My comments were for the joe character who was making assertions that aren't true. If a client doing very large and significant size requests and algo, I can only speculate what they use it for. For example, sitting on the bid does not guarantee a fill and certain types of orders require fills to match say an ETF creation price, a VWAP, could be time sensitive, etc. For the pegged orders, keep in mind I am in Asia and US routing isn't my area of responsibility and that is why I haven't answered the questions about whether or not we can make modifications. Nevertheless, I will point the requests to those that will determine whether or not it is something we incorporate into the algos.
def - Appreciate you participating in the discussion despite it being outside of your direct responsibilities. That said, can we expect to hear some feedback in this thread from whoever does cover this in the US?
Def / DAV: It's been two months - can you please update on us on what progress has been made on this issue?
We have not been able to reproduce the issue with the zero-offset relative orders not rolling back, we will continue to try to reproduce it: if you have more recent examples please PM me. We have no plans to implement negative-offset relative orders (those that are behind NBBO), and we are not currently planning to change positive-offset relative orders to roll back. The native zero-offset pegged order support on ISLAND and ARCA is under consideration.
DAV- I do appreciate you following up here as you're certainly under no obligation to do so. If you don't mind my asking, what was the rationale behind IB coming to this decision?
Implementing rollback for a positive-offset requires significantly more computing resources, as you need to monitor the deep book to see if the order needs to be rolled back.
I do not see how a positive/negative offset rollback is taking more resources than a zero offset rollback. it is all relative to NBBO if i understood it correctly.