Jump to content

Talk:Interactive Brokers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by K at IBKR (talk | contribs) at 21:40, 25 January 2022 (→‎Requests for Operations section.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nice article about the CEO in Institutional Investor

This article about the CEO is quite good.[1]. I used some of it for the history section, and more of it could be used. John Nagle (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I've read it through and through and used every relevant bit on the primary article that actually is relevant to the company history, Interactive Brokers Group.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 08:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

@Jytdog: It doesn't matter what the sources are (as long as they're reliable, which they are); this company is very verifiable and notable. I arranged for this article to be split from Interactive Brokers Group, where most of the information exists. There's a complicated web between IBG and its companies that isn't easily apparent; perhaps reading the history section could help. Basically none of the information about IBG should be placed in this article because it's more relevant to IBG as a whole, but IB is the more notable entity. Yet merging (which is what the page was initially) makes the subject far too muddled and confusing.

I had more information on this page which may have further established its notability, but that information was removed. I had a conflict of interest, having previously been employed by IB, so I haven't wanted to make any changes to correct that. I hope you or other readers could. What I likely may end up doing is creating a draft for this page that includes more notable aspects, including summaries of the overall company history and what they do. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 19:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's also relevant to add that I write in a neutral fashion. That should be apparent on the IB articles as well as all my other work. I have no intention for promotion, advocacy, or misinformation; I have simply stated notable or contextual details about the company. I have been and continue to be a Wikipedian long before and after working for them, and take that role in the forefront over any paid position. I have gotten far too much grief from other editors over all this, once to the point of nearly quitting. Wikipedians need to be less assaultive towards our own. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 19:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make a mistake in taking this personally. An article based this much on press releases cannot be neutral as it is formed so much from what the company says about itself and wants said about itself. It is about the article. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: If it is nothing personal, please rescind the AfD to allow me to work on something that can better pass notability criteria. I believe a more acceptable version of this article can easily be created. I don't want to be tirelessly arguing for the article's worth anywhere or any more, especially as so many people are so biased against companies and paid editing. Please allow me to improve the article to standards. Thank you. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like companies, and I think paid editors who follow the policies and guidelines can be great contributors. Stop personalizing this. The AfD has nothing to do with that, or with you, but rather with this poor article supported mostly by press releases. When I work on content, i work on content. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Listen, I'm aware you're not taking this personally. What I'm asking for is a bit of time to improve the article before it's judged on AfD or elsewhere for how well it stands up to guidelines and policies. Please. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went to library and found a bunch of good sources and am going to rewrite this. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 03:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article drafts

-- ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC) updated 14:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Moved from my talkpage (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you tag the article Interactive Brokers with {{COI}} and {{advert}}? I am a historical researcher; I wrote the article from a neutral point of view. There's no fluff, merely plain information about the company. If you don't agree with that, please provide examples. I had many others look at the article to ensure its neutrality, and ultimately, a totally uninvolved editor reviewed and published my draft of that page, the version live now. Can you please remove the tags, or explain in much further depth why you believe why the article "may require cleanup" or "contains content that is written like an advertisement"? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your version was a lot less messy. The COI tag was placed because a major contributor to the article appears to have a close connection with its subject. I may be just a simple potato from a humble background, but I believe that the "Interactive Brokers PR team" probably has a close connection to Interactive Brokers. The lede starts by claiming that they are the largest this and the largest that, and what follows is a lot of nonnotable detail about how one genius against all the odds defeated the evil bureaucracy that would not allow his computers to rule the stock market. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I highly recommend that you contact the users Jytdog and David Smith 111 (preferably by pinging them from the article's talkpage). Jytdog has experience dealing with COI issues, and David Smith 111 makes edits like this one... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did it for you. I am curious what David's relation with IB is. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that you are not responsible for the stuff you wrote because "a totally uninvolved editor reviewed and published my draft of that page" is of course bullshit. Editing by proxy usually makes stuff worse, not better. Anyone can easily convince a young inexperienced newcomer to move a page from draftspace to mainspace, even if the page is very very bad. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ, Jytdog, and David Smith 111: Please work out your differences here on this talkpage. @Jytdog: please feel free to remove the tags if and when you want to. See User:Ɱ/COI. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just know that edits that include adding "whose PR department writes this page and edits it every day, explaining the exclamation points at the top of the page" is not constructive. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True. See also User_talk:Ɱ#Hm. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, wait, wait. What on earth is going on here? That David Smith has done nothing but delete paragraphs of the article for no reason, among other vandalism. He's not at all related to why I contacted "The Quixotic Potato". I contacted them because they put two tags on the article that have no justification. I demand to see what exact material, quoted from the article, they believe "may require cleanup" or "contains content that is written like an advertisement", justifying either of those two tags. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do you know anything about the meaning of the Triple parentheses? I feel attacked and urged to report you. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
David has been blocked. If you actually read the article you linked to then you'll see the sentence: "In the wake of these actions, some users, both Jews and non-Jews, have intentionally placed their own names within triple parentheses as a sign of solidarity". Not sure why you feel attacked, you recently attacked Jytdog and then myself. You should probably stop insulting people. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most Jews, me included, take offense to its usage at all, and especially by any non-Jews even if in good faith. You don't seem to have any comment above or on your userpage showing any support for Jews or anything like that, so I can mostly only interpret it by its original racist meaning. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Brokers page / updates request

