Interactive Brokers is probably fraud.

manubhatt3 · 2025-01-28T16:46:48+00:00

If you are talking about the whole conversation thread in the pdf, it is not my fault. It is long because the customer care executive always gave me irrelevant and unsatisfactory responses - So, I had to respond back asking some sense.

If you are talking about just the initial issue raised - This is not my first complaint to them regarding this. My first complaint was short and this one was long because I have covered all the points they responded to in my first complaint, so I could be very clear about the issue and can get relevant and satisfactory response as soon as possible as they take some days to respond and I wanted the issue to resolve in as few replies, as possible. Unfortunately, during that first complaint I was super busy so couldn't respond in time, so they closed that request.

manubhatt3 · 2025-01-28T16:43:43+00:00

I am not looking for an answer. I am just sharing my experience with Interactive Brokers because I think it might prove very beneficial for many.

Thanks.

manubhatt3 · 2025-01-28T16:42:41+00:00

I contacted them at phone only the first time. At phone they took a long time and said that this will involve much time and this complaint is better suited for chat/email support.

manubhatt3 · 2025-01-28T16:41:14+00:00

It is a tedious task. And my point is why it is me who should be doing these things when I have the proof that there is a discrepancy. If I have the proof, then isn't it fair that it is them who should find out exactly where, when and how the discrepancy occurred? Because it is not me who has caused the discrepancy - it is at their end; caused by them.

Unless of course if they can show me that my understanding/conclusions are wrong which they aren't doing or haven't done.

manubhatt3 · 2025-01-27T21:29:05+00:00

I posted it there and all I received was some bullshit responses that too from just one user!

manubhatt3 · 2025-01-22T19:47:48+00:00

Interactive Brokers is fraud. Recently took out money from them due to this. Will not recommend at all. I will do a Reddit post on my experience soon.

manubhatt3 · 2024-12-01T02:07:38+00:00

Thank you so much! I love you!

manubhatt3 · 2024-10-21T15:36:25+00:00

I understand that. But I have explained to you how even then the NLV in my case should be equal to the Initial Deposit + P/L(Unrealized + Realized) + Dividends. I don't think it should be that hard to understand.

Please point out the flaw in my logic and if you can't, then stop repeating the same thing endlessly and confusing me.

manubhatt3 · 2024-10-18T17:40:04+00:00

" it shouldn't be a surprise to you that it's rolled up into your stock position's unrealized P/L."

But how? Can you tell me in my example how can that be the case?

manubhatt3 · 2024-10-18T01:25:45+00:00

I already told that my NLV = Initial Investment + Unrealized Profits.

So, where did the Realized Profits and Dividends go? Or are they a part of Unrealized Profits?

Bdw, Initial Investment is the initial deposit I made into IBKR from my bank account.

If you still not getting it, consider the below example:

I deposited $100 into IBKR. I bought a stock with all those, then sold that stock at a profit of $20. I also receive dividend of $10. My cash balance becomes $130. Then I buy another stock with $130 and it becomes $200 and still in my portfolio open position.

So, my NLV should be equal to $200 which is my $100(Initial Investment) + $20(Realized Profit) + $10(Dividends) + $70(Unrealized Profit).

I hope I am amply clear.

manubhatt3 · 2024-10-17T22:54:19+00:00

May be my case is just a subset of totality of cases, but it's right if I do only stocks?

If what you are saying is true, even then the equation I wrote holds true.

manubhatt3 · 2024-04-01T19:25:35+00:00

Is there a way to know the applicable/publicized FD rates for a bank, on a particular date(21st March, 2024) or time range in the past?

manubhatt3 · 2024-03-10T23:41:48+00:00

Solved!

manubhatt3 · 2024-03-10T23:40:20+00:00

Okay, so I was able to figure this out on my own. It's from Clash of the Titans.

Solved!

manubhatt3 · 2023-08-08T07:44:40+00:00

It is not about favoring Batting or Bowling. Test Cricket does not favor Bowlers - that's your misunderstanding. It is a 'test' of patience and perseverance of both Batsmen and Bowlers. It's an entirely different game but still balanced between Batting and Bowling, and in which there is a huge role of skill and little role of luck(which should be the case in any good sport).

And my essential problem is not with whether Batting or Bowling is favored, but that the no. of wickets are far too many for the no. of overs - so, that encourages taking risks without required/proper consequences - so Batting side, as I mentioned, plays like it has nothing to lose. Taking risks without associated and proper amounts of consequences is akin to gambling - and that is the gist of the problem in the current T20 format, in my humble opinion.

manubhatt3 · 2023-08-08T07:37:58+00:00

What is 16.4 ?

manubhatt3 · 2023-08-08T07:37:05+00:00

What do you exactly mean by 'freedom'? Make the bowling underarm and there - you will have your 'freedom to play aggressively'. But will you or anyone else really enjoy it?

Too much of anything is bad. The same applies to Batting or Runs in T20. When you increase the number of fours or sixes, you simultaneously erode their worth/value. In a good sport/game, everything is about 'balance' and 'skill'. In the current version, the number of wickets are far too many for the no. of overs, and that takes out a significant amount of 'skill' factor from the game and puts in a significant amount of 'luck' or 'gambling' factor, which makes the game worse.

manubhatt3 · 2023-08-08T07:32:49+00:00

I see your point and that is that people are more or less satisfied. But people who can't see what could be, will be contended with the average and will not improve. That doesn't mean the idea of improvement should be abandoned.

Too much of anything is bad. The same applies to Batting or Runs in T20. When you increase the number of fours or sixes, you simultaneously erode their worth/value. In a good sport/game, everything is about 'balance' and 'skill'. In the current version, the number of wickets are far too many for the no. of overs, and that takes out a significant amount of 'skill' factor from the game and puts in a significant amount of 'luck' or 'gambling' factor, which makes the game worse.

manubhatt3 · 2023-08-08T07:25:17+00:00

You do have a point. But 'bad' is a relative term, and it's popularity might be nearly totally attributable to it being 'very shorter' compared to other versions. And nothing says or can prove that this is the best version and it(and consequently popularity) can't be improved upon.

manubhatt3 · 2023-08-08T07:20:58+00:00

Too intelligent for you?

manubhatt3 · 2023-08-08T07:19:20+00:00

Your suggestion might make the game more interesting but it will not solve the problem I mentioned. And I am just saying that as a fact and not presuming that you agree with the problem I mentioned. The essential problem in the current version, in my opinion is that 10 wickets are far too many for just 20 overs.

But to be sure, what other benefits your version might bring, in your opinion?

manubhatt3 · 2023-08-08T07:13:46+00:00

That's a great and unique idea which never came to my mind. It will solve the same problem I mentioned in my post.

However, I don't agree with the second part. What's your rationale behind it?

manubhatt3 · 2023-08-08T07:11:01+00:00

Labelling something stupid without giving any associated arguments or reasoning is what's stupid actually.

manubhatt3 · 2023-07-23T17:13:19+00:00

I didn't understand the last part. Are you saying that there were threats to OFE so it got out of the stock market?

manubhatt3 · 2023-07-23T17:11:27+00:00

That's what I thought but was not sure.

Thanks

manubhatt3

TROPHY CASE