I do not believe IB takes advantage of a customer's margin deficiencies as an opportunity to make money at the customer's expense. I believe IB simply liquidates positions as necessary, albeit sometimes imperfectly, in a legitimate effort to limit the risk to which the defaulting customer has exposed IB and its other customers.
Lobster: Good post. I missed this the first time around, I was so busy reading TraderNik's posts! LOL. You confirm exactly what I would have expected. Thanks for injecting some facts. OldTrader
Yeah Lobster, thanks for the confirm, you just pointed out to everyone through your own personal experience what I consider to be the basics. As for my own experience with IB, I wouldn't know as I don't trade through them, but then again, I don't need to, to be able to comment on this case. Thinking about the OP's situtation that he got himself into just gave me the shivers when I was out doing some banking this morning. Oh, I don't know, maybe he and tradernik thinks a brokerage should assume an unlimited amount of risk and manage the positions of all of their clients so that they always gain the maximum benifit from all of their trades (irregardless of the lack of knowledge, or just plain sheer stupidity and greed they showed when getting into the position), all for the nice tidy sum of $3+ per round turn, LOL. ... just re-read my post, LOL again.
Seeing as I have repeatedly pointed out that I am fully in support of IB's risk management practices and that I'd rather they close out the positions of overleveraged pikers who are trying to hit grand slams instead of exposing my capital to risk, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you either missed those posts or were perhaps too hung over to remember reading them. The fact that you persist in attributing to me statements and sentiments which I have disavowed indicates an incipient trollishness which you would be well advised to stifle. And by the way, the use of 'irregardless' represents a poor choice at best, and a problem in functional literacy at worst. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&q=dictionary+irregardless I look forward to more of these stimulating exchanges
Oh, it wasn't his noobish trading which prompted me to include your name in the above statement, but rather this one: ... you show me what business isn't? Big Tobacco maybe, LOL. No? OK, how about trading vendors like Puretick? Still trying to come up with a list? *** ... and thanks for the english lesson, but you're wrong on that one too: "Irregardless seems to be moving slowly in the direction of standardization.[citation needed] It has gone from nonexistence in the 1910 publication of Etymological Dictionary of the English Language,[7] to being a normality in modern dictionary publications, and it frequently occurs in edited professional prose. " LOL, ET is just full of geniuses, Ph.D's and millionaires.
Wow, you seem to be having a tough time parsing meaning from written english. What gave you the impression that I was saying there's a big business that doesn't engage in unethical behaviour if they can legally get away with it? Try re-reading every post twice, maybe that will help you. Hmmm... quoting an internet source without providing a link? That's a bit strange, isn't it? Here are a few quotes, with citations Used by people who ignorantly mean to say regardless. According to webster, it is a word, but since the prefix "ir" and the suffix "less" both mean "not or with" they cancel each other out, so what you end up with is regard. When you use this to try to say you don't care about something, you end up saying that you do. Of course everyone knows what you mean to say and only a pompous,rude asshole will correct you. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=irregardless I admit that I am a pompous rude asshole, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm right and you're semi-literate. : ) Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless The origin of irregardless is not known for certain, but the consensus among references is that it is a blend of irrespective and regardless, both of which are commonly accepted standard English words. By blending these words, an illogical word is created. "Since the prefix ir- means 'not' (as it does with irrespective), and the suffix -less means 'without,' irregardless is a double negative."[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless and finally, From Randall E Larson in Tucson: âI have more than once seen the corruption irregardless used in some standard writings and with a straight face. Has it become acceptable?â Answer: The word is thoroughly and consistently condemned in all American references I can find. But itâs also surprisingly common. Itâs formed from regardless by adding the negative prefix ir-; as regardless is already negative, the word is considered a logical absurdity. http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-irr1.htm It's pretty interesting that you can't actually figure out, on your own, that 'regardless' means 'without regard' and that the addition of the 'ir' creates a double negative which means, if anything, 'with regard'. 'Irreconcilable' means not reconcilable. Do you go around saying 'ir-irreconcilable'? You don't? Then why say 'regardless-less' when you mean regardless? I know these concepts are tough to follow. Shall I go on?
lol... I guess that translates to 'Ok, ok, I'm wrong and you're right'. No problem, it takes a lot to stand up and admit you're wrong. Maybe a little more than you've got?