And it is the brokers responsibility to convey those states to the customer through the interface, thus making them not grey. Order and order cancellation pending aren't grey states - they are well defined. Not knowing that your order or cancel is still pending is a grey state - that is unacceptable. Until IB has confirmed that an order is cancelled it should stay up on the screen as cancel pending. What excuse is there for not displaying this information? If a customer sees a cancel sitting in a pending state for an unreasonable amt of time then they would realize they need to call. You are confusing two issues, I never said that problems can't happen, I just said that the status needs to be communicated to the customer even if that status itself reflects that there is a problem. That is a far cry from saying there should never be a problem. I would strongly disagree if there is some requirement to take note of the color of a signal that disappears on its own without any user intervention (which is what I have gathered from this thread). The user interface should not be clearing anything automatically if it is not "normal". That's just a bad design and has nothing to do with market problems.
This is a user-selectable option, Winter. The user sets a flag to indicate whether or not cancelled orders should stay on the screen until cleared manually, or instead clear from the screen automatically after a delay (was it perhaps 30 seconds or so?) The problem is not with the protocol for confirming order cancellation. The problem is not with unethical behaviour, as alleged by this thread's title. The problem is a communication problem. Communication has never been one of my IB's greatest strengths, but it executes orders well, and it is an ethical company. I agree with you, in that cancelled orders should not be auto-cleared from the screen, and that they should remain until the customer manually clears them. Automatic clearing of the cancelled orders sends the wrong message to customers, and encourages customers to neglect necessary safety checks when cancelling orders. This design problem is a communications problem, not an execution problem, and not an ethical problem.
I have just read this entire thread. Issue for me comes down to two things. One the auto delete and red status etc Sure IB does not communicate it clearly, but a bad workman always blames his tools. What I find disturbing is that he gets a fill 37min later at a really really bad price. Did DB sit on the order for 37min and then say okay lets do it now, if so they should have done it at the better price. If the filled it immediately and where delayed in confirming the order, then surely they should be informing there CP that they are having problems confirming orders. This whole thing reminds me of the Russia default in 1998. What Put options I never sold you any Puts. Da And sure someone is going to say and if the trade went in his favour he would be saying nothing.
Look, I simply quoted the statement from IB's website. It couldn't be clearer, but you have applied a twist to it that, if true, does indeed make IB look somewhat unethical. If you can't document your assertion, I'd think you would be more circumspect about stating the rest of us are confused, etc. Anyway, I'm not looking for an argument, and you have highlighted a useful issue. Now I wish IB would come on here and settle this matter conclusively. If you're right, they should change their documentation immediately.
Reply for Mr. Dont: Means that DBKFX sent a late execution report. Does not mean that execution was at 10:38.
I disagree. My interpretation of your quote from IB documentation does not make them look unethical. Miscommunications should not be automatically labelled "unethical". I also don't think it is at all clear that your own interpretation of the documentation is correct.
*** Still waiting for IBj to post and to "hear your side." Their SILENCE is speaking VOLUMES, and it should be pretty obvious that IB's "side of the story" is that they real don't give a damn about the small retail trader. GOD! Interactive Brokers really is the wrong place for the small retail trader to go to. I'd avoid it all costs (unless you're a bigtime trader here on ET, then when they screw you over you can post and get instantaneous response OR you are trading in the hopes of getting totally screwed over and better yet, may need to come up with money if you suffer through the same thing that trader guy has experienced). *** Good alternative brokers that I know of: Forex OANDA (PM the Forex guys, I'm sure they'd be willing to help on this one) Futures Probably Anyone Else (ie, Global Futures, MB Trading, Tradestation Securities, etc. etc. etc.) you name'em, they're probably better than this clap trap. Later, Jimmy
Sometimes these out of the ordinary events take time to sort out - have a little patience. IB has always been fair with me so I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. The fact is that the user in this case never got a confirmed cancel according to his audit trail. According to the user agreements, I don't think he has a case.
I want to know what version of TWS was being used at the time. Sure don't want to upgrade to it. Might be a turkey... gobble gobble... your $$$...