Originally posted by saschabr with these low commish, how would you want to equip you trading help desk with a competent real traders staff, if one of these guys costs always > 100k/year ?? Sascha, if I understand you correctly, you're saying, "It's not reasonable for the customer to expect a high level of service when the costs are so low." Maybe so. But it's not unreasonable to expect that the help-desk has some basic knowledge (of how their product works, of which problems might actually be bugs, of their own commission structure), and a genuine interest in at least trying to be helpful. (Also, I'll bet you could get equivalently low commissions from O-X in return for a moderate amount of options volume.) And I don't think that IB's sub-standard practices actually save money for IB: if you look at the examples I gave, and the elpased time involved, then I think you'll see that IB would actually have saved time by simply giving the customer a clear and frank answer at the very beginning. The only way that this inferior service might be saving money for IB, is by discouraging people from ever requesting support -- an approach that seems to have had its intended effect on you, since you say . . . my experience: with IB, try figure out yourself, find another. way to work around a bug, or let it be. it is only the electronics, the software and you. Actually, that's what I usually do, with *any* vendor; but some situations are far beyond being amenable to that approach.
FX-T, if you're addressing that comment to me, well, I think that's what I said: "my equity options business is going back to O-X" I was already an O-X customer before I became an IB customer.
lol, that is truly pathetic customer "service".. guess i've been lucky to never have had serious issues with IB.. but on the times i have contacted them with detailed, multi-paragraph email, all i've gotten back is a glib one-liner, that although accurate and somewhat useful in and of itself, didn't come close to answering all of the queries i had (note to ib: hope i'm not expecting TOO MUCH in having ALL my questions answered...).. i can't believe that the Ib cust service rep is THAT busy that he couldn't take the extra, ooh, 3 minutes, to answer me fully.. nusrat, if that part about the telephone conversation is true, that is just absolute bottom of the barrel... ib wake up!
Often -not always- IB´s chat is just a terrible waste of time for both sides. The thing is: If I really need an answer for some problem then I will try to get hold of someone who finally will provide that answer. Re-enter chat once again and so on. Or just wait for the HK shift.
IB´s chat is just a terrible waste Sadly, the same is often true of emailing them. Or just wait for the HK shift. Hey, ingenious! Maybe it's a cultural thing. Embarassed that it didn't occur to me. Seriously, I'll try that and report back. Should be interesting.
to AlanM, who posted on IB's boards; responses in-line . . . "1a) In the chat, you are asking for the "$ balance after the transaction". Since the transaction wasn't possible, I wouldn't know how to answer that question either. Sorry, I don't follow what you mean by "transaction wasn't possible". It's not clear to me from reading it that you were asking about commissions only. Yes, you're right, it's only by implication that my *reason* for asking was related to commissions (although I thought the implication would be clear by the references to "cash balance"). But apparently the "episode 2" responder knew what I meant, since he/she pointed me to the "fees" link. IB's commissions are very simple. $x per contract, period. No regard is given to whether they are part of a combo, legs of a spread, or unrelated orders. 1b) It's not clear whether it matters that it's a combo order or individual orders with respect to margin. It definitely doesn't matter for commission purposes. So, you're being caught by the same IB trap that got me! As it turns out, the "combo" order *does* make a difference: IB only routes unitary combo orders (e.g., unlegged spreads) to ISE, which is the only exchange where it could be filled electronically (with no manual intervention on the floor). So, IB *asserts* that the *customer* is requesting explicit routing to a specific exchange -- a quirk which exacts higher commissions as of July22. BTW, did they address the issue of how margin is handled in their ultimate response? Is it treated as one order, or do you have to have enough money to leg into it? Margin was never the issue: the order had already been placed and filled at ISE, and I was trying to find out why the commission was *double* ($1.95 per leg) what I expected ($1). But FYI, the "combo" aspect *does* affect margin: a lot more margin is required -- initially -- to leg-into a spread, than to place a unitary combo order. Also, legging into a spread means exposure to additional market risk, which is why I don't do it except where I have no choice (as with index options, which don't trade at ISE). 1c) Again, the question can't really be answered, since the order can't be placed. I think it wasn't clear to you that it was an already-filled order. Mea maxima culpa. 2) Reading your original post, the email that you quoted did not have the same details of the contracts and prices. In fact, the email was actually clearer in regard to asking what the commission was. They should have answered. 3) I still think the example has to be meaningful, for the reasons I stated before. A 1000-contract option trade, especially the one you described, is not that large or unusual. Well, "that's what makes for horse races". In my view, an unexpectedly doubled commission is an issue at a broker like IB (where the fees are per-contract and not per-ticket), regardless of order size. 4) Unfortunately, reciting canned responses actually handles a surprisingly large majority of customer service questions. Many people just won't spend the time to do some research before firing off an email. So, the rest of us have to put up with "the front line". The good news is that, since the bursting of the bubble, customer service organizations won't have to grow so fast that the front line is ever-expanding, and it's likely that they will become better over time. I agree that feedback like this certainly aids the process. They obviously still have some problems."