Did you furnish them proof that it was not a data problem from the exchange, and that the exchange was broadcasting data without any problems? If yes, then how did they respond to the proof? If no, then why not?
I did tell them my quote vendor was supplying quotes which they did not address in their reply. I log every quote so I could supply a T&S log. I didnât think it was worth the effort to pursue it. They could tell me that the exchange wasnât providing quotes to them because of some problem that affected some but not everyone. And even if I managed to win the argument that this was an IB problem, my understanding is that they still have no duty to make me whole since simulated orders are done on a best efforts basis. Iâm still a relatively new IB customer. Do you think I have a chance for redress?
If IB does not have an obligation to give you a refund, it is still possible that they might give you one voluntarily, in order to demonstrate their fairness as a broker. A refund, however, is not the only available form of redress. Another very important form of redress, even if they don't give you a refund, is to fix the problem so it doesn't happen again to you or to other customers. If they are simulating orders on a "best efforts" basis, doesn't that mean they should make their best efforts to fix this problem? They can't fix the problem unless you do your part. You are dealing with a customer service rep who has apparently failed to investigate a critical piece of information, which if true, disproves his explanation shifting the blame away from IB and onto a quote source. I say you need to ask this CS rep one more time to address what he previously ignored. If the result is not a satisfactory explanation, then I say you need to escalate to higher authority, who can review the CS rep's approach to see if it should be changed. You say it is not worth the effort to pursue this. Can you afford to throw away $5,000 without spending at least a few more minutes on it? Do you intend to continue using the same order execution functionality, without making sure that the bug, if any, is fixed? Trading is a business. A businessman would pursue further explanation, make further effort for a refund, and at the very least, insist that the bug be fixed so that you can trade more successfully in the future. If you insist that the bug be fixed, you are not only benefitting yourself, you are also benefitting IB - even if the CS rep has to be dragged kicking and screaming to recognize that there was a problem with IB's execution of the order. If, on the other hand, your position is incorrect, and IB is blameless, and you waste their time on a meritless bug report, then of course you would be harming IB and your relationship with IB; so you should be very cautious to make sure you are correct and that all your ducks are in a row, and that you are open-minded and willing to consider their explanation in case it is correct, before you consume their time (they are extremely busy!) I don't think you can solve the problem by switching to one of IB's competitors. IB's competitors really cannot compete with IB. Your best bet is to work with IB, the best broker, to help them become even better by fixing this problem. This means that you spend the time to get this matter addressed appropriately, even though doing so would be much less fun than trading. Business isn't always fun.
Several problems with TWS today...lots more orders than usual going to ISE and CAES via "smart" and then getting hung up. Route to NYSE and light blue status pop up. Light blue, orange and purple status bars all over the place. Definetely major routing problems! Many orders got stuck and I had to log off, log back on and retry. What a mess! And this happened on 2 computers running 2 instances of TWS. Not a happy IB customer today!
About 3 months ago IB implemented a change to SMART largely due to my efforts and they are currently in the process of implementing a second change in SMART solely due to my efforts. Both of these have required significant effort and are much more important to me than IB's occasional data feed issues. At this point I'm not willing to really push this problem. I complained mainly to add my voice to others, but if I'm not willing to push this past the CS rep, I doubt I can be much more effective. If I thought I had a reasonable chance of receiving some sort of monetary benefit I would press it, but I'm not willing to spend my efforts trying to effect a change. Nevertheless, you did inspire me to reopen the problem and ask for an explanation why my quote vendor's NASDAQ quotes were not disrupted if as IB said, NASDAQ was the culprit. There is another issue, which I call SMART's black-hole, that I find much more disturbing. I may start a thread on it to get an idea of how many other people are experiencing it. I know you believe SMART is the best router you've found and SMART is the only router I've had experience with, but my experiences have given me little confidence in it. With the advent of NMS Iâd happily direct route my orders if I could get the unbundled commission rate for API initiated orders.
TWS and/or their routing algorithm definetly need work. It used to be fast but lately has once more become slow and orders not being filled in a timely manner. Probably not a noticeable problem for guys who do 3-4 orders a day. I do 500+ orders a day so I know from experience. It works fine on 95% of my orders but the other 5% getting stuck somewhere causes me lost time and money. Today, for example, I could see all quotes updating in TWS, yet for a time whenever I sent an order in, it would get stuck in "blue bar land". It sucks waiting 10 min to figure out if an order was filled or not.
I believe SMART is the best WHEN IT WORKS, but sometimes it doesn't work, and bugs need to be fixed, and it is sometimes useless for me until this or that bug has been fixed. SMART won't stay in shape and performing well, unless customers push the CS reps to troubleshoot (which they hate doing). It is not correct to say that I have "confidence" in SMART. I don't. I think it is a very useful tool, but that you have to be very involved and knowledgeable, and you have to monitor it closely, in order to make good use of that tool. I don't think you can use SMART by just sitting back and assuming that it works in all situations and that it will continue to work in the future as it has in the past. You need to be vigilant in order to use SMART wisely. Please, fbell50, I would very much like to know the specifics of your black hole problem. I would also like to know what changes to SMART you were able to get made. Please give the specifics. I think that you do have a reasonable chance of getting reimbursed. I don't understand why you are not willing to push for a complete resolution. If you really are certain of your facts, or if you are at least certain that IB never adequately investigated the facts, then you should not let some woefully incompetent CS rep discourage you. I don't understand why you would be willing to continue trading, knowing that the problem has not been fixed.
Can you give us some specifics on one or two of your worst-case orders? Have you attempted to troubleshoot these problems with IB, and gotten any results?
As I predicted, when I asked for an explanation as to why my quote vendorâs quotes continued to work while theirs did not IB responded âAt that time, NASDQ announced that they were having data feed issues with certain vendors. IB was among them.â Iâll start another thread on this. About three months ago, as part of the switch to NASDAQâs new OUCH 3.0 interface, IB enabled the pre-open re-route option for NASDAQ limit orders. Now a RTH + pre-open re-route will participate in the opening cross. About 5 weeks ago I noticed that pre-open re-route NYSE limit orders did not always participate in the opening cross. SMART does route the order to the NYSE before the open, but then sometimes re-routes it away before the opening cross. IB says that this is operating as designed even though I had not had this problem previously. IB is in the process of changing SMART to not re-route the order until after the opening cross.