|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Earl,
The back door with Cubs (when its down) is a broker who's online and using
TS like TradeCenter(Lfg's the clearer). I was emailed a neat instantaneous
messaging system called ICQ which I have on all day with Leo, so when Cubs
is down you or chasing a fill theres an alternative. Commission rates are a
good deal more competitive than lfg as well.
>When it comes to futures brokerage, it's a sound practice to make sure
there's a
>back door before walking in the front! Good thing you did and thanks for
posting
>the follow-up. After the recent problems with LeoWeb/CUBS was seriously
thinking
>about taking a closer look ... the margin doesn't bother me, but I wouldn't
for
>a moment open an account in a brokerage with no back door or an inability
to
>trade contracts other than the S&P.
>
>Earl
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gary Fritz <fritz@xxxxxxxx>
>To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 2:05 PM
>Subject: Re: Electronic Orders Entry ...
>
>
>A while back I posted some info about Interactive Brokers' electronic
>order entry system through Timber Hill. It looked good, with a nice
>direct hookup into Globex (you can hit the bid/ask, etc) and very low
>commissions (as low as $3.95 per side, $9.75 minimum per order).
>
>But it's become clear to me that IB is not the answer for me. There
>are a couple of annoying things like 1) high margin requirements,
>$5000 per e-mini even for daytrading, and 2) they ONLY allow e-mini
>trades in the retail account! No other contracts are supported.
>
>And it turns out there's an even worse problem. IB apparently gets
>their low commissions by having ZERO human involvement in the order
>process. I started to worry about this and asked the IB rep if there
>was a voice order desk to use in case the system goes down & you need
>to exit a trade. She apparently couldn't be bothered to answer with
>a simple "yes" or "no," but told me to go read the website.
>
>Here is what I gleaned from their website. I sent this message to
>the IB rep with expressions of disbelief, asking if this was really
>the way they operated. That was last week, and she hasn't replied to
>deny it, so I assume it must be correct.
>
>So I definitely will not be opening an account with IB. I still like
>the IB order tool, and I may possibly go with one of IB's licensees
>(with higher commissions but better support), but definitely not
>through IB directly.
>
>Gary
>
>=========
>
>To: Lori Oconner <loc_interactive@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Look on web
>From: fritz@xxxxxxxx
>Date sent: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:09:13 -0600
>
>> If you look on the review section of our web page you will see this
>> issue being addressed.
>
>A simple "yes" or "no" would have sufficed very nicely.
>
>I dug through the website. The closest I can see are:
>
>4. Interactive Brokers shall confirm all transactions electronically
>via the Internet in lieu of printed confirmations and monthly
>statements. If there are system delays or failures, confirmations may
>not be received on a timely basis. The Customer accepts electronic
>messaging through the Internet if it is the only means used to
>confirm customer Trades and receive monthly statements.
>
>...and...
>
>8. In the event of a system failure, or a failure at an exchange
>which did not permit the cancellation of an order, the Customer
>remains bound to execution of its order.
>
>...and...
>
>10. ... Since system failures and delays will be experienced, and
>in such events the IB System may not be available for the Customer,
>the Customer is responsible for making alternative trading
>arrangements if they are necessary.
>
>
>...which sounds very much like "If anything goes wrong, it's the
>customer's problem, and it's up to the customer to figure out a way
>to solve it. If the IB system goes down in the middle of a trade,
>tough bananas. You'd better have another brokerage account somewhere
>where you can offset the order, because we won't help you. We can't
>even be bothered to maintain a voice order entry line to allow you to
>exit positions if the IB system blows up."
>
>
>That being the case, or at least my interpretation of the rules,
>there is no way I would do business with IB. I can't imagine why
>anyone would.
>
>Gary
>
>
>
|