Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Interactive Brokers / Timberhill -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cirrus who wrote (2523)	1/26/2002 9:49:21 AM
From: Dan Duchardt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9012

cirrus, The futures contracts at issue here trade on a fully electronic system, Globex, much like the ECNs for stocks or the ISE exchange for equity options. There is no intervention to override automatic execution. I have heard nothing to indicate that the system failed to perform as designed. It apparently just did what it automatically does, but in this case it was hit with an order that took out enough standing orders to trigger an avalanche. An interesting side bar to this issue is that several months ago IB responded to somebody requesting that trailing stops be implemented in the system. They would not, and cited the potential for exactly this kind of avalanche scenario as their justification for not doing it. Dan

To: cirrus who wrote (2523)	1/26/2002 7:45:46 PM
From: rocklobster	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9012

I don't think that was the problem...if you look back at some of the replies that I got, it seems that IB holds their stops in house and executes when price is hit. In addition, they have a five point collar on stops. In this particular instance..price ran so hard so fast that possibly they kept getting kicked back with the order and had to resend it.. there was some interesting discussion of how to handle the situation including use of stop limits. thanks for the input. rok