FWIW, in the last couple of years I have done probably around 10,000 trades through IB, and as far as I remember I have had a total of one or two limit orders filled at an "illegal" price. I never did anything about it, just accepted the fill. Obviously, this is not how it should be. But what are the alternatives? Let's say you found a broker who "eats" this kind of loss to keep you happy. Of course, that broker has to live as well, so instead of $.005 per share (including SEC tax) you might pay $.005 per share plus SEC tax. I don't even know exactly how much that tax is, but isn't it usually somewhere around $.001 per share, depending on the actual price? If we assume that 5000 of my trades were sales, the difference in commissions would add up to $5 times the number of shares in my average trade. I really don't remember the details, but I think my limit price was violated by $0.01 one time and by $0.05 the other, a total of $0.06 per share. Your mileage may vary, but you would have to receive an awfully large number of "bad fills" to justify paying even slightly higher commissions to a broker who will accomodate your "technical glitch insurance" needs.
Understanding IB
- Thread starter bent_prop
- Start date
- Status
FWIW, in the last couple of years I have done probably around 10,000 trades through IB, and as far as I remember I have had a total of one or two limit orders filled at an "illegal" price. I never did anything about it, just accepted the fill. Obviously, this is not how it should be. But what are the alternatives? Let's say you found a broker who "eats" this kind of loss to keep you happy. Of course, that broker has to live as well, so instead of $.005 per share (including SEC tax) you might pay $.005 per share plus SEC tax. I don't even know exactly how much that tax is, but isn't it usually somewhere around $.001 per share, depending on the actual price? If we assume that 5000 of my trades were sales, the difference in commissions would add up to $5 times the number of shares in my average trade. I really don't remember the details, but I think my limit price was violated by $0.01 one time and by $0.05 the other, a total of $0.06 per share. Your mileage may vary, but you would have to receive an awfully large number of "bad fills" to justify paying even slightly higher commissions to a broker who will accomodate your "technical glitch insurance" needs.
Lobster: You're absolutely correct. I wouldn't have quit this firm over the technical glitch. I would have taken the small hit. I also wouldn't have quit the firm if they'd said they don't bust trades, even if they're IB's fault. I also wouldn't have quit the firm if they'd refused the refund even after admitting I was intitled to it. It was a trivial sum, and if it didn't happen repeatedly, I'd have lived with all of that.
It was that they lied to me that scared me. Just that, only that. I can't do biz with a firm that lies, because I fear they'll steal a lot of money from me. Steal it, yes! Because they're not honest. That was the concern that caused me to decide to quit that brokerage firm.
It was that they lied to me that scared me. Just that, only that. I can't do biz with a firm that lies, because I fear they'll steal a lot of money from me. Steal it, yes! Because they're not honest. That was the concern that caused me to decide to quit that brokerage firm.
def
Sponsor
You mention that I'm trying to smear you on another thread? I think you should look in the mirror. You are drawing conclusions and twisting my words. Where do you come up with this stuff? When I said I good luck with who ever you end up with, did that have a hidden meaning? I only put up a post after you published private e-mails from someone trying to go out of their way to assist and you then called me a liar. You could have easily sent me another mail asking why I didn't respond or telling me that you thought we were mistaken and that you'd appreciate if we'd take another look. I'm pretty sure I said or inferred I was not the decision maker with your issue.
Nevertheless, I believe the assumption on the order isn't so far fetched. I will repeat for the record that I have not gone over all the details and times of your orders but will state how I thought things should be interpreted. You did submit 4 orders - some at lower prices that did not make it to the exchange which might have been marketable at the time. We thus can't assume that you wouldn't have been filled on an earlier modification. You sound very upset that I didn't send you back a note on Sunday or say I'm sorry. You did write me a few mails but I don't sit in front of my computer on weekends. You followed up with a note to the CS rep and cc'd me. Given what you wrote, I saw no need to send you a response.
