开云体育

?

Suppose I have a standing limit buy order for a stock X, and a "child" limit sell order for a stock Y. ?I've submitted them as a hedge pair, so that the (child) order for Y is dormant until the (parent) order for X is filled, at which point IBKR servers activate the order for Y.

?

Now, while waiting for the order for X to execute, I am frequently (and programmatically, via TWS api) updating the limit prices. ?With each update, I update the limit prices of the parent and child at the same time.

?

Ideally, for each update, I would like it to take effect on the two orders simultaneously. ?Say within 10 milliseconds of each other. ? But this doesn't happen. ?Even though I submit the two price changes to my locally running TWS within ms of each other, they often take effect at IBKR say, 40-100ms apart. ?Hence, when the parent order fills, and IBKR activates the child order, it often happens that the limit price of the child order (for Y) is out of sync with the price at which the parent order (for X) filled.

?

Question: What can I do, if anything, to reduce or mitigate this effect?

?

In the spirit of brainstorming, here are some (bad?) ideas:

?

1. IBKR does have some "algorithmic" orders that calculate price updates at their servers. ?Presumably if I could use those it would help, because the calculations and updates would be done server-side. ?However, none of their algorithmic order types matches what I need. ?At least, not in any direct way that I can see.

?

2. Another approach might be to try to set the limit prices more conservatively somehow. ?There are two possible bad outcomes when the parent fills, namely:

?

Bad outcome 1: ?the child (sell Y) order is activated with a limit price that is too low, and it fills, but at a lower cost than it should have.

?

Bad outcome 2: the child (sell Y) order is activated with a limit price that is too high, and it doesn't fill, and meanwhile the price of Y moves down.

?

These two bad outcomes are most likely when the prices of X and Y are changing rapidly. ?The outcomes have different risk profiles, so perhaps adjusting the limit prices somehow to decrease the probability of one at the expense of increasing the probability of the other might somehow be helpful, although I'm not sure how to do that in a systematic way.

?

3. Maybe the offset in time between when the two changes take effect is somewhat predictable. ?In that case, in principle I could delay the submission of the "faster" of the two price updates to bring their likely "arrival" times closer.

?

[This issue arose in a previous discussion on a related but different topic. ]

?

Thanks,

?

-Neal