Hello,

I am hoping editors might be able to assist me with getting the Interactive Brokers Wikipedia page updated.

For disclosure, I am the Director of Media Communications for Interactive Brokers.

The current description is excellent, but some of the data is two or more years old.

For the most up-to-date official data, I can recommend FORM 8-K filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on January, 2019. The document can be found here: Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=2244

The company's 4th Quarter Earnings press release can be located on the company's website here: Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/ir/main.php

and on BusinssWire here: Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190122005875/en/Interactive-Brokers-Group-Announces-4Q2018-Results


-- In case it is helpful, I have listed some of the data that is out of date (as of 1/23/19). The sources for these updates (SEC filing, press release) are provided above.

1) Current write up: The company serves 385 thousand client brokerage accounts, with US$86 billion in customer equity. Requested update:

(As of 12/31/18) The company serves 598,000 client brokerage accounts, with $128.4 billion in customer equity.

2) Current write up: The page currently states we had 1,204 employees as of 2015.

As of 12/31/18 1,413 employees

3)

  1. of employees that hold company stock.

Current write up: 1,193 out of 1,204.

As of 12/31/18 1,365 out of 1,413


4) Current write up: Interactive Brokers employs computer programmers and IT workers; programmers outnumber other employees five to one.[1] Approximately nine percent of employees work in legal or regulatory compliance departments.[2]

As of 12/31/18 46% of the workforce are programmers and IT. 9 % are legal and Compliance.

5) Office locations Current write up: Interactive Brokers LLC has offices in Chicago, Hong Kong, Kwun Tong, Shanghai, Sydney, and Zug.

As of 12/31/18

Interactive Brokers LLC is headquartered in Greenwich, Conn and has offices in Chicago, Hong Kong, Sydney, Zug, Shanghai, and Mumbai.

Other locations are: Tallin, Budapest, St. Petersburg, London, Boston, Washington DC, West Palm Beach, Montreal, Vancouver, Mumbai, Tokyo, and New York City.

This brings the total number of offices to 19. The info box lists 12 offices.

--- If you would like to add 2017 data Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). (source 2017 Annual Report) https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php

2017 total net revenues were $1.7 billion. 2017 net income $793 million.

Hopefully I've provided the updates in the correct format.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Kalenholliday (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2021 Gamestop Situation

Some of you might have heard about the Companys founder making some pretty problematic and in a way self-incriminating comments on his appearance on CNBC on January 28 amid the Gamestop short squeeze situation. In my opinion, this should be added to the companys page and his personal page as well. Millionjt (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When a significant number of brokers have placed limits to these stocks for the good of their own clients, it's not newsworthy to mention in each and every article, not to mention anywhere outside of the page about the short squeeze. ɱ (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's been covered by reliable sources, I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned. Benjamin (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections for Employees section

