Rambler's Top100 counter.list.ru
Внимание! Это архив форума трейдеров и инвесторов. Информация о брокерах, банках и дилинговых центрах. Торговля акциями на биржах США (NYSE, NASDAQ, AMEX). Форекс. Торговые системы. Фундаментальный и технический анализ. Money management. А вход на новый форум здесь.

Финансовая информация для частных лиц

IB, к вопросу - иметь или не иметь

Написано Сторонний | Sat, May 5 at 3:22pm:

To:John Megert who wrote (1477)
From: David Shie Friday, May 4, 2001 2:59 PM
View Replies (3) | Respond to of 1494

To anyone: I'm relatively new to IB and was surprised find that I'm apparently able to short against the tick in Nasdaq stocks. Is this an oversight, since none of the other brokerages I've used so far allows me to do that. Another questions: they only charge 0.01/sh commission and allow routing to INCA, who I believe imposes a 0.015/sh overhead for small orders. Are they losing money on those orders? Thanks.

To:David Shie who wrote (1488)
From: Dan Duchardt Friday, May 4, 2001 4:44 PM
Respond to of 1494

IB has always prevented shorts sales against the tick rule. If it is getting by now, something in the s/w must have been changed. Penny increments with decimals has changed the environment a lot, so there could be something related to those changes.. I tend to doubt it is really happening. There are no tick rules outside of regular market hours. Is that where you think the rules are being ignored?

As for INCA, I expect IB has negotiated something with them so that they are not losing money on INCA orders. In any case, there is reason to believe that IB is benefiting from the knowledge gained by the order flow via IB, as many other firms do. I have no reason to doubt that they adhere to the rules against front running, but they make explicit statements in the customer agreement about using order information for their own trading decisions. If it were not worth it for them to do it, it would not be happening.


To:David Shie who wrote (1488)
From: John Megert Friday, May 4, 2001 8:28 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 1494

David, Shorting has been so easy for me that I'd almost also swear they are not living by the uptick rule. I trade almost exclusively on ISLD and am always shorting at the bid and my executions are instantaneous. I'm sure IB's not losing money on transaction fees. IB is a wholesale broker and recently added on retail trading. I'm sure everyone is getting their due. John....PS....I've been using IB for almost a year now and I love it.

To:John Megert who wrote (1491)
From: Mark Davis Friday, May 4, 2001 9:39 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 1494

There is a considerable amount of 'noise' on the bid now that we are decimalized. If you are trading very active stocks, shorting is much easier.
Try shorting a quiet stock on a downtick at the bid. That's a reliable way to test the theory.

To:Mark Davis who wrote (1492)
From: David Shie Saturday, May 5, 2001 3:29 AM
Respond to of 1494

I think it's the noise of decimalization which makes shorting much easier. Before decimalization, on uptick would normally have to be 1/16, now it is just 0.01, which is...well...six times more likely to happen. Also, when the spread is just one penny apart (for the more volatile stocks), it is not difficult to imagine instances where momentary locked markets occur (via an uptick) which triggers pent up short orders on the bid. Anyhow, I'm finding IB to be much easier to use and more reasonable in its commission structure compared to most other brokers out there.

Все ответы


Rambler's Top100

© 1998-2014, Russian Money Pages