Thoughts on Insurance? (Poll)
Metropolis last edited by Metropolis
Following on from the FIG's Podcast with Adam & Akash, thought it would be worth gauging opinions on the idea of insurance for our portfolios.
As FI grows and with the difficult compliance issues, this could become increasingly important.
I've split the poll options into portfolio size, to give a more balanced response.
For me, I would likely commit to it depending on cost obviously. Not ideal on the surface, but the risk would outweigh the cost for me. What wasn't clear, is everything this would potentially cover but a broad scenario below. Curious to hear your views.
Also, how much would you be willing to pay for it and what should it cover? 1% of portfolio per annum, and cover death only? Serious injury?
For those new to the platform Adam referenced the Emiliano Sala situation where (I think) they paid out full price on his shared to those holding. However, we need to be realistic and ask what would happen and what we would expect if this happened to one of the very top players on the index with £ms tied up in them?
Edit: Sorry, having a bit of a mare with the poll. Hopefully you can figure out what the options are meant to say.
@Metropolis A certain @Dalian-Smith must be absolutely incandescent with rage right now.
A rare poll he’s allowed to slip through the net.
Really depends how much it costs
Dan The Man last edited by Dan The Man
That's quite an interesting topic. Not something I've thought about before.
I'm not an expert on Insurance, but could FI find an insurance company willing to cover them in terms of a major player dying? Seems pretty specialised ha.
I used to run an events company and we had to find very specialised insurance, incase the main act got injured prior to the show. The things you can get insured these days is pretty crazy.
@Timothee-Atouba @Dalian-Smith haha well at least he could have got the option descriptions correct! No hyphens?
I would prefer being able to take insurance on players I wanted insurance on.
I’m heavy invested in Pogba, Werner and Rashford. I would probably choose those 3 and leave the other 110 players alone!
Geronimo159387 last edited by
A very interesting, yet curious development for me, whilst I totally understand insuring some of the catastrophic risk events that could affect our bets - there are users with £1/4 million+ invested in Sancho, who's untimely demise might be difficult to swallow, I can't see it as a must have priority. Although FI would not be directly involved, aiui it would be provided separately by a third party insurer, I think it is just another manifestation of the GC compliance influence that seems to rather have taken over the platform recently.
FI have recently been promoted to a tier one gambling operator & as such the GC seem to have almost taken over the running of the platform with extra KYC, DD, EDD & responsible gambling checks seemingly being prompted after every significant deposit, withdrawal or trade. Whilst I understand compliance is important it is not & should not be allowed to be the paramount platform concern; senior management's first priority should be properly running the business & users to be allowed to enjoy the product, neither of which seem top priority currently. Compliance is a distraction for management & an irritant for most users, so the sooner both are allowed to get their eye back on the ball the better IMO.
Dronny Gaz last edited by
Where have you been all these months @Metropolis?
Finally @Dalian-Smith a decent poll! 😂😂
Erased Citizen last edited by
Life insurance might be a better option in case FI send a hitman out for you.
Compliance will absolutely be the companies number one concern, as without meeting it they will be fined a very hefty sum or for repeat offences be shut down altogether.
Its not from a users perspective, I get that, but internally if you aren't compliant and under scrutiny you are in big do do. And being compliant is hard to achieve and maintain for a size of company FI - banks and insurance companies have whole teams dedicated to it,
Sorry what did they say about insurance? I'd zoned out at this point in the pod
Geronimo159387 last edited by Geronimo159387
I understand that but when you allow the compliance officer (or worse still the regulator/GC) to dictate company strategic decisions & the direction which the company takes you are on a very slippery path towards failure. I seriously doubt that FI have the strength of management to drive platform growth & success as well as simultaneously pander to the GC, so they must choose to allow the regulatory requirements to be satisfied but not be allowed to infect areas that should remain the domain of management decision making. It was blatantly clear from the recent FIG podcast that compliance & GC "box ticking" is currently absorbing a disproportionate amount of management time & effort, even down to choice of biscuits! & that, by definition, is damaging for both users & the platform's health.
@Geronimo159387 I think Adam was saying that the insurance would potentially be provided by a third party and not FI themselves. I guess to protect both parties.
The additional regulations, although a pain may actually make the platform safer and more stable in the long term? As I said on FIG's thread, FI are practically rewriting the GC rule book due to how innovative this platform is.
Also from Adam's comments, they are more of a (his words) 'alternative asset class'. Investment in other words. I wonder if FI outgrowing the GC mean they should be regulated financially? Not sure which is the bigger headache for Adam, but I wouldn't mind it as it would give a more professional look and take on a more stable market.
@Dronny-Gaz haha - tried but failed with the poll headings though!
I've been around now and then in the last few months. Not as active as I would like but keeping up to date with it all.
@ScouseGeldof Basically that an insurance option may be provided by a third party (not FI) for players/ portfolios. Adam referenced Emiliano Sala where they paid out on him, but thinking about players at £14+ and the amount of money tied up in them, it may well be worthwhile to consider.
Geronimo159387 last edited by Geronimo159387
Adam's comments, they are more of a (his words) 'alternative asset class'. Investment in other words. I wonder if FI outgrowing the GC mean they should be regulated financially? Not sure which is the bigger headache for Adam,
Please NO; the FCA are an even more restrictive & prescriptive set of jobsworths than the GC & would have an even more debilitating effect on platform growth.
I sympathise that FI really do seem to fall between the 2 worlds of gambling & financial products & that AC & FI management are struggling to justify their unique offering to either regulatory framework but I think the insurance idea is a distraction, most likely which was "suggested" by GC to foster cooperation & protection of users. I understand getting the "seal of approval" from a recognised regulator gives the veneer of stability, professionalism & respectability but I don't want it to come at the cost of derailing the platform from a successful future trajectory.
Yeah, I mentioned this in the podcast thread a couple of days ago. I have a port of 10k+ and have deliberately diversified into hundreds of players as I'm quite risk averse so would be interested in an insurance option. I wonder if they are thinking flat fees or % as with charges on some financial products.
Liked the suggestion above about insurance on specific players!
SDOAFIT last edited by
As a rule, insurance has a net cost in return for peace of mind. For example if they project they will pay you out on average 2 quid then they will charge you 4 quid.
It would be sensible for someone with a small number of players. For a diversified number of players, it wouldn't make sense.
Karl last edited by
@Timothee-Atouba .. Hilarious 😂😂😂😂😂