Talk:Interactive Brokers Group

Problems
Some time ago I had problems with IB's trading system as it did not want to execute my orders (could not valuate contract at this time). This has cost me a lot of money. Recently I saw an announcement of IB themselves mentioning a similar error, which reminded me of the problems I had. I want to do something about it (and be compensated if possible), but I'm only a small investor and don't know what to do. Has anyone else had the similar problems? I don't have an account, but am willing to give my e-mail if requested. I'll check this page the next few days.


 * I am also a small investor. This morning (11/28/2012) a Good -till-cancel order did not execute because IB cancelled it overnight.  They told me the reason it was cancelled was because a dividend on a stock (CLUB) was over 3% and it is their "policy" to cancel all orders that existed before the market close the prior day if the dividend to be issued was over 3%.  I spoke with them and they could not provide me anything in writing on the website (IB does nothing on paper) where this "policy" is stated.  My GTC order was cancelled and so did not execute. IB is not willing to retroactively fill the order.  I want to know what other IB "policies" may affect my account without my authorization.  How do I find out?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seismicstock (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Biased "editorial"
The person inserting the interest calculations provide no reference to other brokers and clearly has a biased agenda in his slanderous comments about IB.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox to air your gripes about this company. Unless you can properly reference your interest rate section, it should be kept out of this entry. Moreover, the opinion on policy entry is completely biased. 'Compiled from selected forum entries'?? Reference, people! Brettgo1 05:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Article unsalvageable?
I've been watching this article and periodically trying to clean up little pieces of it for months, but it just keeps getting worse. I wonder, does this firm meet noteworthiness standards in the first place? Is it a decent candidate for outright deletion? MrZaius talk  18:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this firm is large and famous. It meets noteworthiness standards. # Happyzone


 * I go along with that. Much of it is completely pointless and its steadily getting worse.  Maybe I'll have a stab at deleting 90% when I get time.  Pleclech 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleting 90%?! Are you kidding? You cannot delete it simply because you don't enjoy it. # Happyzone

It is helpful
I arrive this page from an external site. The paragraphs which explain interest are very educational. IB doesn't explain clearly on their official website (shame on them). Many traders and investors like me do not understand the full cost. I don't understand why they do not use a simpler method to calculate interest. The current method is very confusing. I realise it is negative since it reveals the true interest rate which makes IB less attractive. So I understand why some would like to hide it. But why prejudge the matter? I think you should create a poll on big investment forums not here since not many IB customers will read this page. Best regards, T.D. — 202.82.33.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * referring to your "shame on them" comment above. How about shame on you for not reading the links on their website or using the search tool. if you were capable of typing "interest" in their search tool, you'd come across a very detailed explanation: http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/accounts/fees/interestMethods.php

Rewrite and Todo List
A rewrite was prompted by a fellow who reverted to an 8 month old edit, in response to this article's never ceasing edit wars. I hope the article is far superior to the article of old, and that we can maintain some semblance of professionalism in future edits. This article is not the place for independent research or rewriting the interest article. That information may have been valid and useful, but it should be moved offsite, as it simply does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines for notability and verifiability.

Keep it encyclopedic, and we may finally turn this article into something warranting good article status. There are still several important things to do that won't trigger further conflicts: Get SEC filings for 2006 and update revenues and trading volume stats; Replace sources with secondary sources or government sources, lessening the bias of linked articles somewhat; Replace references with real "ref" references. MrZaius talk  04:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I see a bit of a problem emerging in this article. Interactive Brokers is actually a number of entities all somehow interconnected within the overall Interactive Brokers group. Each entity has its own regulatory framework it operates in, for example, Interactive Brokers Canada Ltd. is regulated by the Investment Dealers Association of Canada, while other overseas arms of IB are regulated by different regulators. Further, IB, as a futures broker, is regulated by the commodity futures regulator in the United States, which is seperate from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

I'm not sure why the first and 2nd paragraphs were smushed together. Maybe, as with other corporations, we could go to a textbox, where Thomas Peterffy's name, and key statistics and business relationships can be described. Also, IB's affiliation with the Timber Hill group is definitely worth mention, and, of course, it might be useful to offer an exhaustive list of the exchanges onto which IB operates.

At least while this article is being built, lets keep the criticisms to a minimum. Devoting 2 or 3 pages to mundane calculations of interest really serves the interests of nobody (no pun intended).

70.73.4.197 05:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article's holding up pretty well, and the infobox was long overdue/looks good. Only cruft that needed cutting after a review this weekend was an out of place definition of papertrading that had overwritten the link to API and a section of questionable notability & encyclopedic-nature concerning IB's rate structure.  MrZaius  talk  21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A question
Hi! I would like to know who are the main competitors of IB. Are they as big? do they have a wikipedia article we can list on the 'See also' section? thanks, Ori 10:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could find some news articles about IB losing or gaining significant market share to a competitor and add the facts and sources to this wiki article. That could be useful information for other readers who are wondering about this. As far as listing all competitors in a See Also list, that doesn't work very well, because all brokers compete with one another to some extent. Happy editing! --Busy Stubber (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This article reads like a press release / ad
It sounds like it was written by IB's PR firm (and it very likely was): "For 30 years IB has been building direct access trading technology that delivers to professionals worldwide." It needs a serious overhaul to be encyclopedic in tone. It should not sound like it is lifted from the company's annual report or promotional literature. I don't know enough about the company to rewrite it. Is anyone knowledgeable enough for a rewrite? Kwertii (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed updated and revision
Hello, anyone watching this page or coming across this. This article has been edited only sporadically over the last few years and is generally out-of-date and lacking in information. To address these issues and other problems, I've researched and written two drafts I think should replace it, but before I explain my intended improvements, I would like to make clear that while writing the drafts I was under the employment of Interactive Brokers. For this reason, I will not make any edits to the article myself, but am looking instead for editors to review what I have prepared and make the updates as they see fit.

For easy comparison, here are links to the current version of the article, and my proposed drafts:
 * User:Ɱ/Interactive Brokers
 * User:Ɱ/Interactive Brokers Group
 * User:Ɱ/Interactive Brokers Group

I understand that this is a significant amount of information to process. If you have any questions about changes I have made, please leave me a message here or on my talk page. Likewise, please feel free to make any changes you feel are needed directly to the draft in my user space. If you review my draft and have no concerns I would really appreciate it if you could replace the current version with what I have prepared. One last comment: some images and the categories have been disabled in my draft so they will need to be fixed when grabbing the markup from my user space. Thanks so much, -- ɱ    (talk)  05:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)