(1) How many times/day day do you "double-click" your mouse to accomplish routine tasks? (2) Define a "double-click" in legal terms. (3) Have you ever sent a "double order" by double-clicking? It's never happened to me in 600K manual orders. (4) Any US broker-dealer trading platform... Where a random "double-click" can result in "phantom orders" and 6 or 7 figure losses... Would not be "in compliance" with NASD Regulations. IB's story wouldn't pass the "laugh test" before an NASD panel or judge. The OP should simply hire a top securities lawyer... Give the lawyer this thread... And then forget about it. IMO, the adults at IB will be forced to settle for a lot more than 52K.
The double-click is not the issue anymore as IBj has stated that the double-click resulted in an IB bug and IB is responsible for that. But again, anyone who cannot tell if they single or double-clicked something needs to take their "how to use computers" course over. Hiring a securities lawyer seems drastic since IB has admitted wrongdoing and will provide some sort of compensation. zzzap would have to give up the lawyer fees for something he will probably get anway so it seems illogical to me.
Agreed, The hire a lawyer stuff is over the top as of now. Although IB was too slow out of the gate... IBj, has been doing an OK job addressing the issue. Zap seems to be holding on well (better than I would have, if over half of my funds essentially disappeared). I think we went off topic with the double clicks, and "when" Zap was active at his terminal (This really is about an erroneously created, submitted and executed order.) This is what upset me about IBj's full explanation. Also with some of the others participating in this debate. Although he was doing his job, and I commend him in doing so, I feel IBj explanation tried too hard to blame-shift the situation. If I were IB I would be glad this happened (honestly), and I would have fixed "it" immediately. This includes making Zap whole. I would then insure the other clients that all is well with the IB systems, and say "Hey look at us; look how good we are!" Heck make this into your next commercial (maybe a Zap testimonial!). If this were to drag on to the next level it can/will only do damage. This was a bug, and the issue can/will be mitigated from future losses to IB with an adjustment to the TWS, or their internal order process. You could simply look at this was an error trade that "Timberhill" made. Which I am sure has happened over these many years. This would make my commitment to IB stronger, and I would feel very comfortable continuing to push potential clients in their direction.
As I indicated in an earlier post, OP might be awarded for punitive-damages/pain-and-sufferings for IB's not resolving it in ~6+ weeks, IB's dropping the ball, keeping OP in black hole, other related losses, etc.. That is how lawyers work. So even after paying lawyer's fees, it could be worth while to get a proper lawyer. It all depends on how IB is now trying to settle with OP. I still hope it gets resolved reasonably for both parties soon and in less uglier fashion.
Not necessarily. As an electrical circuit design engineer I have added debounce circuitry to switches often... mechanical switches, all of them, produce a number of open/closures when clicked, then the electronics ahead of them translates all that electrical noise into a single closure/opening if necessary. If the mouse switch and interface was not working that well and the operating system click repeat time was small the mouse could conceivably send two clicks when the operator clicked once... Personally, regarding the op's story, I don't like how IB was so godawful slow and bad in response... the OP should have escalated much faster and kept detailed records of all correspondence for the arbitration... I would have been starting the arbitration process after only a few days of non-response just to get IB's full attention if nothing else...
I see it differently. I believe traders make mistakes, sometimes big mistakes. And some of them will blame anything or anybody for them. I can imagine IB getting hit with this 'system' mistakes all the time. So it is not unreasonable for IB to try to let this go the extra mile before spending serious time and resources investigating. Either way I don't want my trading costs to go higher because of unscrupulous or dishonest traders out there. Even though it would be reasonable to believe that IB owes 52K to the OP it is also to note that if it would have been the other way around, I doubt very much the OP would be thinking of returning those 52K in unexpected profits... Who are we kidding here? and yes, I do hate lawyers.
I think we all wish IB would be faster resolving issues like this but this is not the first time where whacky situations have been resolved dreadfully slowly. IB is good for common automated situations but once you get out of that realm, it just requires a lot of patience. I have been through it before and I was made whole after about a month of correspondence.
As I can't stand lawyers, I do not agree with your assertion. I don't think "pain and suffering" applies here.