You're kidding right? How do you define "immediate"? Within a few seconds? There is no doubt in my mind that BEST ECN fills faster. Whenever TWS shows me my stop market is going to SUPERSLOWS I cringe because I know it's going to fill a couple seconds slower and at a worse fill. On liquid Naz tickers BEST ECN stops is a must for me. I also got the email from IB. BEST ECN was eliminated because SUPERSOES is just as fast making BEST ECN unnecessary? What's next? Is IB making routing decisions for us too? Maybe the real reason is because BEST ECN takes too much of a toll on IBs limited routing infrastructure (and further exposes the often flakey connections to ECNs), and that it's either reduce the number of automated routing choices or undergo expensive system upgrades (and raise commissions). But if that's the real reason then say so! Don't patronize us by telling us that popular choices were "unnecessary." I use IB for low commissions, and am willing to live with limitations in exchange for lower costs. But I am not using IB so that they can make value judgements for me. If I wanted my broker to make such judgements, then I'd use a full-service shop. --Derek
Where does it say super soes goes to an inside ecn if there is market maker at an outside price? It say ECNs MAY participate, but it does not guarantee their participation, nor insure their participation. In the NASDAQ example linked below, it only shows MMs , and not ECNs What if there's a large gap between the inside ECN and the closest MM? In fact it says super soes order may be placed against displayed orders as well as reserves, which means MM book, not ECN book. See for your self. Maybe someone can explain this to us all, if I've got this wrong. http://www.nasdaqnews.com/news/Super_SOES_facts.html
until all the ecn's leave the best bid or offer - there is no fill - period - this is a big disadvantage - Supermontage, which will be rolled out in a couple of months - will send the order to the ecns if they are best bid or offer -
The last few posters have made the same point that I had tried to make earlier on... there is nothing immediate about SuperSoes if there is a whole bunch of ECNs sitting at the inside... theoretically SuperSoes will NEVER fill if there are ECNs sitting at better prices... so IBs arguments are not only weak, they are downright wrong... SuperSoes cannot fill immediately if marketmakers are not at the inside...
Perhaps Def can clear this up. I was under the assumption that BEST is the same as BEST ECN but includes SOES. It should fill at the best price either through an ECN or SOES. If there is a MM on the inside then you will get an SOES fill, if not then it will look for an ECN. I use BEST all the time and get both SOES and ECN fills. If this is correct then there is no problem with getting rid of BEST ECN. The only downside that I can think of is that there will be a slight delay if the algorithm searches for a MM first before looking for an ECN. If you previously used BEST ECN instead of BEST then you were sometimes not getting the best inside price if ECN's were outside the market.
macal, I completely disagree witht this. Do not confuse fast fills with best fill price. They are related but different issues. Anyone on either side arguing this issue solely on the grounds of best fill price is missing the point. There are times (my example of a market stop when a position is ticking against you rapidly is one) when speed is more important than requesting the best fill price available in the market. Yes, when you go for speed over best fill you take some slippage risk, but when you go for best fill over speed you risk slippage due to the "small" delay when the bid/ask is ticking rapidly against you. Balancing these risks is the job of the trader, not the broker. Again, for IB to make this judgment for me and put it forward as the ONLY reason for doing away with BEST ECN is completely wrong. If what they really mean is that limiting the choices improves perforamnce for what choices are left while keeping their overhead (and our commissions) down, then they should say so. And if, as others have suggested, encouraging more traders to use BEST will increase the number of Timber Hill fills thus making IB/TH more money (and and thus allow our commissions to stay low), then they should say this also...provided these fills are as fast or faster than a direct ECN route. If they are not as fast then IB should include BEST ECN and charge us an extra $0.005 (or whatever is fair) for such orders...I'd pay. --Derek
BEST is the same as best ecn with just supersoes added as a routing choice. The reason I was given for the change was the same you rec'd. Do you have specific examples of slower fills using BEST as opposed to best_ecn? I'm not saying you don't but so far all i've read are complaints but no examples. If you have examples, I can pass them along and push for a change (remember primex?)
def I was trading IMCL a couple weeks ago. I shorted it; it dropped about 80 cents and then started a furious rally. I then placed a buy order using 'best'. It spent a few seconds looking for ISLD (according to the 'destination' column), couldn't find an offer, then immediately went to SOES. It continued to attempt to use SOES until I got a fill. In the meantime, ISLD and INCA kept showing up on the offer and I never got a fill. I figure best cost me about 50 cents on the fill. This has been a while back; the details may not be exact, but that's roughly what happened. The problem with best is that it doesn't CONTINUALLY scan for the best price. It will go to ISLD for a few seconds, then other ECNs, then SOES, and it stays there, ignoring ECNs when they show up. If the market starts going against you, you just end up in line behind everyone else trying to SOES market makers. At least that's been my experience.
Hi def, I don't have any specific examples since IB does not give me these records, I only have my anecdotal experiences to draw from. One thing I will say is that the problem is NOT in selecting the "best route" the delay comes AFTER the selection is made but BEFORE the order is filled. When I have a market order in (typically market stops) and the bid/ask is ticking rapidly as it tends to do when significant support/resistance is broken (and where many of us have our stops), it seems as though the bid/ask available on SUPERSOES ticks away in those few seconds of delay as the MMs are trying to fill orders and move their bids/offers. When I am using BEST ECN, as I am apt to do on the more liquid tickers that have sufficient volume on the ECNs, this does not happen to me. The market order is sent to the ECN and is immediately matched against other orders. Many day traders preference ISLD, ARCA, INCA, etc, for this very reason (slightly faster fills where a second or two or three matters). One of the great value added features of IB has always been that you could look at a market data line on TWS and see in ONE place the aggregation of all of the major ECNs and trade this aggregation as though it were one pot of liquidity, something that I have not heard of on any other platform. Being able to add up the liquidity on multiple ECNs often gives the same spread of prices available on the larger market, while also giving the best possible executions speeds....and even where the spread is not quite as good, it is good enough to allow me to get in/out quick in urgent situations. But again, if there is a price for IB to pay in keeping this option, then I'm willing to listen to reason, or even pay a little more whenever I use BEST ECN. Problem is, the only reason given thusfar is that it was removed because it is "unnecessary". You cannot tell me that a SUPERSLOWS will match market orders exceeding the size on the bid/ask as fast as ISLD would. I contend that I can get an outside (worse than national market)order filled on ISLD, INCA, et. al. faster. As long as I and other traders are willing to trade such slippage for time urgency, then BEST ECN is "necessary" for us. --Derek