IB order types: Pegged to Primary = Relative Orders?

Discussion in 'Order Execution' started by isaac000, Feb 22, 2005.

  1. Reading IB's descriptions of these two types, they look very similar. Anyone having experience for both types want to share thoughts? Your reply is appreciated.
  2. I find that Rel Orders and or Peg To Primary Orders do not "roll back". I end up being the "sucker" and usually get killed using one of these order types.

    When using the Peg To Primary Order - I find that you must also use at a minimum a .01 offset. On Rel Orders you can be .00.

    Then once again, if the bid or ask rolls back (and at times it can be big) your left hanging out for the sucker punch.
    Especially with low volume stocks with a big spread.

    In retrospect, I'm the one who asked/suggested for some kind of a "Pegged Order". IB already had the Rel Order (and it wouldn't roll back). I figured a Pegged Order like TradeStation would be great.

    IB needs a fix for one or the other (preferably both) to ROLL BACK and use a zero offset.

    I've also suggested they implement "Hidden Orders" on BRUT.
    I had no response or acknowledgement for that suggestion. That order type does exist.

    I now use TradeStation for real true Pegged Orders or BRUT Hidden Orders.

  3. PENSACOLA, how do you usually ask/suggest IB for requests like this? through e-mail? phone calls?

    I wasn't aware TS has real Pegged Orders. Good for them.

    I really really need that type of true Pegged order that floats with the inside bid/ask. With so much pennying going on right now, it's increasingly difficult to buy/sell any not-so-liquid stocks. We need something more effective to overcome all these pennying when we really need to take/dump a position. I hope IB is listening.

    A Hidden order on SMART would be nice too.
  4. Does IB have a true "Pegged" order type now?
  5. I think REL orders, as they are currently implemented, are very useful for the trader who urgently seeks an execution.

    I was not aware you could use a zero offset. I am going to look into this. If you can, then the order will be even more useful than I thought, including some situations where the urgency to trade is not quite 100%.

    I agree that it would be extremely useful, in far more situations, to have orders that would roll back. This would accomodate traders having even less urgency to execute. I also hope IB is listening. If there is some reason for not implementing this, then I think IB should articulate that reasoning, and perhaps engage in a dialogue, so that customers could modify their proposals until a way was found to meet customer needs, within whatever constraints IB needs to operate.
  6. IBsoft

    IBsoft Interactive Brokers

    The orders with zero offset do roll back. The orders with positive offset do not.
  7. Wow, I had no idea. I think that's great.
  8. Why not? Why leave us hanging?

    Is a relative or pegged order that rolls back all that
    difficult to implement?
  9. IBsoft

    IBsoft Interactive Brokers


    Only the orders with zero offset on NASDAQ stocks roll back.

    The orders on listed stocks don't. Since we send the non-marketable orders to the NYSE and we found NYSE to be unreliable in representing the orders in their BBO, we could not make the roll-back work to our satisfaction.

    The positive offset orders don't roll back, because that is how our large institutional customers wanted it. (When the relative orders were first implemented, it was as per their request).
  10. mats


    I tried to send a bid which goes up and down with the best bid but it is not moving back in case the bid goes down. Here are my settings for the order; buy, rel, value 0, smart order routing. The result is a bid (on island) which moves up with existing bid, but will move up to my buy limit price and will not come down in case the best bid goes down.

    I also tried to send it through brut and arca (relative order/peg prime) with minimum offset of .00 but result is unfortunately the same.

    Please advice, thanks.
    #10     Jan 11, 2006