what is your feeling about IB

So let's see: some character named Ernest gives you some erroneous information as it turns out, and you leap to the conclusion that "IB is lying". ("Yet another IB lie" is how you put it). I don't suppose it occurs to you that Ernest may not have known the answer, so he spouted an answer without knowing. While this certainly would be dumb on his part, I don't know if it rises to your charge of "lying" unless he KNOWINGLY distorted what he knew to be the fact. Further, even if Ernest did "lie" which for now is questionable, the next question that arises is whether IB is guilty of "lying" even if Ernest did. What could just as easily be the case is that Ernest may lie when confronted with a hostile customer such as yourself, just to get you off his back, rather than to tell you that it is simply IB's policy to hold new funds for 10 days. If this were the case then IB is obviously not "lying". Companies cannot always control everything their employees say or do at every instant. None of this is clear at this time...but one thing is for sure....you don't need FACTS to make a charge do you? Perhaps in the future you should be more cautious about jumping to conclusions which may or may not be true, especially when the charge is a rather serious one.

Either way, my guess is that this 10 day rule that you are evidently so concerned about is not a concern to most people. Most people I would assume would wire money in, and leave it for a period longer than 10 days, so the rule would not apply. This rule in all likelihood rarely comes into play.

Chances are high that IB has instituted the rule so as to standardize their handling of funds that are initially sent to them, whether they be checks, cashier's check, or wired funds. You may know that both checks and cashiers checks can be stopped, and the recipient may not know this for a couple of weeks. Standardizing the approach to funds probably makes the operation more efficient, and therefore, allows lower costs...a factor that is in all likelihood important to IB.

For you to get a group of people to complain about this, you'll first have to find a group who wired the money in, and then requested it sooner than 10 days...LOL. Otherwise, IB is quite efficient at either mailing/wiring funds out of your account.

By the way, here's the policy of Ameritrade: "Deposits made by check, electronic funding, money order or cashiers check are NOT available for withdrawal from your account for 10 business days." Interesting huh? I won't be charging you with "lying" however, I will simply assume that you are not completely acquainted with ALL the facts concerning brokerage accounts...an error of knowledge, not a lie.

By the way, did you read IB's policies BEFORE you opened the account and signed all the agreements? A quick review of their information on the main website reveals their policy on withdrawals. Did you read this? While you're busy accusing IB of "lying", what we find out is that their policy is clearly disclosed for anyone to read on their main website under "withdrawals".

Please let us know whether you read these policies.

OldTrader

 

excellent

 

oldtrader, while I'm no longer young and fast approaching the top of the hill, perhaps overtime I'll be able to put my thoughts in writing as well as you do. once again, you hit the nail on the head.

---
Before anyone else accuses me of lying I will state that this is what I understand. Feel free to accuse me of supplying inaccurate facts if you know better.

Doesn't the Patriot Act and other anti-money laundering measures place the onus on the banks and brokers when it comes to proving that one is not aiding and abetting money laundering? If this is the case, the 10 day rule makes perfect sense.


Now a crack at some logic: if the above is true and firms must take caution in regards to protecting against the possibility of money laundering, would it be a stretch for someone on the service side to state that the rule was implemented due to the Patriot Act? Would it be a lie if the next person said it was due to the Patriot act?

In any event, no matter what the cause for the rule, it is valid, reasonable and clearly stated to clients. For the grossly VAST majority of accounts who hold money with us longer than 10 days, IB sends wires out the same day if the request is made before 12 PM. These wires are usually rec'd by clients the same or next day. If it was our aim to hold your funds, why would we have such a conflicting policy?

 

I know of several firms that got burned on customers trading on what turned out to be Bounced Checks. The clearing firm did not check the status until after 10 days. The Broker Dealers ate the loss of thousands, since the clearing firms sure are not taking the loss.

If I were in the back office of a Direct Access Trading firm I would tell customers to forget about writting checks to open an account and only accept wired funds.

 

This is in response to OldTrader and DEF:

1. The employee works in the Banking Dept of IB and has to answer this question often. While you assume I was belligerant, the accusations you both make to me about that are false. I was polite and I asked why I couldn't have my WIRED FUNDS back and when I could have them.

2. He lied in saying it was because of the Patriots' Act and laundering money. That was not the reason, according to IB's compliance officer and NFA's Compliance Dept. They are doing this because it's their policy to do it and they can do it because of a different law, which I quoted above.

3. Yes, lying to a customer when you are acting FOR your company, is a lie, and as a representative of the company, the company must be held responsible for that lie. I have thus far been lied to by a CS rep named CINDY, def, who is a manager in Hong Kong but voluntarily intervenes against and for us customers in the US, and Ernest in Banking. That's a lot of lying from one brokerage firm in the space of only one week.

