Why you have a size limit per order of 5 million for forex if you are only the "broker" and do not take the other side ? (a lot of forex bucketshops have size limits to protect themselves ,not the client) Suspect,that more important is ,that al lecn forex reflect only fractional liquidity . If broker have proprietary trading desk/account and income from proprietary trading he can reflect for client not best bid/offer in any specific time . buy/sell with best prize global and offer that with surplus for clients on eCN with fractional liquidity . It would secondary market for clients. Hotspotfx stated in e-mail to author ,that is pure agent of principal ,but he reflected alsov not full liquidity . If statement of hotsportfx is true ,and he have not proprietary trading account ,it would alsov not the case ,that for clients would opened best price globaly . Compare with CME future fx -full liquidity offered Compare with NYX/NDAQ Level 2 -full liquidity offered .
Def with all do respect, you have never answered this with an independent source (i.e. non IB ) or even tried to explain the audit procedure you claimed knowledge of. In fact this is your last reply to my question. http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=114523&perpage=6&pagenumber=7 {03-02-08 10:23 AM Quote from urep: Def Wrote "We actually have had best execution audits " You misunderstand me. What I'm asking is who audits your software or audits your interaction with TH to ensure that the so called Chinese Wall is actually there? Remember the Brokerage Industry used to always say that their research/analyst department and trading desk had this "Chinese Wall" as well. So your answer has historical precedent. You're a private company and you have proprietary software that no one else can look at, so you can say anything you want without any independent verification. So is there any independent verification source that verifies TH and IB do not share any customer data or trading data (i.e. not a self referential IB statement or the IB Chairman's statement)?? You obviously haven't undergone a regulatory audit or understand market making. In any event, as someone deep in the know of the TH side of things, if you don't want to take my word for it along with everyone else at the Group (past and present) so be it.} to which I replied http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=114523&perpage=6&pagenumber=9 { 03-02-08 08:14 PM Feel free to explain or show reference to, the part of a regulatory audit which deals with ensuring "Timber Hill and Interactive Brokers share no customer data".} and to date you have yet to display any of this "deep in the know" audit knowledge with the ET community. "Just trust us" is not an answer it's a confidence game. I guess I should also include the separate question "does IB's trading desk use customer data?" as well.
Def, was I not clear (enough)? I'm taking for granted the Chinese wall claim regarding Timber Hill, and I'm asking about "Interactive Brokers LLC." itself, who, according to the Nasdaq, A) does market making services independent of Timber Hill, B) may have even double the volume of Timber Hill (as seen in the case of the stock I trade most)--and this volume refers only to volume where IB LLC is the counterparty--not to customer volume under the IB brokerage.
I'm not in the states and don't know the entire setup of routing but I guess it has to do with which firm owns the access rights. I will state again that IB (brokerage) does not trade for it's own account and the relationship I previously discussed is accurate.
Let me clarify my question. See the following link which provides a diagram of the "Interactive Brokers Group" corporate structure: http://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/general/about/aboutIR.php?ib_entity=ir. As you can see "Timber Hill LLC" and Interactive Brokers LLC" are two totally distinct divisions (among others) under "Interactive Brokers Group". www.Nasdaqtrader.com shows more market making volume for the stock I trade under "IB LLC" as opposed to "TH LLC". Nasdaq themselves say this volume represents market making volume, where the various market makers (and IB LLC & TH LLC are both on the list) are taking counterparty to trades--as opposed to merely representing customer volume on NASDAQ. In addition, the link I gave provides a chronology of developments in IB. See "year 2001", which says: The group's combined electronic brokerage and market making firms' volume now exceeds 200,000 trades per day--which again shows there is more than one group doing market making. My question is: Do these services ALSO offer the "Chinese wall" protection? (I'm afraid of misunderstanding, so if you don't mind starting with a simple "yes" or "no").
a few reasons, one of which is to protect against input/client error. if you can demonstrate your FX knowledge, have sufficient funding and want to trade a higher limit, contact our help desk or sales rep as individual limits could be raised. fwiw, even though an individual order is limited to 5 million, there is nothing stopping you from submitting multiple orders. you're dealing with the interbank market, there is plenty of liquidity.
Protect clients ? Why you don't have this "protection" when I trade 5 million in futures or stocks ? Plenty of liquidity ? Forex is the biggest market in terms of liquidity and EXACTLY in that market you have limits , sounds logical.. We both know the real reason, no ?