Quote from cwb1014:
If they were designed to accommodate the needs of your clients generally, they would be used extensively. And while they wouldn't be the only way to trade, they would certainly be a very sensible way to trade, which unfortunately is not to the case given the way they're currently configured (i.e., without rollbacks).
I note with some interest that you and other IB folks here keep falling back on the "this is the way the large institutions wanted them" explanation for the fact that these orders do not serve the majority of your clients' interests and, instead, serve IB's, which are, of course, to generate maximum revenues. Since you keep relying on this explanation with absolutely no support, would you be good enough to explain why any institution would want to pay more on its buy orders and receive less on its sell orders than it would pay and receive were these orders designed with rollbacks? Because this is precisely the overall result of the way these orders are currently designed, supposedly "to the specifications [your large institutional clients] requested".
Stated simply, you're asserting that large institutions designed orders that cost them more and benefit them less than the same orders designed with rollbacks. I trust you'll understand that this assertion is not, at least on its face, terribly credible.
I look forward to hearing from you on this and hope that you'll push for a rational redesign of these orders such that they incorporate at least the option of rollbacks, whatever the rationale for their original design may have been.
Thank you.