4. Yes, it's true, it may be relatively rare to request your wired funds back only days after you have sent them, but it is, after all, my money, and is being tied up so that I cannot use it productively. And it's not a very nice policy for customers. Every so often we do find we have an urgent unexpected need for our funds. It happens.

Yes, I was aware of the rule before I opened the account, absolutely. I didn't think it would come up for me, because I didn't expect to be closing my account. Naturally! I went to a lot of cost and trouble in order to fund the account and not with the intention of closing it. lol

When Ernest told me this tall tale about the Patriots' Act and snickered when I said I'd look into it, I looked into it. I found IB can do it, so I've informed all of you of that. I thought it was rather nice of me to let you all know that IB can do it and why they can do it.

I do have several other brokerage accounts, brokerages with which I'm happy, where I've actively traded for many years, and all of them are liberal with me about their policies. Before I opened my account at IB, when I saw that odd-sounding policy of keeping wired funds, cash, for ten biz days, I assumed that IB might use some discretion on that, as my other brokerages would, if I needed my money quickly for some reason. Holding your funds for ten days after they receive it is not based on a law, as Ernest said, but on IB's policy and it's discretionary. I'm reporting this to all of you, not making any demands about it, even though you seem to be turning my reporting it into my making a demand.

I asked about it, I investigated it, and I'm reporting on it.

I didn't lie about anything. I don't lie, ever. I can be mistaken, but I am not capable of lying, which is why I am so offended by Cindy, def and Ernest at IB, who told me lies.

I didn't say there ARE no brokerage who hold your wired funds for ten days before returning them to you. I said I have no brokerages who do, I know no brokerages who do, and NFA supported my statement in saying they also didn't find it usual that a firm would do this for wired funds. If Ameritrade does it, too, I'm glad I don't use them.

No, you cannot STOP wired funds after they've been received. Whichever of you said that: you're wrong.

DEF: This is your opportunity to take up the matter raised in the closed thread. I have stated that I believe you were lying when you said that you cannot assume, and thus cannot know, which of my orders would have filled. I have said that you did a full audit trail, a status of that execution, and that you can tell which would have filled. I could tell, too. None would have filled at that time (5:03AM) but the last order that I sent through would have filled later in the day. I can tell because I was watching. Your firm can tell because your firm has the status report and tape.

If it were not possible to tell whether an order would have filled or not, then no status reports would be of any use at any time. But they are used as a practice by all the firms I use. I have never argued with the results of one, but I do argue when you say you can't TELL what would have filled, thus suggesting there is no use to any audit trail or a status review.

If I'm wrong and what you told me is NOT a lie, I'd like to hear how you can explain the position you took on this. I'd like to know how you can justify saying you cannot assume what would have been executed, after having the full audit trail and status report.

You see, I'm quite willing to be proven wrong by facts. But all you've done is sling accusations, not facts.

OldTrader is not a rep of your firm and he can make up what he likes without your firm being responsible for it. But when YOU and CINDY both tell me someting (that you cannot assume what order would have filled), you should be able to justify what you've said. I think it's a lie, so tell me why it isn't and I'll listen. I'll even apologize if it turns out I'm wrong. You persistently skirt this matter.

 

You've proven yourself an idiot several times over Mr. Edge. Now go away.

You are now on my ignore list so go ahead and flame to your heart's content. (And, thank you for remaining in the market - the more idiots the better!)

 

I'm really going to try to be done with this after this reply.

1. I never said I read your audit trail. I said I would probably have if you sent only your first mail late Sunday night (my time) and didn't accuse us of bad things thereafter.

2. Being mistaken and lying are two completely different things. I know the onus of money laundering is on the banks and brokers. If a rep in the F&B dept thought the rule put in place because of that, so be it. It really isn't a big deal. he told you what he thought to be the truth. you are nitpicking. In the end it is a firm policy and demanding to know the reason behind every decision really isn't important. If I am wrong on that account, then i am MISTAKEN. Some gratitude I get for trying to provide some assistance.

3. I think it was lobster who gave a very good explanation of why we can not assume you would have been filled at the higher price. You entered in lower orders which were probably around the bid/ask of the market place. How are we to be 100% certain they wouldn't have been filled? How do we know for certain that you wouldn't have modified your last order to a lower price as the market dropped later in the day? How do we know for certain that you would not have cancelled the order and walked away without a trade? Are these all lies as you claim? Alternatively we could have busted the trade but we decided that you were better off with the trade you - as I paraphrase your own words "were thrilled to have".

EDIT: oops forgot to add:

You really think so?

 

You've said you were done with this discussion several times but I don't care if you keep changing your mind. I know you for what you are, by now.

You personally shouldn't be "providing assistance" if it's something you know nothing about, have no power to repair and are as in this case, persistently providing false information. In point of fact on the three matters I brought to you ON YOUR REQUEST, you didn't help at all! Not with any of them. I did thank you before the developments in which you lied to me and then attacked me personally. Sure I thought you meant well, till then!

