Talk:Interactive Brokers Group

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Biased "editorial" 

message: 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. MrZaiustalk 04:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. MrZaiustalk 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite and Todo List

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A question  

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article reads like a press release / ad 

message: 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
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)
thread_title:  Proposed updated and revision