Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now, It is Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Interactive Brokers: please, please, just stay away
Actually the primary reason I am using them is for managing several IRA accounts. They have financial advisor roles and I can allocate positions based on a number of factors to a subset of those accounts, using a single master account. Additionally, they have the nice benefit of allowing a wide variety of asset classes in a single account. So, in one IRA I can own stocks, futures, bonds, etc. To do this normally takes a self-directed IRA approach which becomes more costly. I'm still considering moving to that structure, however, because of IB's shortcomings which I have highlighted here.
For the record, the above issue about canceled orders did not affect me. But it's things like this which just become a hassle.
To be fair, every broker has issues so I'm not singling out IB as the only broker with issues! But, they have significant ones which have affected me in the past.
Trading: Primarily Energy but also a little Equities, Fixed Income, Metals and Crypto.
Posts: 4,919 since Dec 2013
Thanks Given: 4,237
Thanks Received: 9,907
Unfortunately adding new gateways always results in GTC's getting cancelled and isn't specific to Interactive. I do agree though, that I would expect to be informed, at least once, probably twice, BEFORE it happens, not 90 mins after the next session opens!
The following user says Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
I agree with the OP to stay away from IB. My problem is also with stops not executing reliably. This problem caused a significant loss, on notable size position for me.
By default, IB will NOT execute your stops in futures outside 'their' per instrument RTH hours, ie until 9:30am in Crude, which makes no sense to me.
It's not possible to globally configure this setting for their Web Trader. You can configure it in TWS. If you set a stop order using IBKR Mobile, the TWS setting will not apply and the stop will not execute outside their RTH hours. The setting also needs to be configured independently for IBKR Mobile.
Even with the setting set correctly in TWS, they failed to execute a stop in Crude in early January. I filed a complaint with them, and they said investigating for 20 days. I have followed up multiple times and they have yet to respond, it has been 2.5 months.
The following 3 users say Thank You to Futures Operator for this post:
April 14, Chicago?NFA has ordered Connecticut-based futures commission merchant and forex dealer Member Interactive Brokers LLC to pay a $250,000 fine.
The Decision, issued by NFA's Business Conduct Committee (BCC), is based on a Complaint issued by the BCC and a settlement offer submitted by Interactive Brokers, in which the firm neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the Complaint. In its Complaint, the BCC alleged that Interactive Brokers canceled retail customer forex orders contrary to the reasons permitted under NFA Compliance Rule 2-43(a)(1) and failed to adequately supervise its employees in the conduct of their forex activities on behalf of the firm to ensure compliance with the relevant NFA requirements, contrary to NFA Compliance Rule 2-36(e). In its Decision, the BCC found that Interactive Brokers violated NFA Compliance Rules 2-43(a)(1) and 2-36(e).
The complete text of the Complaint and Decision can be viewed on NFA's website.
300 S. Riverside Plaza, #1800
Chicago, IL 60606
The following 2 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
Any brokerage that doesn't have something like this just opened yesterday. I wouldn't get too worked up unless they don't have the ability to pay the fine. LOL
I'd like to very quickly update my experience with IBKR.
It's still bad, only, worse. Over the last couple of months (prior to the crazy volatility today, to be clear) a marketable limit order sometimes takes up to 12 seconds to get filled. For example, if ES is 3900.00 x 3900.25, and I place a limit to sell at 3895.00, it will sometimes take 12 seconds to fill the order. This happens both through the API (using Sierra Chart for example) and through the Interactive Brokers BookTrader itself. So, this is not a third party issue, but the problem happens in IBKR's own software! Also note that this is not a "delayed data" issue, because often to guarantee a fill, I will place the limit far enough away from the market such that I still see the delay.
The issue is directly related to volatility and order volume. For example, when the market is quiet and not much is going on, the order is often accepted within 1 or 2 seconds. It's when a huge move happens and there's an influx of orders and the market is moving (in other words, when you often most need to place an order) that it simply fails to accept in a timely fashion. Note that this also happens with stop orders. When my stop is hit, it does not trigger immediately and often takes 3-5 seconds, and I am at the mercy of market volatility.
Needless to say, this makes using it for day trading, especially in a market which can move half a percent in 1 minute, very difficult, to almost impossible. The only reason I'm still with them is their "Advisor" setup which I need. I'm still looking to switch but reluctant because it's difficult to find a replacement for the one feature I need from them.
Last note on this is that others have reported the same issue. And, my small account broker has zero latency when placing/filling orders (CQG). So, this is not an internet connectivity issue on my end.
In short, if you're a regular trader and don't need anything fancy, there is zero reason to go with IBKR. None. Their technology is inadequate and their customer support is almost non-existent (try getting ahold of someone in less than an hour, especially if things are moving). I reiterate the sentiment in the title of this thread: please, please, just stay away. The delayed fills have cost me thousands of dollars and counting. Your money deserves better.
The following 9 users say Thank You to josh for this post:
I am not an IB advocate and I have no reasons to sell their product or defend them.
But to be fair, I program against their API and when I put in a maunual order (via my own software and their API) and the order is clearly in the order book, the order is filled before the key I pressed (within my own software and their API) had lifted up. Virtually 0 milliseconds delay.
===
About customer support: I get a reasonable response time when I send a mail via the TWS application and the [Contact Us] button.
I'm not saying the response itself was very helpfull..........
The following user says Thank You to OneEye for this post:
I'd like to emphasize that I notice this delay *even when using IB's own BookTrader* ladder. I can place a marketable limit order, and it just doesn't fill. Takes several seconds. So, this issue at least for me is not a third party issue, but something I can observe in IB's own software.
After putting in a lot of work into an algo trader, I learned that TWS is less than ideal when it comes to scalping combo spreads. I had to change my strategy from scalping to one that emphasizes swing trading, and change my timeframe from 1-minute to 1-hour.
The whole idea of having to log off once a day is just dumb.
The idea that an IBAPI algo must go through TWS is also dumb.
The only reason why I am sticking with IB is because:
1. I have invested a lot of time into learning IB's API.
2. I can leverage Python for data analysis.
The following 2 users say Thank You to ZB23 for this post:
