Interactive Brokers implemented order size filters

Discussion in 'Interactive Brokers' started by tonyf, Aug 7, 2019.

  1. tonyf


    1. Very Large orders are those orders whose order size is > 50% of ADV and > 15 times the average NBBO size for that contract (except for size-accumulating ALGO orders, see #3).
    2. Large orders are those orders whose order size is > 10% of ADV and 3 times the average NBBO size for that contract.
    3. Large Size Based Algo orders are those algo orders that accumulate size over time and whose order size is > 5% of the shares outstanding (for stock contracts) and 5 * the ADV for non-stock contracts.

    Now I keep getting error messages along the lines of "In accordance with our regulatory obligations as a broker we cannot accept large limit order for 5000 shares of XYZ that you have submitted. Please submit a smaller order (not exceeding 3987)"

    which is somehow annoying. But you can break a larger order in multiple small ones to circumvent the filter.

    Does anyone know where to find ADV and NBBO in TWS?
    d08 likes this.
  2. This super annoying. I was stopped from placing an order for more than $6k worth due this dumb limit. Yes you can break up your order, but now the commissions are higher, it’s more trouble, and execution is quite likely worse.

    The worst part is there is no such regulatory obligation! No other broker on the street has these dumb rules - it’s the IB compliance department going off the deep end with their overly conservative interpretations.

    IB made their reputation was for good execution and now they’re going to wreck it. Maybe I need to start shorting IBKR to earn back enough for my troubles.

    I encourage everyone impacted by this to call IB and complain. Twice before they briefly implemented this order size limit policy, and twice before they quickly removed it, likely after getting tons of complaints. In addition to calling customer service, you can email investor relations and tell them they’re making a very bad decision for their business - hurting their competitiveness and reputation for no reason. Upper management might hear that and care a bit more than general complaints.
    d08 likes this.
  3. qlai


    Isn't there some algo you can use where IB breaks up your order and is very configurable. I don't think it's in your interest sending large orders anyway.
    Did they suggest any workaround other than breaking the order yourself?
  4. Metamega


    Your first post says it’s a “Regulatory issue”. I’m sure customer service could point you to some documentation.
  5. Sig


    Not likely. Sounds like someone who'd never experienced asking IB's "customer service" a question?
  6. Overnight


    Well, since as per @Baron they will have three reps monitoring this section starting very soon (next week?), maybe the answers will finally come.
  7. Sig


    They had one on here at one point in time, @IB-AN. When he deemed to answer a question he was...shall we say, economical with the truth, and he just ignored any questions about real issues. Worth a look at the archives, for example the discussion about if you become an unsecured creditor of IB when you lend stocks ( is a classic example.
  8. Next thing you're going to be telling me that I can’t execute trades better than a smart router. Let me make my own decisions about what’s in my interest - why take the choice away from the investor? If they feel like they have to do something, make it some setting feature that you can turn off with appropriately stern warnings.

    If I wanted a nanny broker, I would be using Fidelity or Merrill where they tell you that you can’t trade small caps or munis in your IRA or whatever.
  9. qlai


    I agree with you 100%, but IB is NOT the broker for this. They are very intrusive and non-transparent, imho. Love them or leave them :)
    Sig likes this.
  10. Thank you to everyone who took the time to complain to IB on this issue. As of yesterday, the size limits are off again pending “recalibration”. Hopefully they will either give up on this or make the limits much less restrictive.
    #10     Aug 22, 2019