Why I did not get any rebates

Dna7272 said:
If it's true then that is very sad. It means there's no real direct access brokers for retail traders. Now it feels that Robinhood isn't that bad after all.
More...

With Robinhood, they screw you in a different way. You get screwed on the execution price which could be even worse and that you won't even know how much worse. At least commissions, you can see how much you got screwed because you can see how much you should've gotten vs. how much you got charged irl as all rebates and commission fees are published. With PFOL, you could've gotten a much worse price from a MM that paid Robinhood to execute your order vs. if you had sent the order directly to the exchanges and let everybody compete for it. With rebates in commissions, with several thousand shares, it's 10's or 20's of dollars but with execution prices, a worse fill by just several cents, you could be out several hundred dollars at least.

So is RH better? I doubt so. We retail traders are screwed no matter what, either in commissions or execution prices. Why? Because we are small and they need to make money. One dollar more in our pocket means one dollar less in theirs and vice versa. Trading is a cut-throat business very much the same like the jungle. Everybody fights for survival. If the lion catches the zebra, the zebra dies. If the zebra escapes, the lion dies.
 
JSOP said:
With Robinhood, they screw you in a different way. You get screwed on the execution price which could be even worse and that you won't even know how much worse. At least commissions, you can see how much you got screwed because you can see how much you should've gotten vs. how much you got charged irl as all rebates and commission fees are published. With PFOL, you could've gotten a much worse price from a MM that paid Robinhood to execute your order vs. if you had sent the order directly to the exchanges and let everybody compete for it. With rebates in commissions, with several thousand shares, it's 10's or 20's of dollars but with execution prices, a worse fill by just several cents, you could be out several hundred dollars at least.

So is RH better? I doubt so. We retail traders are screwed no matter what, either in commissions or execution prices. Why? Because we are small and they need to make money. One dollar more in our pocket means one dollar less in theirs and vice versa. Trading is a cut-throat business very much the same like the jungle. Everybody fights for survival. If the lion catches the zebra, the zebra dies. If the zebra escapes, the lion dies.
More...

Well i am definitely not going to use Robinhood. I am just saying that retail traders are getting screwed no matter which vroker they choose.

Trading is not a fully fair game for sure, unless you are a big institution.
 
JSOP said:
Yeah pretty shitty I know. I used to dispute with IB all the time over this kind of shit that they pulled but they ignored me because they don't give a crap.
More...
I agree with your write up above(about delaying the orders). The reason broker may hold your order is because they have to pay the exchange proportionally to amount of traffic used. So if client sends limit order far away from the market and then cancels it, that is a waste of resources that can be avoided most of the time without adversely impacting the client. Also, it’s possible that the broker did send the order to exchange and it did provide liquidity but due to some bug it was not accredited correctly(the liquidity flags are a mess)

As far as IB, they provide lots of value add and are not really catering to DMA client. After fruitless discussions I just decided that the benefits overweight the restrictions for my trading at current time.

Keep in mind that brokers are middlemen and the margins are thin, so I wouldn’t say their intention is to screw the client.
 
JSOP said:
What they did was they held your limit orders on their server instead of sending them right away to the exchanges that they were direct-routing to claiming that they were not at NBBO and then as soon as your order price matched NBBO, they released your orders right away to the exchanges and because your order price instantly matched the NBBO and it was your broker releasing your orders at such last minute to the exchanges hitting the price there, even though your orders were liquidity-removing orders originally, the exchanges considered them as liquidity-taking orders because they were not sitting on the exchanges before already and instead was sent to the exchanges at the last minute. So basically your broker just turned your liquidity-removing order into a liquidity-taking order and you not only lost your rebates but actually ended up paying higher rebates as many exchanges charge higher ECN fees for liquidity-taking orders than liquidity-removing orders. Yeah pretty shitty I know. I used to dispute with IB all the time over this kind of shit that they pulled but they ignored me because they don't give a crap. This shit that they told you to let them know if it happened again? That's total BS! They know what they were doing.

I have encountered this many times with Interactive Brokers I used to get good rebates from IB for liquidity-removing orders too until they did what I explained to you above to charge me ECN fees just like your current broker. I understand you want to protect them trust me, you don't need to protect them. They are not as nice as you think they are. What they did is pretty unscrupulous just like IB and I am sure you are not the only one that they did this to.

Bottom line: All those brokers are just there to make $$. The more they screw us traders the more money they make. It's simple as that. If you don't like what they did, leave them. Vote with your wallet!
More...
This makes no sense. DNA's order was a limit order at the bid. It could be hit by the Ask dropping or a Mkt sell order large enough to exhaust the queue down to DNA's resting buy order. "Liquidity-removing" and "Liquidity Taking" are the same thing. (Or am I wrong? But this is the way I see it.)
 
qlai said:
they have to pay the exchange proportionally to amount of traffic used
More...
This makes zero sense to me. If I owned an exchange I'd want as much traffic, as you put it, as possible. Many brokers hold limit orders away from the inside bid and ask on their servers, but it must be for another reason. Do some exchanges charge for order cancellation? -- which is a type of liquidity removal. Or, do Brokers that internalize orders benefit from holding orders on their servers until they are executable? There really is no such thing as Direct Access anymore for retail traders ever since the SEC required all brokers to screen orders before sending them to the exchanges. I would think that what we call Direct Access nowadays is not having your order held on your Broker's server until it's executable.
 
Last edited:
JamesJ said:
Ok, i think that answers it.
Iceberg orders can get rerouted imo if NBO gets to your bid.
Also i think some exchanges might charge taker fee on the non visible part.
More...

I think this might explain this rebate issue if it is true. With IBKR I rarely used iceberg orders, but with my new broker I am using them more often.
 
JamesJ said:
Ok, i think that answers it.
Iceberg orders can get rerouted imo if NBO gets to your bid.
Also i think some exchanges might charge taker fee on the non visible part.
More...

You are helping me out one more time, thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top