Hello! I'm the Director of Public Relations for Interactive Brokers and have created a Wikipedia account to serve as a representative of the company and propose changes here on the Talk page for editors to consider and implement appropriately. I'll avoid editing directly because of my conflict of interest, and appreciate help from others to bring the page up to date. To start, I'd like to suggest some corrections to the existing Employees section:

  • "Interactive Brokers Group has nine directors" should be changed to "Interactive Brokers Group has eleven directors", per the company's 2020 annual report (available here, page 17)
  • "1,365 of them hold company stock" is sourced to a 2016 annual report. The claim is outdated. Can this be removed?
  • "Approximately nine percent of employees work in legal or regulatory compliance departments" is sourced to a 2015 annual report. Can this also be removed for being outdated?

I hope I'm submitting this request correctly and seek assistance from editors to review and update the article appropriately on my behalf. Please let me know if you have questions. Thanks! K at IBKR (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for submitting this request. I've updated the number of directors and have tagged the other information with the year that it was accurate. If you can point me to up-to-date figures about the employees I'd be happy to update that too. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update for Locations section

Hello again! I'd like to request an update to the Locations section, which currently says: "The company also leases offices in Chicago, Washington, D.C., West Palm Beach, Montreal, Vancouver, Boston, San Francisco, Secaucus, Zug, London, Dublin, Luxembourg, Tallinn, Budapest, St. Petersburg, Vaduz, Mumbai, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, and Tokyo." This list is outdated and based on a 2017 annual report.

Per the final page (148) of the 2020 annual report available here, I propose replacing the text with: "Interactive Brokers Group also leases offices in Chicago, Washington, D.C., West Palm Beach, Montreal, Toronto, Zug, London, Dublin, Luxembourg, Budapest, Mumbai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney, and Tokyo."

Can an editor please review and update the article appropriately? @Ɱ: I see you've edited this article many times and participated in discussions above. Might you be willing to take a look? Thank you! K at IBKR (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this update. I've edited the article accordingly. I don't see Washington, D.C. on that page of the source, though, so I've left it out. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Operations section.

@Mx. Granger: Thanks for reviewing my two requests above! I will take a look at the article changes. Next, I'd like to focus on the "Operations" section.

  • The sentence "It provides correspondent clearing services to 200 introducing brokers worldwide" is sourced to a press release from 2014. Is it possible to have this removed or note the year this figure was correct?
  • The next sentence says, "The company serves 720 thousand client brokerage accounts, with $170.1 billion in customer equity." I propose updating the text to "The company serves more than 1.65 million client brokerage accounts, with approximately $370 billion in customer equity"", per this source and this source.
  • The next sentence "Interactive Brokers Group has $75 million in tangible assets, including $24 million in computer equipment" is sourced to the 2016 annual report. Can this be removed or put into historical context?
  • This paragraph also says, "Currently about 17.3 percent of the company is publicly held, while the remainder is held by employees." The figure should be updated to 21.8 percent, per the company's 2020 annual report (shared above and available here; pages 32 and 81). Related, the second paragraph says "as 82.7% of the company is held by employees". This should be updated to 78.2 percent.
  • Finally, the sentence "Mobile transactions account for about 10% of the company's retail orders" is sourced to a 2015 story. Can this be removed or put into historical context?

I hope someone can update the article on my behalf. Please let me know if you have questions. Thanks! K at IBKR (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last two sentences of Operations section

Related to above, I'd like to specifically address the last two sentences of the "Operations" section:

"Investors can open accounts online and there is no minimum required, though maintenance fees are sometimes charged. New customers are directed towards Traders' Academy, the company's education resource, which includes series of videos on IB's products and trading tools."

The text is no longer accurate, and should read: "Investors can open accounts online, there is no minimum required, and no account maintenance or inactivity fees. New customers are directed towards IBKR Campus, the company's education resource, which includes series of videos on IB's products and trading tools." This source can be used to update the first sentence. You can see IBKR Campus being used here, at Business Insider, on the company's website, etc.

Thanks again to Mx. Granger and others for reviewing! K at IBKR (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interactive_Brokers&oldid=1067929169"