Have FI changed the terms of your bet?



  • When FI IPO'd players it was my understanding that they wouldn't allow their price to drop below their initial IPO baseline price; this implicitly meant FI would support a market in the player, in practise that meant by providing an IS price.

    Since CV the spreads were initially widen & now with the launch of ME the IS option has been quietly dropped altogether leaving large sections of the market with no IS price at all (zero is clearly below any IPO price). The holders of such players have realistically been left with no available exit, unless a bidder eventually makes an offer, which in most cases they have no incentive to do.

    FI appear to have changed the terms of the original bet with no warning & left holders of such players in a far worse position than when they took the bet (bought the player) surely such a radical change of the rules should have been both announced, consulted upon & an exit of last resort provided?

    I accept that ME is still in early development but it currently appears that possibly over half the players on the index are now effectively uninvestable as an exit, at any price, is unlikely. Should this position continue then FI are wide open to the accusation of fraudulent trading by unilaterally removing their implicit liability of market making, which formed a major part of the initial purchase & the basis for ongoing trade in players.

    I am a supporter of both FI & OB but see this possible permanent illiquidity in a large section of players as a major problem, which I'm not clear that FI have addressed.



  • @NewUser159387 Completely agree. What's clear is that the ME upon launch has hit the lower end of the market disproportionately and its only the top end which has benefited. Hopefully this will correct itself over time or FI will come up with a solution.

    Although saying that, most big changes or announcements do follow this pattern with a trickle down effect over time, but yeah completely agree - not right to see players with no exit point at all.



  • It does seem rather harsh on the people that hold the smaller players. There is no instant sell and they are stuck with no real bet. I was always under the impression that the IPO price was the lowest it could get to but I see a lot of people sold tanganga lower than his IPO.



  • @Tom7471 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    IPO price was the lowest it could get to but I see a lot of people sold tanganga lower than his IPO.

    I have no problem with holders CHOOSING to take a discounted price for a quick sale but to remove the "buyer of last resort" option basically destroys a large section of the current market. Whilst it is still possible to market list this just transfers the same problem from one holder to another & doesn't solve the final exit conundrum?



  • If you’ve wondered “who is that guy who is offering low value bids on sub 50p players”, it’s me.

    I’ve been buying up loads of cheap players at heavily discounted prices. Risky to a degree because they are not easy to sell at the moment, but the Index works in cycles and at some point in the next 12 months there will be a surge in cheap players who play in PB leagues. When that happens, my profits will soar.



  • @ocs123 Interesting strategy. Risky though. Are you assuming FI will add an exit point in future if things don't work out, or accepting that you will never be able to sell some and taking the hit (and covering your losses with others?)



  • No.

    You make a bet that player will win dividends. Nothing has changed with your bet in the slightest.

    Previously FI bought the bet off you which they don't now but they had no obligation to. Either way the bet itself hasn't changed.

    It always seemed a bit strange that FI would overpay to buy poor bets back.



  • @Tom7471 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    It does seem rather harsh on the people that hold the smaller players. There is no instant sell and they are stuck with no real bet. I was always under the impression that the IPO price was the lowest it could get to but I see a lot of people sold tanganga lower than his IPO.

    So what you are saying is that people who made bad bets are now stuck with them. The whole thing was a bit weird before. Futures which were essentially worthless were being bought and sold on basis someone would buy them off you on greater fool principle. Never really made rational sense.



  • @mike778 FI market the product with two ways to profit. Through earning dividends and trading (buy low and sell high). We bought based on there being a minimum safety net which has been removed without our agreement.



  • @mike778 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    It always seemed a bit strange that FI would overpay to buy poor bets back.

    When IS was fixed at the IPO floor price, they are not overpaying for anything as they had already issued the player at that price, or above.



  • @NewUser159387 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    @mike778 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    It always seemed a bit strange that FI would overpay to buy poor bets back.

    When IS was fixed at the IPO floor price, they are not overpaying for anything as they had already issued the player at that price, or above.

    Is was never fixed at the IPO price.



  • @mike778 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    @NewUser159387 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    @mike778 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    It always seemed a bit strange that FI would overpay to buy poor bets back.

    When IS was fixed at the IPO floor price, they are not overpaying for anything as they had already issued the player at that price, or above.

    Is was never fixed at the IPO price.

