Any chance FI will revert back to the old setup?



  • Do we think it’s possible that the people running FI will revert back to the old setup? ME is killing the index. It’s also taking some of the fun away. Nice to get some players at 20/30% cheaper than there price but now that shares are just being passed around, it seems like it’s becoming very dull.

    Any thoughts?



  • @Bezz82

    As much as I'd like to happen, I can't see it.

    They get to keep all the money currently in the index with exception to the little bit they give out for dividends.



  • @Bezz82 That’d mean ripping up the whole OB system. Highly unlikely. Once we have sell orders and hopefully a dividend increase we’ll be off and running again.



  • @Mr-Atouba said in Any chance FI will revert back to the old setup?:

    @Bezz82 That’d mean ripping up the whole OB system. Highly unlikely. Once we have sell orders and hopefully a dividend increase we’ll be off and running again.

    That's a 1 minute job ha.

    It's not like they don't have the old code sat there.



  • @Bezz82 sadly, I can't see it. Nasdaq coming on board was to get OBs in place. The current ME was created by FI (ie it is not Nasdaq) in direct response to the coronavirus to provide an exit point for sellers who wanted to release some funds. I therefore can't see FI walking away from their OB plan before they've even launched it.

    Shame though, I preferred the simplicity of the old system and never had a problem market selling.



  • I feel ya pain as prices havent moved much and have almost been on the decline since the ME came into play, Im just hoping its teething pains, and eventually the market will balance back out and return to normal.

    As my ports been taking hit after hit like this lol



  • Imagine the boost to the market we'd have! Maybe Baldrig has been advising AC and this is the cunning plan after all, make the index awful for a few months then give them back what they already had to please them in to splashing the cash... It'd work.



  • @Dan-The-Man It’s the one minute jobs that can be hardest. Forget our vision, forget our future business model, reinstate all the risk.
    Sooner or later they have to stop letting traders have their own way all the time.



  • Not the old set up but I could forsee at some point FI offering a form of instant sell. Right now when FI issue a new share through market 'buy now' they keep the proceeds of that sale and then the future commissions (2%) from the resale of that share (commission will apply to buys soon also). The liability for FI is they have to pay dividends and IPD's for the life of that share.

    The overall FI model should ensure that the initial monies received for the market buy of the share and future commissions for resale of the share cover the dividends liability and then some, but if shares aren't resold frequently that could be a risk. The way they can add to thier coffers while also encouraging frequent trading of shares is to offer a form of instant sell where they can effectively buy the share back at a discount and recycle to the market at the 'buy now' price.

    Why they aren't doing this right now is it's to great a risk in the current environment. I live in hope FI will assume a bit more risk to bring a better balance to the product once things settle down.



  • @Mr-Atouba said in Any chance FI will revert back to the old setup?:

    @Dan-The-Man It’s the one minute jobs that can be hardest. Forget our vision, forget our future business model, reinstate all the risk.
    Sooner or later they have to stop letting traders have their own way all the time.

    Companies that cling to their vision, against the wishes of their customers, don't often keep their customers.

    Paragon was a thriving game made by Epic. They made changes.... customers didn't like the changes... Paragon was cancelled. Why? User retention. Digg was what Reddit is now, they made changes... users didn't like the changes... the traffic left the platform, Reddit became king. Kotaku was the leading blog for the games industry... they made big changes... the customers didn't like the changes... their traffic significantly reduced.

    People don't like change at the best of time and in a lot of ways FI, have handled change brilliantly. For example, when they brought in the new website, they didn't just change it over night. They released it as a beta site for people to get used to in their own speed and then gave months for people to adjust before removing the other site. There are still features missing from the other site, but in general they've handled it well.

    What FI have done here though, is make a massive change, removed their own risk whilst increasing ours and they've done it at a time where there's already a ton of uncertainty given that the global economy has crashed. Forcing change on your users is tough during the good times... doing it during the hard times, is asking for trouble.


  • Banned

    Zero chance of that. They have removed a massive liability that they had, which was a good thing to do (the issue being the way they did it, promising one thing and then going back on it).

    There problem now is, all the advertisement, the divs and the Nasdaq, all need paying and with less sales then financially they have to act to do something. Question is, what do they do?



  • @Dan-The-Man I appreciate that people would like to go back to the old way as it was easy money.
    Can they really sustain buying bets back at 90-95%, throwing a deposit bonus every time the market’s flat, paying out on two winners every time there’s an error?
    I know exactly what you’re saying but do you think throwing money after money is a realistic and sustainable long term business model?



  • For all the negativity regarding the ME and apparent removal of FI-backed instant sells, there is one big positive - look at the risers list today ...

    0_1592982788719_IMG_1694.PNG

    No poor newbie is getting burnt by the pump n dump scumbags now 👍🏻



  • @ScouseSte lol 0.17%... we used to see 17%



  • @Westy those percentages aren't right. Park Joo-Ho has doubled in price. Haven't got my calculator out, but certain it's not 0.17% I would say it's a tech error but that doesn't sound plausible...



  • @Westy said in Any chance FI will revert back to the old setup?:

    Imagine the boost to the market we'd have! Maybe Baldrig has been advising AC and this is the cunning plan after all, make the index awful for a few months then give them back what they already had to please them in to splashing the cash... It'd work.

    I could certainly do with him inventing some green to replace the red ive been seeing this week
    alt text



  • @Mintyfresh said in Any chance FI will revert back to the old setup?:

    @Westy those percentages aren't right. Park Joo-Ho has doubled in price. Haven't got my calculator out, but certain it's not 0.17% I would say it's a tech error but that doesn't sound plausible...

    ah yeh looking at all of them its just copied the buy price but put %



  • @Westy obvious now you've pointed it out, but didn't spot it!



  • The current system should stay but there needs to be a heavy dividend increase. Very heavy.

    Players prices have overshot value by an incredible amount. Previously IS was there to prop them up and give artificial value to bad bets. Its right that is gone. It doesn't make sense for a player worth 20p to be bought back by the house for 90p.

    But they are going to have to address the issue of desperately overpriced players particularly lower down the index.

    Not sure how you do it... If they keep current dividend system but increase them then it just helps top end. The bottom end will still be close to worthless.



  • Order books need to be implemented in full ASAP. To compensate for loss of IS, we need a div increase across the board. A hefty IPD increase may help lower end. They need to announce an announcement to help build excitement again.

    I've been supportive of FI during pandemic but the communications have to improve. We need clarity and certainty over future plans, with a published action plan - not vague Q&As and pod appearances which just fuel uncertainty and instability.


Log in to reply