Nevertheless, I believe the assumption on the order isn't so far fetched. I will repeat for the record that I have not gone over all the details and times of your orders but will state how I thought things should be interpreted. You did submit 4 orders - some at lower prices that did not make it to the exchange which might have been marketable at the time. We thus can't assume that you wouldn't have been filled on an earlier modification. You sound very upset that I didn't send you back a note on Sunday or say I'm sorry. You did write me a few mails but I don't sit in front of my computer on weekends. You followed up with a note to the CS rep and cc'd me. Given what you wrote, I saw no need to send you a response.
Well, I see you're still on your rant. Just thought I'd post your initial comments when you got that fill:
09-11-03 08:14 AM
"That's interesting, but does it explain what happened? I had a limit order to sell at 69 and I heard the fill when I was away from the computer, came back and assumed I got the 69, till I checked the order, found it was for 65. I don't think 69 was ever hit which means I'm not entitled to any fill at all, and unfortunately I wrote them, because I was concerned that I could place a limit order and have it filled at a lower price. Limit means that price or better, not lower. Of course, I'm thrilled I got that fill and now I expect they'll take it away from me. "
I like the part "I'm thrilled I got that fill....".
Just thought people should be reminded that your initial thoughts seemed to differ from your thoughts now. And all over $20...LOL!
OldTrader
09-11-03 08:14 AM
"That's interesting, but does it explain what happened? I had a limit order to sell at 69 and I heard the fill when I was away from the computer, came back and assumed I got the 69, till I checked the order, found it was for 65. I don't think 69 was ever hit which means I'm not entitled to any fill at all, and unfortunately I wrote them, because I was concerned that I could place a limit order and have it filled at a lower price. Limit means that price or better, not lower. Of course, I'm thrilled I got that fill and now I expect they'll take it away from me. "
I like the part "I'm thrilled I got that fill....".
Just thought people should be reminded that your initial thoughts seemed to differ from your thoughts now. And all over $20...LOL!
OldTrader
DEF: You continue to not tell the truth. You don't seem to understand that is not the way out of this.
You didn't say you weren't the decision maker, but I didn't think you were and what difference would it have made if you were?
I posted the entire correspondence, and it wasn't "out of context" because it was the entire context. I also sent you personally two notes, which I can copy here if you like, after you sent me the email with the lie. Those little notes pointed out to you that what you said couldn't be true. You didn't respond to them. So I sent the final email to both you and CS, which I posted. Neither of you responded to that final email either. So I went public with what happened. You weren't going to fix this by correcting your lie, the only thing that would have fixed it.
You reported to me what CS told you, that IB cannot assume which order would have executed, and that's a iie. As an experienced trader yourself, you know very well you could have told which order would have filled. But you lied to me about that. That's truly all I care about.
Once you lied to me, I didn't care to try to get the money back, because I don't care to do business with people who lie to me. It scares me to deal with liars.
You smeared me in a post here when you made some comment suggesting I was anything but civil to your Customer Service, claiming you inferred that because I'm writing angry notes about IB now. It's untrue, though.
You also tried to turn this on me by saying I should not have emailed, should have PHONED OVERSEAS about this problem at 5AM, which I assume is an expensive toll call for me, and not something I would think of doing. You suggested in these comments that somehow this problem was my fault, while in fact, I handled it entirely correctly, and it was IB who bungled it repeatedly. You should be admitting it was all IB's compounded mistakes, rather than trying to make me out as somehow the Bad Guy in this. What you really don't like is that I made it public and I did that because you didn't make it right. Making it right would be admitting IB was wrong, saying you can tell which order would have filled and sincerely apologizing for having sent me a lie. You don't do that. You naturally are upset that I made it public, but think about what really WOULD make this go away and what would not.
This is what happened:
1. The fill came in on a BUY LIMIT ORDEr under my limit, so I emailed right away.
2. As soon as CS received the note, they should have given it the attention of the people who can immediately status and repair. Instead they spent four days on statusing it, while telling me to be patient.
3. After they realized it was entirely their fault that my screen indicated the changed orders had gone through, while the orders hadn't, which should have taken about an hour, tops, they should have busted the trade. I could have reinstated the last order at 9469 and waited for it to fill. They did know the order wouldn't have filled, right away, but they decided to not communicate that with me and resolve it quickly.
