I have to say I know there are defenders no matter what, but this isn't new and various other issues with the software that people have experienced, only to be told they are stupid and IB is not responsible in anyway. I traded with them 3 different times over the years and had various issues, all requiring talking to IB Customer NO Service and deal with the same b.s. I'm not going to debate that all software has problems, but the service you get when a problem occurs is completely unacceptable at IB. The old "you wouldn't call if it was in your favor" is what really irritates me. Years ago I had $50,000 added to an account with another broker I called immediately and let them know before they caught it. Have had trades listed that gave me profit that weren't mine at another broker and again called right away. I remember one other broker I had even before I tried IB. He called me at 11:00 p.m to throw the same IB statement at me, "hey, you never call when you have a bad trade in your favor, didn't you see the pork belly trade, I think I can let you keep it." I said what the fuck are you talking about I haven't even gotten todays statement. I called the douche bag the next day and pointed out he's the one that had been screwing up various trades not me, and I was tired of calling him for corrections, but yea I would have called about this one also. Closed that account also. Funny thing is his kid works for him now apparently and cold called me a year ago for his Dad's brokerage. Sorry for the tangent. Don't tell me how IB has such great rates and diverse products, I have lower rates and all the products I trade currently. On top of it when I call the desk it gets answered right away and if they can't figure it out they call the exchange or connect me directly to exchange. IB has no excuse for the crap they call customer service. As they point out they are doing well, so put some cash back into service! Mine apparently does and their financials are good too. I guess it just depends on your true business model.
My firm does > 100,000 trades/year... So this is not realistic. What is realistic... Is being acutely aware that, say, 1 out of 1000 IB executions or positions is erroneous... (So for me that would be about 100 errors/year)... And catch anything major quickly... While just absorbing the minor errors. For example, last week... IB did a forced buy-in of XXXX shares... That I am certain I was not short... And was not displayed as short at any time that day. This is the first out-right error in hundreds of buy-ins... Though IB is routinely delinquent in their buy-in warnings... Routinely mistaking the number needed to be bought by 16:00... Like they tell me to buy-in XXX shares... I do... And then they buy another XXX shares after 16:00. What fun. IB's entire Stock Loan department is apparently 2 people... And they are about as professional as a couple of 10 year olds. Bottom line... On a 100,000 trades... I probably absorb $10,000 to $20,000 in losses annually... Due to IB's fairly low, but inexcusable, error rate... And it's just not worth getting Fucked Over by Customer Service... Over < 2% of my profits annually. Like they routinely pay dividends late... And then actually BACK DATE the payment... Like this is gonna fool anyone with IQ > 75... And their Dividend Accruals were wrong for December 31, 2008... Causing accounting complications for many firms. They eventually correct all these problems... But, in the meanwhile, The Customer Is Always An Idiot And Wrong.
I've been with IB for about a year trading stocks and futures. I was very happy until recently when lots of little glitches started happening.....no losses as a result, just irritating and time consuming. Hope they get things straightened out soon as I really don't want to move because I love IB's range of products. Stosh
I have been satisfied with IB for many years. I too recently started observing small glitches in trade reporting after the TWS version with the 'day filter' in the Trades window (missing reports). The executions.txt file used to contain a complete and correct listing of all trades completed since I first installed TWS. This file now has many recurring entries (again, since the day filter). I have two logins for my account, I use one on my desktop, the other is used by my Automated Trading Systems on a hosted server. Luckily, even when an order cancellation or execution is incorrect on one login, it shows up OK on the other one. So, for the past few months, I have gotten in the habit of keeping both screens up, and double checking positions and order status on both logins. It is ugly. I don't like doing it. If there were another low cost broker with the same product breadth and decent API I would consider switching. For now, it is extra work and risk for me.
Never, EVER, close TWS, I don't care WHAT version you're on- without first checking the 'Position' column under 'Portfolio' at the 'Account' page. ('View' - 'Account'.) Make sure to display 'Position' under 'Configure'. This problem then becomes a non-issue, I promise you.
NFA is created to supervise broker's activities. If a customer has a loss by mistake and broker disagrees to compensate, you should file a dispute to NFA. All claims below $10,000 will be analyzed in written and if NFA officers decide that a customer is right they force the broker to compensate losses. If such complains happen often NFA may apply some sanctions to a broker like a fine or revoke. It is theory. Maybe it doesnât work in reality.
I am having an IB glitch this morning. I had several overnight positons and placed working exit orders. When I looked this morning the orders had been cancelled or I thought they were as they were not on my working page. One of the trades was showing a profit so I exited and then the original working order popped up. I rebooted and then TWS showed all of the other orders that I left last night. This is very dangerous I could have been put in a trade not wanting to and not even knowing about it. Does anyone know how to fix this or is this a glitch that I have to live with?
Here is something strange I noticed the last couple of weeks. I have two computers connected to the same network switch and ISP. I use one (a newer Vista machine) for most trading. And an older XP for trading my IRA sometimes. Trades always show up fine on the Vista main trading computer. But for years I could trade on one machine, and after TWS was logged off I could log on to my account (with another copy of TWS) on my other machine and all my trades were there. Not now. Trades do not show up on my other machine. Account and position info look okay. But no trades. Strange huh? Are trades now being held in local memory and not on IB's servers? My TWS versions are different too I think (I'll check later). Does this make a difference? Anybody from IB check in here anymore?
1. BUYINS Given the way our buyin process is designed, it should never be the case that the total shares bought in EXCEEDS the amount warned. The following are the only exceptions I can think of: a) we don't consider activity done within roughly 40 minutes of the notification: the reason is that the calculation take about 15 minutes to run and then we allow another 15-20 minutes for a manual review. The review allows the SLB team the opportunity to prevent a buyin by taking special action. For example, we may have contracted to borrow the stock but the contra lender, as a result of some simple operational mishap has not yet delivered it; unfortunately, the SEC rules do not recognize any difference between operational error and inability to borrow so the buyin threat is created. But if we see that is is still unresolved, and we know we had the borrow in place, we can call the contra and point out that he is delinquent. Often this will expedite the cleanup of late deliveries. b) if your net activity on the day of the notification is short, then buying stock back will not reduce the buyin risk. In accordance with the rules, net purchases on the settlement date can be considered against your delivery obligations, and hence your risk of being bought-in. But net short positions do not impact it, hence purchases that make a short-on-the-day simply less short, do not have any value for determination of the amount that may be bought-in. With the above in mind: If your experiences do not fall into one of the above scenarios, please send me the exact details of the events you describe (account, date, stock) where we bought in more than was notified. I will identify the reason, and if there is a problem, we will fix it. Please send this via E-T email. 2. BACK DATED DIVIDENDS Backdating is not intended to misrepresent the posting. It is a standard banking practice called "Value dating" and ensures that cash balances are correct for interest calculation purposes. If you wish to test my assertion, consider a dividend with a payable date of 4/1 which gets posted last on 4/8. [Assuming you were long, which most people are] Wouldn't you want to have the cash value of the dividend distribution considered for the period from 4/1 to 4/8? Every transaction has a transaction date (when it happened), posting date (when it was booked to your account), value date (the date for which the transaction is considered when revaluing daily balances for interest and liability purposes), and reporting date (when we show it on a statement). By the way, regular banking transactions (deposits, etc) and even trades, are subject to the same dating principles.