Ernest in Banking didn't tell the truth. I proved that through my inquiry. Yeah, he was "mistaken" but he insisted that WAS the reason, was quite offensive about it and he was lying. Maybe he made up the reason. Honest people don't make up reasons. They say they don't know why but that is the policy. He didn't say he was guessing. He said that absolutely was the reason.

I learned from NFA that it is your policy and you have the right to the policy. I said that, so you don't have to call me names about it. I wasn't "nitpicking." I was trying to get to the TRUTH about your right to keep my money and the reasons for your right to keep my money. I did exactly that, and I gave you something there. I could have kept the results of my research to myself. I thought you'd be happy to know that you do currently have the right to keep our money for ten business days, even though MOST BROKERAGE HOUSES DO NOT do that, and even though it is not a nice policy for customers who might need their funds quickly due to unforseen emergencies.

I can conclude from all my experiences with IB that the firm isn't considerate of customers.

Now we get to the real issue, the important issue. You're saying you're assuming my oders were around the Bid/Ask price, But that's a false assumption and you have no right to be MAKING any assumptions You have the actual DATA! My orders were never around the bid/ask price. they were quite far away from both. And you CAN know that they wouldn't have filled. Indeed they would not have NEARLY filled.

By ASSUMING I placed order near a Bid/Ask, you are making up information. Again. And you blame a customer named Lobster for this nonsensical reply to me? Does he work for IB now? Your job is to trade for IB, you say. Yet you make up this nonsense when you talk to a customer??

You have a precise audit trail and you don't have to make up information. MY ORDERS WOULD NOT HAVE FILLED BY 5:03 and would not have filed for hours after. My orders wouldn't have nearly filled, not even REMOTELY would they have filled. You have the status report and you pretend it tells you nothing!

The point of a status is to find out what would have happend, not to pretend you cannot know! If you were telling the truth then NO status reports would be done, because none would be able to tell anything about what would have filled.

When I ask for a status report from my RELIABLE brokerage firms, they come back to me quickly. Sometimes they'll say I didn't get it because I had the bid and not the ask. In a case like that, sometimes orders might fill at the other side, but I never argue with that response, because there's only a guarantee of a fill if you're in line at the right side of that spread. When your order is not at either the bid or the ask, however, as in the case of my orders by 5:03AM that day, we can know they would not have filled.

You just make things up when you don't know something. That's not the way to do business.

Increasingly i'm coming to the conclusion that Interactive Brokers is going to be the Enron of the Brokerage business.

 

Well, we can leave it to both parties to decide. I have no idea whether this fellow has 2K or 2 million, and I dont care.

I just offered an alternative I thought at least deserved inspection based upon my knowledge of the integrity of the people that run it .... other than that I have no detailed knowledge of their operation.

The best advice is to do business with people that you trust and if your current vendor has lost that trust, either by failure in their service or from impolite service, or from refusing to explain and service your account then you are free to take your business elsewhere if you can get a better deal.

Personally, if I ran into to smart-mouthed kid who snickered or bitched at any question I demanded of them, or failed to politely and promptly act upon a reasonable request, then that vendor would be history.... ther are many alternatives and I would conclude that such a vendor really didn't really need or deserve my business....

 

Whether I have one dollar or one hundred million dollars, I'm entitled to courteous and honest service at a brokerage firm. It's shallow of you to reduce the issue to how much money I might have or might not have.

In several decades of trading, I've tried numerous brokerage firms. I kept some of them for many years and I'm happy with those, and others I found unsatisfactory. When I've found them unsatisfactory, leaving was not eventful. IB is the worst I've tried and the way they've handled the closing of the account has been quite unprofessional (I refer to def's behavior in this). I had reason to file complaints about one other company in all these years, maybe because I am lazy, as I'm sure a few other complaints could have been filed.

When I find a firm to be behaving in a matter I consider unreliable or dishonest, I have to leave, and these days I also make a point of making the issues public. I intend to offer my information to other sites where brokerage firms are evaluated, too, not just here.

I was delaying doing that, because I wanted to give def a chance to make things right, to give me some sort of explanation for his having lied to me, something that would make it more like a mistake than a lie. He has failed.

IB has a strong established base here and the customers are intensely loyal and defensive about the company. I haven't seen that before. When a customer reports a bad experience with a firm, usually other customers can tolerate it, report their own positive reports, but don't get nasty towards the suffering customer. What happens here in regard to the intense and blind support of IB is an interesting phenomenon, but it doesn't reduce my resolve to do what I think is right.

The more I'm attacked for posting my experience, the more I am feeling like I'm uncovering what will become the Enron of the Brokerage business, and that it's my duty to inform people of what has happened to me at IB.