Stock777 wrote: Well, it does happen. It happens a lot. I hate to suggest that maybe you weren't paying attention, but just read my previous postings in this thread. Read other people's postings about such delays. Example: I started this thread by explaining what happened with an order routed through SMART, with AMEX and NYSE both excluded from SMART, leaving only the ECNs as potential destinations (arca, inet, CAES-nasdaq, and brut), and with neither AMEX nor NYSE at the inside quote. AMEX and NYSE had absolutely nothing to do with this delay. My order was delayed for 34 seconds. We all win if IB investigates this problem and eliminates it. If immediate automatic execution is available, IB SMART should provide it. Your example with NYSE is irrelevant, because it involved manual trading, not automatic execution. Delays that are acceptable for manual trading are totally unacceptable when auto-ex is available at the best price. You are comparing apples and oranges. Stock777 also wrote: Well, by all means, stock777, please educate me. I am eager to learn. Please tell me, what was it that escaped my attention?
Hello, I'm IB trader too. Why discussions about filling orders when we receive big delayed future data? Trade a stock watching Emini :why stocks (every stocks) start up or down before future? It happens every day,hour,min and sec. We have bad weapons against "The System" . Tried 10 data feed vendors:same result. More important 37 sec on your stock than future delay? I think NO Cheers
Jimrockford...I believe you entered your order during a fast market condition and were queing off a bad quote. Markets are dynamic; I looked back on the chart and saw the spike down and spike up. You were looking at history, whether it was IB's "fault" or the Amex's "fault" or the ECN's "fault". I disagree with your handling of the IB problem. If they are a second rate broker, you should write Peterfly a letter and walk.....find another broker who will baby sit your 100 lots. IMHO, you boggle down the system for size traders who may have legitimate concerns.
sheesh, you guys..all this guy wants to do is to help IB improve...I can see his point and I would like to thank him for the work he HAS done to expedite execution improvements and the work he IS doing now.. Why a few fellow traders would not read these worthwhile pages and encourage him and these improvements to IB is beyond me. It can be very frustrationg to work within a brokers infrastructure from the outside as a client...but fellow traders should not be a roadblock too! Michael B.
Spyderman wrote: Spyderman, You're not paying attention. Allow me to suggest, for the second time, that you read this thread before you attack anyone's participation in it. If you were paying attention, then you would know that you spoke incorrectly when you said I said that IB was a second rate broker. If you were paying attention, you would have seen that I began this thread with the words: "IB is a great broker". It seems that the very idea of constructive criticism is just way too complicated for some people to grasp. I mean for crying out loud, is it too much to ask that you make the slightest effort to verify the most basic facts and your assumptions, before you make such vicious false statements about other people? If you were paying attention, then you would know that this order execution problem repeats regularly, in all types of market conditions, from calm to volatile to FED announcements, and affects orders and traders of all sizes, large and small, and it does not, as you suggested, just affect me during Fed announcements. If you were paying attention, then you would know that automatic trading can and should be expected to function in fast market conditions, far more reliably than trading against manual or partially manual quotes. If you were paying attention, you would know that observations reported by myself and others reflect preventable bugs and flaws, not the dynamics of fast markets. You would know that we should all hold all brokers to a much higher standard, in automatic trading, than we can in manual trading against the specialist or the options market-maker. If you were paying attention, then you would know that in the particular example I chose for detailed scrutiny, I was not "queuing off a bad quote", and I was not "looking at history". I had submitted a marketable REL order to sell, with an offset far larger than the spread ever got, and a price limit far lower than the market ever got, and that automatic liquidity was readily available at the inside quote throughout almost the entire 34 second delay; which therefore means my order should have executed immediately against automatic liquidity without regard to the progress of the price spike. Do you even know what a REL order is? My guess is either you didn't even read the postings you are attacking, OR, if you did read them, you didn't understand them, because you didn't even know about REL orders, and it was too much trouble for you to do a little research to get the facts before you attack. I think you should wake up and get your facts straight. You accused me of boggling down the system for size traders with legitimate concerns. Do you think I boggled down the system when I persuaded IB to give customers the option to exclude AMEX from SMART? Was I boggling down the system when I got IB to allow customer exclusion of NYSE from SMART? and later to allow customer exclusion of all manual quotes from SMART? Don't you think these changes benefit size traders? Oh and by the way, did you know that some size traders adjust their positions a little bit at a time, by breaking their orders into small pieces? You call yourself spyderman. Does that mean you trade SPY? If so, then you should thank me for persuading IB to fix a bug that caused poor executions for SPY, DIA, and QQQQ about a year ago. IB programmers had neglected to modify their order routing logic to account for the SEC's de minimis excemption to the trade-thru rule for SPY, DIA, and QQQ (it was 3 Q's back then). IB's execution quality of marketable orders for the three most widely traded ETFs improved greatly when this bug was fixed. I say you owe me not just an apology, but also a thank you.
Agree with you. I saw what u write now and seeing what u wrote 1 year ago. On stocks in fast market condition same problem YET. Cheers
Allow me to offer the most humble of both an apology and a thank you for improving IB's system. In no way did I mean to attack. I am a humble discretionary trader and know nothing about automated systems......I made the mistake of confusing you with a grumbling 100 lot trader.
IB is now saying theres a delay inherant in the SuperSoes feed. Still, that would not explain the complaints about NYSE and AMEX stock delays (using ECN's), which have not been verified by many as yet.