Just an observation. My guess is that high cost of "insurance" might be related to the idea that it would be literally impossible to evaluate each individual client what their security practices are, and how risky their behavior is as it applies to security procedures. In other words, pricing of insurance is likely to reflect the wide degree of unknowns as opposed to the absolute risk per se. Insurance is going to have to reflect the riskiest behavior that exists in any of the participants. My impression is that some of the other brokers have policies of fraud protection, not insurance per se. In other words, it may be that some brokers view fraud losses as a cost of business. But in all probability they couple this with exceptions so that certain risky practices on the part of clients may be excluded. One thing for sure, unless the client has something to lose, he won't practice security. Kind of like when I rent an apartment to a tenant...if I pay the utilities (heat), the tenant has no incentive to turn the heat down...and therefore the cost of heating goes up. If the tenant pays, he practices a more conservative heating procedure. I think it would be a good idea to offer a voluntary "insurance" policy and/or fraud protection deal that clients could opt in for a price. That way, those that are worried and/or interested can pay to do it, without the necessity of raising trading costs on everyone. OldTrader
Excellent point OldTrader, I definitely agree with that - if they are going to implement fraud protection then it should have either a fixed deductible ($10k for instance) or an loss percentage (5%) deductible or both, e.g. you are liable for the 5% of the loss or first $10k, which ever is larger, if it is determined that you are directly or indirectly responsible for the loss. You need to make customers at least partially liable if you want them to take security seriously otherwise they have little motivation to take the steps that they should be taking. I'm sure it will also make the insurance itself much cheaper, just like a large deductible on home or auto insurance policy.
for some unknown reason such feature offered to Advisor, Institution, and Broker Organization only. http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/software/security.php?ib_entity=llc SL65 propose in some other tread to implement this IP restriction for all customers and let them decide, if they need it. on top of it, to change those settings you have to use security device, offered by IB. i believe those steps will keep some of potential intruders away, because they will know, that to get into IB account you must do some extra work.
Thank you, Rockfish. One basic problem that I have... Is the standard, predictable IB position that a basic service = "frill"... And it is out of the question to make "low costs" possible. FACT IB profits $700 million/year with OBSCENE margins roughly 50%... Probably more than double the margins of any competitor. FACT IB = One Person = Great Leader So in reality... Basic services are withheld... To stay in line with IB Orthodoxy... And to maximize Ego Gratification for One Individual.
The amount of whining in this thread is amazing! Why not open a thread "WHY DOESN'T IB GIVE AWAY FREE MONEY TO EVERYBODY!!!"??? 1. Use a solid firewall & antivirus system on all PCs 2. Do not place trades from your "surfing" PC. Setup a home LAN. 3. Use IP restriction 4. Once available, use the secure login device from IB 5. Setup your account for the secure cash withdrawal procedure If you do not understand any of the above, please go to this link www.etrade.com. Last thing: Leave IB alone. Do not bother them with your ridiculous requests, concerns and questions. Let them work on new features and products for all of us. They're busy and time is money. Thank you.
The precautions you recommend are good ideas, but they are not sufficient substitutes for fraud insurance. No matter what precautions are taken, something can always go wrong. Complex technological systems can never be made completely predictable, especially when ingenious, resourceful, and persistent enemies are hard at work looking for ways to break them. Your belief that your security recommendations are adequate indicates that you are either misinformed as to technical matters, or that you, like most people, share the basic human frailty of inability to deal rationally and responsibly with risks that are remote, invisible, or in some other way too dangerously easy to deny. You sound like the kind of person who also denies the dangers posed by such things as global warming, and who thinks that safety precautions can make nuclear power and nuclear waste disposal safe. I wouldn't be surprised if your trading strategy is just selling premium for reliable income until you blow out your account during a major market event. Your continual insults, directed against those discussing security concerns, suggest your inability to provide any rational support for your position.