No genius, they are falsely or stating in error on their entire website the margin requirement is the default 25% if it isn't on the Securities with Special Margin Requirements. https://ibis.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=5167&cntry=usa&tag=United States&ib_entity=llc&ln= https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=marginnew&p=stk Publicly stating on your website and in person, information that is false or omitting information is a scam. I directly ask them multiple times is there some special margin requirement and it wasn't until the third chat could someone tell me that there was a special margin requirement. If 2 out 3 of customer support agents cannot find the special margin requirements how the hell are the majority of the customers suppose to know? Hoping someone at IB will fix it, at least publish an updated list. The list says it was updated today. Where is the hidden special margin requirements list or function? I know customers are suppose to have magical powers to just know when they update it.
Dude - just preview your order if you want to know what the margin impact is going to be. I do this every time I'm trading a new product. It's easier than trying to find it on their website, which isn't definitive anyway. Once you hold it or have traded it recently, you'll get an alert if they're changing the margin requirements (which usually phase in over a few weeks on a specified schedule).
Although I think calling IB a scam is totally useless and means you're just shooting from the hip... I do find it weird that for AMD long it is indeed 60%+, but for AMD short it's 30% Anyone know a reason for this? Surely a broker isn't biased in direction??? If all, I would say it should be the opposite....
Just double checked in the margin report, actually 1800 only requires 20% for maintenance and 25% initial. 1033 still 100%. Jack it sure sounds strange to have a lower margin requirement for shorts than long (except if the stock has a takeover price on it, or similar exceptions that caps the upside while leaving large downside risks). Remember some stocks having 200% margin requirement for shorts btw
That makes zero sense. Anything above 100% is totally nonsense on the short side. With 100% the broker incurs zero percent risk for cash equity on the short side. The long side can incur more than 100% losses hence the possibility for higher margin on the long than short side.
??? Long side can incur more than 100% loss but not the short ? It looks like you got it backward. Anyway, it was there, 200% margin requirement on some shorts a while back, it was discussed here
Sorry yes, I was referring to the trading direction of the shares. So yes when you are short the long side of the market can incur more than 100% losses while for the opposite 100% is the max loss doe to zero bound. So, yes, you are right it won't make sense to incur a larger than 100% margin requirement for a long position. In any case most of those stocks with larger than regulatory implied margin requirements are special situations or exhibit low liquidity, or erratic price patterns or are penny stocks. By the way I think the final determinant should be the margin information when you right click on an order prior to submission, not some PDF documents. You can via api extract that information prior to order submission. And I think that is also what IB would legally be liable to if they posted wrong information there and charged you a different margin and subsequently you get liquidated.
Indeed, basically Jack and both of us say the same thing, it is strange IB has lower requirements on AMD shorts than longs.
Yes, though again the skew can have many explanations, one of which you already outlined earlier. It would be more worrisome if a margin requirement for a long sided order was more than 100%