What Riskarb said!. Been using IB strictly for options for years now. Mostly OEX and am generally pleased.
IBsoft, Is this a recent change? I ask b/c I have been trading SPX options for years through IB. Recently, I have noticed that fill reports when I hit standing bid or ask are now slow where they used to often be instantaneous. Just to be clear, they used to be slow when I would send an order between the posted bid or ask (the order would be outcried as I understand), but now I am noticing delay when hitting standing, electronically displayed orders- I am pretty sure these orders were electronically executed in the past.
I do not know whatever your get your information from. They are not true. This is what I know: TOS is a broker agnostic, exchange agnostic firm and clear through Penson Financial, not IB. They have greater redundancy than most other firms because they route through many different 'pipes'. They don't accept payment for order flow or internalize order flow, the customers orders have no conflicts, better redundancy, better fills, more facilitation venues, more shows and better speed of execution and cancels (without cancel fees). thinkorswim was voted #1 by Barrons for stock and option execution two years in a row TOS remains the industry leader with respect to innovative technology and client services. For retail customers there is no better. You can call them to find out about the fact: http://www.thinkorswim.com/tos/displayPage.tos?webpage=whythinkorswim I like their platform & they provide lots of tools for free like free RT charts (stocks & options), quotes, scans, etc. It is the only option broker that does not charge you more when you place the orders over the phone. They are answered by ex-option floor traders. You can ask them lots of questions for free.
IBsoft. So, what you are saying is that IB no longer uses the electronic auto-ex at all? Even when the displayed bid or ask is electronically booked/quoted and the execution would be instant? Can you elaborate further on the logic of this? Thanks much.
Please look at my previous posts. I explained that it only affects spx, oex and djx on cboe. The reason why we do this is that the customer often gets a better fill. The quote that the auto-ex executes on gets fed in by a single market participant. (This is not an electronic market). The crowd often improves on that quote. We route the orders to the floor-broker, who gets to execute it in the crowd.
They used to clear Timberhill. I don't consider Penson an advantage. You're simply spoon-fed and regurgitating their marketing-line. Your redundancy argument is absurd... they don't route to more "pipes" than anyone else, nor does it relate to redundancy. The fact remains that you're trading with a middleman. Order goes through TOS >Penson's clearing engine >exchange. I haven't used TOS in years, but I do recall that they didn't offer bestbid/bestoffer. In 1999 or 2000 I was told they were "working on it" I assume they're up to speed on BB/BO. During that time I sent an order to the SPX for a combo... worked it for 20mins and canceled. It took 2 1/2 hours to receive the "out" on the order -- and 4 phone calls. All the while the order was hanging in the system. SWEET! The cancel fees are exchange-mandated. If they're absorbing the fees then it's built-on to the commission-structure. Nah, I have no interest in calling them, nor do I have any interest in an introducing broker for Penson.
How could you provide TOS information here if you have not used them for years & do not even want to call them? You need to get your fact straight. Otherwise other members will think whatever your posts are correct & up to date. TOS is number 1 now for many reasons. They are changing & improving constantly, so are other brokers. TOS used to be an institution broker only. now they are retail option broker also. Things are changing all the time, that's why I am in Elite trying to keep myself informed. Your whatever you recall is ancent history. I recall we did not have online option tradings
Yes, I understand this is only for those few indexes at cboe. My question came from my experience trading spx. I understand the auto-ex/auto-quote MM is usually not the best price available and it makes sense that a floor broker could improve that price. The situation where I am curious about the logic is in the following example: Auto quote MM is bidding 50 @6.0 and offering 50@7.00. Then, a retail order is electronically displayed bidding 5@ 6.50-above the bid of the auto ex MM's. In the past- hitting the bid would result in instant sale at 6.5 up to 5 contracts. Now, often the 6.5 would be impossible to hit by the time it goes through the floor broker. If this happens, there is no chance for improvement as the bid has long been taken out and only the MM remains bidding at 6.0. Eventually the offer will be displayed at 6.5. It seems to me that orders sent to execute against electronically posted bids or offers that improve the auto quote MM should be routed for electronic execution against the book as provided for by RAES. Am I missing something? Thanks again.
Sorry, but the facts are Barron's gives OX the best for Browser-based. And as expected, IB wins for SW-based. IB is the best, hands down, for experienced retail option traders that need NO hand-holding. - Much cheaper commission - Consistently better fills - Better platform - More markets - Etc, on and on... In a remarkable display of consistency, optionsXpress, which took top honors in 2003 and 2004, did it again this year. The firm (www.optionsxpress.com) was easily the leading browser-based brokerage, and its margin of victory was greater than that of the winner among the software-based brokers, Interactive Brokers (www.interactivebrokers.com). In the browser category, optionsXpress was followed by Ameritrade's Apex (www.ameritrade.com) and Fidelity Investments (www.fidelity.com). Among software-based competitors, Interactive narrowly beat Terra Nova Trading (www.terranovaonline.com), TradeStation (www.tradestation.com), thinkorswim (www.thinkorswim.com) and MB Trading (www.mbtrading.com).