Sub-IB commission splits: choose the base and preserve every cent

Twenty percent of which amount?

A Master IB records $1,000 of reported commission and a $20 payment fee. A 20% sub-IB share of gross commission is $200. A 20% share of commission after that fee is $196. Neither basis is universally correct: the agreement decides who bears the fee and when the share becomes payable.

Write the base into the arrangement. Identify the broker entity, period, currency, eligible client population and applicable agreement version. Specify whether allocation is based on earned, broker-approved or actually received commission. These events can occur on different dates.

A $100.01 pool must remain $100.01

Consider a fictional three-way allocation of $100.01: 50% to the Master IB, 30% to Partner A and 20% to Partner B. In cents, the unrounded shares are 5,000.5, 3,000.3 and 2,000.2. Taking whole cents initially allocates 10,000 cents, leaving one cent.

One reproducible method is to give remaining cents to the largest fractional remainders, using a documented stable tie-breaker when remainders are equal. In this example, the Master IB receives the extra cent. Do not independently round dozens of shares and silently charge the resulting difference to an unnamed account.

Fictional allocation using largest remainders
Recipient	Share of pool	Allocated USD
Master IB	50%	50.01
Partner A	30%	30.00
Partner B	20%	20.00
Total	100%	100.01

Keep a pool split separate from an override

An allocation divides one pool. An override can instead be a separate entitlement paid in addition to another partner's commission. Treating an override as a deduction from a fixed pool changes the economics. Record which model applies before creating a multi-level diagram.

Also distinguish a share of the original pool from a share of a parent's allocation. If Partner A receives 30% of $1,000 and passes 20% of that allocation to Partner B, B receives $60. If B instead receives 20% of the original pool, B receives $200. Both use the words twenty percent; they are different agreements.

Allocation, approval and receipt need separate evidence

A calculation can be ready while a broker payment is still pending. Use separate records for proposed allocation, reviewer approval and payment receipt. Keep the source statement, calculation basis, version and any hold reason together. If the source is corrected after approval, create a linked adjustment rather than overwriting the earlier decision.

For a first operational review, track who must resolve each exception and its next review date. This is a workflow design, not a claim that every agreement permits withholding or netting. Resolve ambiguous payment terms with the parties before assigning a payable balance.

Confirm whether the arrangement is a pool split or separate override
Identify the gross, net or cash-received base
Check that the allocation conserves the total in cents
Review attribution and source corrections before approval
Keep the actual payment reference separate from the allocation

What you can test in IBDock today

In the sample Desk, open Partner shares to inspect an illustrative allocation. The commission calculator also models one sub-partner percentage of gross and shows the remaining amount after acquisition cost. Both are planning tools with fictional or anonymized inputs.

A persistent sub-IB agreement hierarchy, approval journal and payment execution are not active. The sample allocation must not be used as evidence that a partner has been paid. Use it to test the arithmetic and agree on the records a real settlement workflow needs.

Put the method to work.

Try the sample workspace. No broker password required.

Explore the partner-share sandbox ↗

Editorial scope: product reporting guidance with fictional examples. No paid broker placement, investment recommendation or independent audit claim. Product capabilities are described as of the update date shown above.