    Check out Robben. When he retired his IS price was 1p as he was worthless. There has never been an obligation for them to buy back a poor bet.

    Ultimately if you can't market sell then it means nobody wants him. Why should FI buy back a bet that nobody wants.



  • @mike778 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    Is was never fixed at the IPO price.

    In which case they are no better than issuing junk bonds with no underlying value at all? Now we really are getting into Ponzi territory.



  • @NewUser159387 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    @mike778 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    Is was never fixed at the IPO price.

    In which case they are no better than issuing junk bonds with no underlying value at all? Now we really are getting into Ponzi territory.

    Kind of.

    They had underlying value as player had a chance to win dividends. They were just massively massively overvalued by people.

    Remember reading here garbage like Joe Allen being a bargain at 20p. It was laughable. A future unlikely to return anything was always worthless there was always a false market. People must have know they were massively overpaying for the dross.



  • @mike778 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    Check out Robben. When he retired his IS price was 1p as he was worthless.

    Which is (almost) totally predictable, so holders can amortize his price down over the last couple of years as the inevitable gets closer.



  • To illustrate...

    People often said dividends weren't important. Well if they weren't important at then what exactly did people think they were buying.



  • @NewUser159387 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    @mike778 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    Check out Robben. When he retired his IS price was 1p as he was worthless.

    Which is (almost) totally predictable, so holders can amortize his price down over the last couple of years as the inevitable gets closer.

    Yes buy they should have done that for all players.

    If a player is going to return 1p a year and is 25 then they should be worth about 10p. There was a whole false market going on and it was never FIs fault that the dross got pushed up to nonsense prices. It was always going to get corrected at some point.



  • @mike778 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    There was a whole false market going on and it was never FIs fault that the dross got pushed up to nonsense prices.

    They helped create it by repeatedly pushing up IPO floor prices, largely on the understanding that they would maintain a market, where that player couldn't fall below his (arguably vastly over inflated by FI) initial IPO price. They have now unilaterally walked away from that obligation - ultimately the ENTIRE future of the product depends on trust & confidence, destroy that & why should anyone buy ANY players for the promise of dividends? What would prevent FI just saying they no longer wanted to pay dividends anymore?



  • @NewUser159387 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    @mike778 said in Have FI changed the terms of your bet?:

    There was a whole false market going on and it was never FIs fault that the dross got pushed up to nonsense prices.

    They helped create it by repeatedly pushing up IPO floor prices, largely on the understanding that they would maintain a market, where that player couldn't fall below his (arguably vastly over inflated by FI) initial IPO price. They have now unilaterally walked away from that obligation - ultimately the ENTIRE future of the product depends on trust & confidence, destroy that & why should anyone buy ANY players for the promise of dividends? What would prevent FI just saying they no longer wanted to pay dividends anymore?

    The IPO prices rose to keep track of the whole market rising. It was pretty clear IS prices could fall below the IPO price even if the buy orders couldn't.

    No dividends would clearly change the bet. This is very different.

    I have some sympathy. But the facts are the players affected were very clearly bad bets. It was obvious at the time. People were buying A for 50p even though he was worth 5p to try and sell it to someone for 60p. They can still do that just not to FI. To use the junk bonds anology. People knew they were buying junk bonds and were OK with that.

    The bet hasn't remotely changed. It's just harder to get out of a bad bet.



  • Firstly, I always understood the IS to be a “cash out” option offered by FI during the term of the bet. This was no different to what is being offered by traditional bookmakers and with these traditional bookmakers, if a bet reaches a point whereby the odds are so low that the outcome is almost impossible (e.g. I back a team to win and they are 3-0 down after 85 mins), the cash out option is removed. As far as I’m aware FI are not obliged to offer you a safety net for a bad bet so I don’t think the terms of your bet have been changed. This is a gambling site, not an investment platform.

    Let’s also remember that a player’s intrinsic value is based on his ability to win dividends, whether that be now or in the future. That is the what should be driving the price of every player on the index, but often this is not the case, with market sentiment being a huge driver without any sensible reasoning and this is creates a significant amount of risk. If you hold a player that does not hold any current or future dividend potential (or an adequate amount of dividend potential) then I’d be questioning why you purchased him, why you didn’t seel when the dividend potential had eroded and why you would expect anyone (being another or FI) to buy him from you if they are unlikely to make a return.


Log in to reply