Unethical Conduct by IB

Discussion in 'Interactive Brokers' started by TRADERguy, Apr 27, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thats the version that howard from ensign is telling ensign users not to use and some Sierra Chart users have had problems with it as well. Connectivity to tws issues though.
     
    #101     Apr 28, 2006
  2. LOL. Although I'd like to hear IB's analysis of this too (did they receive permission from the original poster yet?) on every other level you are:

    1) wrong; and
    2) a complete wanker.

    Thanks for the opportunity to tell you that JimmyJam :)


     
    #102     Apr 28, 2006
  3. Kiwi_trader,

    I only wish I could have put it as succinctly as you did!
     
    #103     Apr 28, 2006
  4. That's OK.

    I don't use (non) Interactive Brokers.

    And thanks to reading about what passes for their crappy service, lost data feeds and poor beta testing of bug riddled software in these threads, I never will.

    Best Regards,

    Jimmy :cool:
     
    #104     Apr 28, 2006
  5. u see, prob is that u'll never know how much better off u really are with another broker; ib has huge biz here on this board'n'traders openly discuss'n'complain 'bout occurring' issues'n'it is logical to assume all other brokers out there have da same if not more prob than ib but u don't get to hear 'bout that often...for cryin' out loud look at etrade'n'scotttrade, a nightmare come true, innit[?]
    'n'by da way these are more like singularities than persistent issues, in reality ib is a fine broker all 'round, u just cannot complain much, service has been very good for a long long time, this is just a bad period they goin' trough imo, cuz software glitches'n'bugs.
     
    #105     Apr 29, 2006
  6. We stay at IB, and we complain, because we know that if we leave, we will be worse off. Better to stay with the best deal available, and give constructive criticism to help make it better, than to leave and have to choose among the inferior alternatives.

    It is in our best interests, as IB customers, to defend IB against unfair criticism in these forums. If we help give IB a fair hearing in these forums, I think this encourages IB to continue doing right the things it does right, and especially to continue IB's highly productive and praiseworthy interaction with retail customers in these forums.

    P.S. I agree with Bitstream that IB has a long history of strong reliability, and that only in the past days has it hit an extremely unusual rough patch of technology problems.
     
    #106     Apr 29, 2006
  7. fhl

    fhl

    Another angle on this "you must see red" thing. Day orders are cancelled at the end of day. The very reason they are used is so a trader doesn't have to be at screen watching while it expires/cancels. You come in the next day, the orders are gone, no change in positions, and you must not be expected to do further analysis on your audit trail, calling IB, etc, to confirm. It is customary in the industry to use these orders and to expect the cancellation to take place without having to worry if there are position changes out there in the netherlands unbeknownst to the trader.
     
    #107     Apr 29, 2006
  8. tomcole

    tomcole

    I think y'all stay at IB because they're the cheapest broker around for retail. Somehow no one ever adds in the costs of missed executions or bad fills to the cheap commissions to calculate the actual commission cost.

    Before all of you start clamoring that you're the kingpin of equities or commodities, all brokers are open to negotiated commissions if you actually do the volume many of you claim.

    Why dont we start a poll to see if the original poster should get his money back from IB? I'll start and vote "YES".
     
    #108     Apr 29, 2006
  9. There is no comparison to IB. No broker is perfect and all make mistakes just as all traders do.

    IB is by far the best broker in the marketplace.
     
    #109     Apr 29, 2006
  10. zdreg

    zdreg

    Don't you know how to create a poll on ET?
     
    #110     Apr 29, 2006
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.