are allowed and that's how this position would be treated in a cash acct.

The margin req. is strike + put price. The strike would be covered. But since IV was exploding, it's possible in a cash account that he had a margin call.

There's no such thing as a cash covered naked put.
And neither of those things are the same as a debit spread.

LOL

I'll come back to this thread if there's a real update.
 
Oh geez, you would have preferred cash-secured put?

At any rate, you are correct and my feeble old eyes misread the margin which is only the strike of the put.

In a cash acct. the debit spread is not allowed - but it doesn't matter.
 
Quote from stefan_777:

That only applies to assignments. Obviously he has a margin account, or else he couldn't open the position because it's built into the initial requirement.

I beg to differ, stefan_777. See http://individuals.interactivebrokers.com/en/p.php?f=margin. It shows that IB does allow short naked puts in a cash account, subject to a margin requirement equal to the strike price for each put (assuming it is either American style or physically settled, as in this case). This requirement always applies at all times in a cash account, regardless of whether the naked short put is ever assigned or not assigned. IB's website also shows that in a cash account, where a put has either an European-style exercise, as in this case, OR where a put is settled in physicals, as in this case, it is not margined as a spread, even though the account may hold the put as part of such a spread. The long put, in such a cash account, is simply ignored for purposes of determining margin requirements, and the short put is subject to the same margin requirement as a naked short put (even though it is obviously not a naked short put).

I think you are also incorrect to suggest that there is an "initial requirement" for a naked short put in a cash account at IB (having American exercise or physical settlement). IB makes no distinction between the initial requirement and the maintenance requirement for such a short put in a cash account.

Quote from stefan_777:

But the short option is not naked, if it was assigned before expiration, it would be legally covered by the exercise of the long put. By definition, calling it naked would be dead wrong.

Yes, we all understand that the OP's short puts were not naked, and were instead part of a put spread. BUT in a cash account, IB imposes exactly the same margin requirement, on the short leg of a put spread, as IB would if those short puts were naked (assuming either American exercise or physical settlement). If the OP had a cash account, then IB's published margin rules simply ignore the fact that the short puts were part of a put spread (assuming either American exercise or physical settlement).

Quote from stefan_777:

Go to the website and read the margin requirements. The only difference is that american style options need to be in a margin account just incase they're exercised prematurely.

Show us where it says that. I don't think you can, because it doesn't say that. The website does not say that american style options need to be in a margin account.

Quote from stefan_777:


This is definitely not the reason why he was liquidated, because exercise notice comes after trading is over for the day.

This happened in the middle of the day.

If he had a cash account, then he was auto-liquidated within minutes of his account falling below margin requirements for his short puts. Assignment notices would have played no role.

Quote from stefan_777:

Read the requirements, it says nothing about maintaining a certain market price for the legs. The only initial requirement is to hold the debit in cash, whether margin account or not. So he didn't violate margin requirements, unless there is some arcane clause somewhere in their account literature, but I doubt it.

No, I don't think so. The website says that in a cash account, the customer must have enough margin to cover the entire strike price of each short put (assuming either American exercise or physical settlement). The amount of the debit or credit generated by the put spread, of which a short put is one leg, is irrelevant to that short put's margin requirement in a cash account at IB (assuming either American exercise or physical settlement).

So, I again ask:

Were the OP's puts held in a cash account? Why has this question gone unanswered?
 
Quote from jimrockford:
Show us where it says that. I don't think you can, because it doesn't say that. The website does not say that american style options need to be in a margin account.

50119657.png


He doesn't have a cash account because he's holding a put spread with American style options; SPY's. Cash accounts can only do put spreads with European options.

Stop talking about naked puts. It's a put spread and it has its own margin requirements that are simple and clearly visible on IB's website pictured above.

By the story of the OP, he met both the initial and maintenance. You can't enter the position without paying the initial, and since the maintenance is the same as the initial, you can't go under margined based on these clear and simple rules.
 
Back
Top