4. By the time they finished their research or at least by the time they told me they had, they couldn't bust the trade any more and I couldn't reinstate my order any more. Four days had passed. But since they knew the order wouldn't have filled and that my price wouldn't have been met, they should have just apologized sincerely by offering the good-will refund.
5. I would have lived with IB not making any of this right. I just couldn't live with your telling me an untruth about it, saying you couldn't assume or know which order would have filled.
6. When I got that email with the lie, I sent you two short notes and pointed out that what you said wasn't true, but you didn't answer, so I sent the note to CS and you, asking to have my money sent back to me -- all of it.
7. None of these three notes (the two private to you, or the one to both of you) were answered, and they were civil. It was after you did all of this that I went public with this. And everything I have said is true!
All you had to do even after I went public was say that you made a mistake, didn't fully understand the audit trail, and that I was right that the order hadn't filled and that it should have been busted at that time. You just should have retracted the lie. That would have saved the situation.
Instead you don't even address the fact you lied to me and try to blame me for something. What exactly?
Of course you personally can't give the refund. I don't give a hoot about the refund. Forget the refund. I forgot it as soon as you lied to me.
I care about dealing with an honest firm. And IB doesn't fit in that category in MY book!
You didn't say you weren't the decision maker, but I didn't think you were and what difference would it have made if you were?
I posted the entire correspondence, and it wasn't "out of context" because it was the entire context. I also sent you personally two notes, which I can copy here if you like, after you sent me the email with the lie. Those little notes pointed out to you that what you said couldn't be true. You didn't respond to them. So I sent the final email to both you and CS, which I posted. Neither of you responded to that final email either. So I went public with what happened. You weren't going to fix this by correcting your lie, the only thing that would have fixed it.
You reported to me what CS told you, that IB cannot assume which order would have executed, and that's a iie. As an experienced trader yourself, you know very well you could have told which order would have filled. But you lied to me about that. That's truly all I care about.
Once you lied to me, I didn't care to try to get the money back, because I don't care to do business with people who lie to me. It scares me to deal with liars.
You smeared me in a post here when you made some comment suggesting I was anything but civil to your Customer Service, claiming you inferred that because I'm writing angry notes about IB now. It's untrue, though.
You also tried to turn this on me by saying I should not have emailed, should have PHONED OVERSEAS about this problem at 5AM, which I assume is an expensive toll call for me, and not something I would think of doing. You suggested in these comments that somehow this problem was my fault, while in fact, I handled it entirely correctly, and it was IB who bungled it repeatedly. You should be admitting it was all IB's compounded mistakes, rather than trying to make me out as somehow the Bad Guy in this. What you really don't like is that I made it public and I did that because you didn't make it right. Making it right would be admitting IB was wrong, saying you can tell which order would have filled and sincerely apologizing for having sent me a lie. You don't do that. You naturally are upset that I made it public, but think about what really WOULD make this go away and what would not.
This is what happened:
1. The fill came in on a BUY LIMIT ORDEr under my limit, so I emailed right away.
2. As soon as CS received the note, they should have given it the attention of the people who can immediately status and repair. Instead they spent four days on statusing it, while telling me to be patient.
3. After they realized it was entirely their fault that my screen indicated the changed orders had gone through, while the orders hadn't, which should have taken about an hour, tops, they should have busted the trade. I could have reinstated the last order at 9469 and waited for it to fill. They did know the order wouldn't have filled, right away, but they decided to not communicate that with me and resolve it quickly.
4. By the time they finished their research or at least by the time they told me they had, they couldn't bust the trade any more and I couldn't reinstate my order any more. Four days had passed. But since they knew the order wouldn't have filled and that my price wouldn't have been met, they should have just apologized sincerely by offering the good-will refund.
5. I would have lived with IB not making any of this right. I just couldn't live with your telling me an untruth about it, saying you couldn't assume or know which order would have filled.
6. When I got that email with the lie, I sent you two short notes and pointed out that what you said wasn't true, but you didn't answer, so I sent the note to CS and you, asking to have my money sent back to me -- all of it.
7. None of these three notes (the two private to you, or the one to both of you) were answered, and they were civil. It was after you did all of this that I went public with this. And everything I have said is true!
