A Fairer Way for IPOs

  • @Black-wolf Ah yes, that's another good point I guess, limiting the commission. It's a shame if that is the case though, of FI benefitting from a less than ideal situation where a lot of people can get burned but I guess that's the way it goes. Excellently valid points the whole way through.

  • Btw i dont mean the IPO price should only be offered to select people i meannit should be available to everyone. In this scenario i dont see why the price would rocket after 48hrs unless a lot of people were lacking the funds to buy within the 48hrs. Surely after the initial period anyone who really wanted the player would already have him so why keep buying unless something changes in the real world to affect his price

  • limit the number of shares per account on IPO day.

    Only getting to buy 300 still gives a chance to make money but it gives more users a chance

  • @Munchie63 someone made the point yesterday that it only takes 150 people buying 300 each to move a price up 50p. Even with a £1 ipo which 8s high end, that's still a 50% rise. If half of them take profits the over whelming majority who are not amongst the first 150 are still susceptible to a 25p or roughly 17% drop

  • @MickTurbo you've made a point I tried to make on another thread, but you made it better! I think pretty much everyone here would have bought those players at their launch prices if they'd been lucky enough to get on in time. That said, I don't have a massive problem with that and, ignoring the potential impact of bots, everyone had the same chance. Sometimes it is just who reacts first. However, what I do think is unfair is that those lucky enough to buy at the low prices can then flip within minutes/hours and make profits before others have even had a chance to log on. I would therefore like to see some sort of restriction to stop this immediate selling. I suggested elsewhere no market selling for a month, but I know many won't like this. My logic was people can still sell, using IS, but FI retain control by setting a price equal to the initial offering. Anyone who doesn't want money tied up for a month will not get involved to begin with and those who actually want to make a proper bet will have a greater chance of doing so at a fair rate.

  • @MickTurbo Better 150 different users than a couple of BOTs ;)

  • @Parvez112333 cant argue with that 👍

  • I completely understand why people want the process changed as it is a complete farce the way it is, but first and foremost, it's the bots that are ruining the process, so this is where the issue needs addressing. FI should get rid of the bots. They've employed a UX guy and although I'm sure this falls outside of his remit, it shows that FI are committed to improving the user experience, of which bots are obviously a problem.

    A CAPTCHA form on player purchases should prevent bots from being able to make a purchase. This to me seems the most blindingly obvious way of the problem being solved. It is a very easy win for FI as it'll show that they're taking the customer feedback seriously, and it's obviously a win for all us bot-less users as it gives the opportunity to get on IPOs at a fairer price.

    If I remember correctly, FI also started introducing IPOs at a higher price to try and ward off the bots, so if they take them out the picture then they could introduce IPOs at lower prices which in turn would give them more commission as people sell more.

    It just seems like the answer is right there and nobody is really talking about it.

  • From what I've seen though, it seems there is a perception that bots were not whirring away this way - whereas previously this seemed a real problem? There's the 900 shares that may have made it less obvious - but seems a lot fewer fingers pointed at botting this time (personally don't see much reason why they wouldn't have been used previously).

    i didn't get involved yesterday due (but would have tried on a couple of players if I had been around), and also think it is an extremely flawed system.

    But as much as I'd like them to come up with a better method - and they've apparently said they're 'working on it', I've not really seen yet a convincing, detailed alternative fleshed out.

  • I’ve talked about it before. A Dutch auction. You can start the price high say £2.50. They have a set number of shares to sell say 20,000 The price will drop 1p every 10mins when it’s at a price you like you can buy. Once all the shares are brought then that’s were the price opens at
    It will stop the bots as they would end up paying the highest price. You might end up paying higher then the opening price, But you were happy at the price you payed for them.
    It would definitely kill the bots and make it fairer for everyone.
    Well that my 10p worth!

  • 20,000 shares is only 67 people buying 300 each, and those with money to.spend would happily pay that for Kubo for example. I like the idea, but it has to be fair to all (Not just the rich), and I guess that means just launching them and everyone piling on.

  • @FI_WeeklyMag Interesting idea but I'm not sure your scenario works in practise or could be manipulated:

    Say there is an eleventh Person K who emails their interest to buy a single share at max price of £11.00.

    This means the average price calculated for the IPO will be £2.09, and immediately eliminates everyone else from participating, and also sets an unrealistic market price.

    You could resolve this issue taking into account quantities and calculating a weighted average (impact of person K would only move IPO price from £1.09 to £1.10)

    A possible solution would be to have everyone apply for a quantity of each IPO players they are interested in, at the price published by FI,
    FI would then allocate the available shares pro-rata depending on take-up.

    Add in a clause that all IPO purchases must be held for a minimum period (say 6 months) thereby favouring 'investors' over 'day traders' which may even make the platform more attractive to newcomers.

    The current way IPOs are handled is completely farcical, resulting in artificially inflated values due to traders (and/or bots) driving up the price to take advantage of the system.

  • Not read through all the thread but I would say instead of letting everyone know when they are released why not just do it randomly so the only people that know that they are coming out are the people that are actually putting them on there.

  • The bit I don't get is why everyone is so against, and has a problem with, flippers on IPOs. Exactly the same thing happens on goals, transfer rumours and any other event that provides an opportunity to flip - IPOs are no different in this sense.
    I have zero problem with flippers - they are ultimately good for FI as they pay a large amount of commission which is ultimately what will fund future dividend increases.
    The only problem that needs to be resolved on IPOs is one of fairness in allowing reasonably equal opportunity to all, flipping is not the issue as it exists on every aspect of the platform and is part of the game.
    The best idea I have seen proposed over the last few days was to have an IPO page on the site, and an announcement saying IPOs will be released at x time on x date with no names announced. It's purely about going to that page on the right date and the right time and that's it - equal opportunity for all.
    If there is no lag and no tech issues, then everyone will have equal opportunity. Will some people benefit more than others by getting on first - yes! And that will always be the case exactly as it for the first person who reacted to Mason Greenwood scoring today. Do we want FI to suspend the market every time there's a goal scored and let everyone get on at the same price? So why should that be the case for IPOs?

  • Well if making a quick profit is the order of the day all well and good but I have been trying to sell Everton Soares since late morning saturday and still the shares sit losing price in my portfolio . I cannot even ditch them at the 1.66 low end as it tells me this player doesn't have a sell it now option. So as of now I am not impressed with the way the IPO's liquidation is done and how long it takes

  • @MickTurbo i agree with @Munchie63 that limiting the amount of IPOs seems a simple and easy solution. Buy your point makes 100% sense. If 300 would still increase the price too much on the opening day, why not limit people to 100 shares each day for the first 2/3 days and then allow unlimited buying?

  • @NewUser731 that would benefit in a sense but I think it would have a minimal reduction in the chaos, only delay it.

    It's good in the sense that people can get on at a reasonable price but even somebody like me likes to hold more that 100 of a player so the big boys would still go on to buy in huge volume just at a later date, and the rest of us, like myself would still be topping up at hugely inflated prices. I'd call it a partial solution because the average bug price would be significantly reduced, and probably just enough to prevent overall losses when the profit taking commences.

    There isn't an easy solution but there are definitely better ways than the current mess

  • @MickTurbo You could even extend it to the first 5 days of trading so that by day 5 you could have up to 500 of one player. After that there would be a significant amount of people who had made enough profit to sell out to keep everyone happy.

    This would have to be the easiest way of doing it from an Admin perspective as well as it can't be difficult to put a cap on it from FI's side.

Log in to reply