I have seen this now, so I apologize for the late response.
Just like you guys, I also seek comfort knowing that the FCM is stable.
As a matter of law, FCMs must maintain a minimum adjusted net capital as required by regulators.
Vision, my FCM, has maintained capital in excess of the requirements as long as I can remember.
The owners and management have been always responsible financially towards their community of clients.
I think that when Refco collapsed, and again I am not 100% sure, the customers who didn't received their funds back where the ones who held their account at RefcoFX. From vague memory I think their FX division was outside the US. This was close to 5 years ago, but I do remembering receiving many futures customers who moved from IBs who cleared through Refco, so the futures guys were ok.
Refco was publicly traded, and had a good reputation as a worldwide clearing, well...size does not always matter.
Other Things discussed:
Some feel comfortable with trading directly with FCMs as oppose to an IB, but in reality the FCM's IB deposits the check directly to the FCM anyway. Some have addressed the cost where you think it's cheaper to go through an FCM, and I assure you it's not the case. Some FCMs compete with their IB, and see the IB as an added revenue source not as it's core business. Vision has always made IB's their priority, and they provide me with cheap rates, good support and good technology. So far I remained competitive even against the largest of institutions.
What I have learned that there is a clientele that seeks "no service", some want to know that there is a guy that they can talk to and know them personally, and some just indifferent.
The FCMs that were mentioned in this thread are solid to the best of my knowledge.
PM with any questions about optimusfutures (800) 771-6748 (561) 367 8686. THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF LOSS IN FUTURES TRADING.
The following 2 users say Thank You to mattz for this post:
I love TOS... and what I love about the most is that tradeaccountantpro takes their transactons and it makes my trade reporting for the IRA so much easier, unlike with IBKR or any other broker...
I am still waiting to see what AMTD will do with it.. and waiting for them to implement changes they said they would 6 months ago... once AMTD took over, development kind of slowed down a bit for their platform.. actually, a lot, not a bit... so that is a shame..
Thank you for your post. In addition Vision is member of the SIPC:
"Vision Financial Markets LLC is a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) which protects customer accounts for up to $500,000 (of which up to $250,000 may be for cash). This protection does not safeguard against a decline or loss in market value of the securities in your account."
If they would offer Eurex through Ninja I would go with them.
In another thread I readed that they offer Eurex through CQG? Do you have additional information about that Mattz?
doubt they actually gave you a separate subaccount at the bank... they give subaccounts (I would say virtual) on their side.. meaning they track it, nothing more...
how about this... in theory, if you have a separate bank account, they should be able to request prove from the bank... they might be doing something different from others (given all pool the customer funds and usually keep separate large acccounts at multiple banks and use a main one a a counduit with funds from which redemptions come from) ... so ask them to get you the bank letter stating you are on your own account... if that is true, I would use them as well given that is an added measure of protection...
when there are pooled funds, which is what normally happens; any customer losses forces the total amount to net up.. meaning, the losses are distributed across the customer accounts oveall as all funds are pooled... that has been the practice for ever... for non-clearning FCMs... the funds are at clearning FCM's and exposed to the same risk..
I have only seen subaccounts on the FCM internal ledger... not at the bank... but then again, they might be doing something different and and creating independent accounts at the bank... I guess I could read their daily compliance reports and see how often their segregated balance has been off and under review by SRO..
The following user says Thank You to sysot1t for this post:
that could be due to both sides.. and by that I mean...
NinjaTrader Team having no expertise with the IBKR API given they are supporting so many products and as such their expertise and efforts are extremely fragmented, combined with a long history of not following proper SDLC processes....
and IBKR changing their API and not publishing the right changes so they could be implemented, etc.
A good software vendor will be able to stay ahead of changes within a provider API if they remain in contact and have a good relationship. My point: ButtonTrader; dedicated to IBKR... broker makes any changes, choi implements them within a day because he's team has expertise (in depth) of the API itself to the point they breathe it..
Is specialization good? only if your customer base is broad, and let's face it.. there are 10's of thousand of IBKR users...
with NinjaTrader team trying to increase their user base and therefore their revenue stream, they dont specialize on a single broker and as such their own efforts are fragmented... they have a new website, "pretty", but I have not yet seen a roadmap for their product. (If anyone knows of one, please share it.)
I agree with you, but i think its more likely ninja.... but don't want to get off topic. Just wanted to make that point so people are aware that they have issues, so they should be careful when using ninja to trade IB account.
Ninja actually constantly has issues when connecting to IB, this is not a one time thing.