All you had to do even after I went public was say that you made a mistake, didn't fully understand the audit trail, and that I was right that the order hadn't filled and that it should have been busted at that time. You just should have retracted the lie. That would have saved the situation.
Instead you don't even address the fact you lied to me and try to blame me for something. What exactly?
Of course you personally can't give the refund. I don't give a hoot about the refund. Forget the refund. I forgot it as soon as you lied to me.
I care about dealing with an honest firm. And IB doesn't fit in that category in MY book!
Thanks for proving my honesty. Hoping a trade isn't busted isn't the same as not accepting it when it is busted. I expected it to be busted and I would have lived with that. I was out to get to the truth of how a limit buy order can be filled below limit. And I would have accepted the TRUTH, whether it was in my favor or not.
If a broker will steal ONE DOLLAR from you, they will steal ONE MILLION dollars from you. I cannot risk that, and I will not. When they release my money, I'm out of IB.
And the more they compound this by telling lies about either the situation or me, the more widely I will publicize exactly what happened. Everyone should be free to choose their own broker and also should have access to the facts of what happened to other customers with IB.
You like them, tell everyone how great they've been for you! I had them cheat and lie to me, so I'm telling about that.
If a broker will steal ONE DOLLAR from you, they will steal ONE MILLION dollars from you. I cannot risk that, and I will not. When they release my money, I'm out of IB.
And the more they compound this by telling lies about either the situation or me, the more widely I will publicize exactly what happened. Everyone should be free to choose their own broker and also should have access to the facts of what happened to other customers with IB.
You like them, tell everyone how great they've been for you! I had them cheat and lie to me, so I'm telling about that.
def
Sponsor
This is a joke. You continue to say I lied and I will not accept that since I didn't lie. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word impossible, maybe I was wrong, maybe I was right, maybe you didn't understand that you were asking us to adjust a trade on a what-if scenario, maybe if we kept a civil tone or gave me a chance to respond to your mails before your accusations we could have reached an understanding - but to say I knowingly lied is insulting and absolutely ridiculous.
You claim we cheated and lied to you. We could have busted the trade which you yourself said were "thrilled to get the fill". Damn, if we wanted to nickle and dime you we'd charge incoming and outgoing wire fees, SEC fees, ECN fees, lower interest etc. I'm quite comfortable knowing that this firm has the highest levels of integrity. Someone went through your case, interpreted the data and made a decision. You think the decision is wrong and shoot back 3 mails - the second and third of which you state you are closing the account. Now you go public stating that we owed you a reply.
If you wrote me ONE mail. Yes the first mail, I probably would have gone through all the data and audit trail myself. Instead, you sent me mails at 11:39 PM, 11:48 PM Sunday and 6:49 AM Monday. I live on the other side of the world, I'm not a machine. the second mail insults the firm and thus me and the third mail went off on us again and stated you wanted your account closed. after reading your 2nd and 3rd mails what was there to respond to? I understand your lack of patience but the timing of your mails and expectation that someone will return a mail to you on their free time when you insult them is well - frankly insulting.
You claim we cheated and lied to you. We could have busted the trade which you yourself said were "thrilled to get the fill". Damn, if we wanted to nickle and dime you we'd charge incoming and outgoing wire fees, SEC fees, ECN fees, lower interest etc. I'm quite comfortable knowing that this firm has the highest levels of integrity. Someone went through your case, interpreted the data and made a decision. You think the decision is wrong and shoot back 3 mails - the second and third of which you state you are closing the account. Now you go public stating that we owed you a reply.
If you wrote me ONE mail. Yes the first mail, I probably would have gone through all the data and audit trail myself. Instead, you sent me mails at 11:39 PM, 11:48 PM Sunday and 6:49 AM Monday. I live on the other side of the world, I'm not a machine. the second mail insults the firm and thus me and the third mail went off on us again and stated you wanted your account closed. after reading your 2nd and 3rd mails what was there to respond to? I understand your lack of patience but the timing of your mails and expectation that someone will return a mail to you on their free time when you insult them is well - frankly insulting.
- Status