2% Example



  • An example of the changes which are not having/going to have a positive impact is the 2% on market bid buys. So many players with no.bids on them now .. what will happen after the 16th ??? The first immediate step could be to remove that 2% change amd then think and act quickly about others.



  • @Falcon

    The problem is that even if they say they aren't bringing it in then we all know it's coming in at some point in the future. So people are pricing accordingly. Even if FI came out and said they were never going to bring it in would people believe them now? I mean they said they would never remove IS and at the moment 81 out of the top 200 have no IS price.



  • It will have a big impact on the market. You now will have to cover 4% to break even on holds if you get a matched bid. That's a huge amount to make just before you start, yields and divs need to be big for this to work. People will just bid lower to compensate this and at the minute we can't bid low enough with the bid zones being so small.



  • @Tom7471

    Just mentioned this in another post. Thats the first thing they need to get rid off asap. As if they nit making enough koney on the 2% sales as it is .. . They now want to make on purchase aswell. Crazy regardless of their defence of it. Monthly dividends should be 5 times more than whay they are and i aint even joking... its once a month!!! At the minutes people have lost/or losing money but in the past 2 months FI have earned crazy amount on comissions alone.



  • I've always said that a "buyers tax" is a stupid idea, traders are willing to pay X% on sales as they have benefited from the hold; whether dividends or cap app (remember when that was possible?) or both or at least the chance of them. Why would anyone pay for the privilege of only getting 98% of what they want????

    introducing it into a booming, confident market would be a bad idea but launching it into the current market is SIMPLY MADNESS akin to deliberate self harm IMHO.



  • @Falcon I think they will need to put the 2% buy commission on to make enough to pay for the divs. I don't think it's a profitable business model at the moment and even with the added buy commission they will struggle to make money. They may be making a lot of money at the moment but they have a crazy amount of outgoings too costing them fortunes. The marketing, matching, wages, promos and dividends alone will cost them a fortune.



  • @Tom7471

    Well they should have learnt how to walk before jogging and running!



  • @Tom7471 this a very valid and worrying point. Why on earth would you introduce the buyers tax now, unless you have to, or fear you have to?
    So currently nobody is pressing 'buy now' (obviously!). Nobody, or next to nobody is even bidding because they know they can wait for a better price later. Therefore nobody is selling because we now have to sell to each other so we can't sell. Vicious cycle isn't it?
    If every current trader sat on their hands and decided, actually, seen as FI keep reminding us all its a 3 year bet, we will all just hold, and hold, until FI start to bleed dry from all the dividends and other expenses you mentioned that keep flowing out when there's no commission coming back in.
    Eventually they would have to change something?



  • @Geronimo159387 said in 2% Example:

    I've always said that a "buyers tax" is a stupid idea, traders are willing to pay X% on sales as they have benefited from the hold; whether dividends or cap app (remember when that was possible?) or both or at least the chance of them. Why would anyone pay for the privilege of only getting 98% of what they want????

    introducing it into a booming, confident market would be a bad idea but launching it into the current market is SIMPLY MADNESS akin to deliberate self harm IMHO.

    Totally agree. Generally speaking everyone has lost money or worse been completely hosed over the past few weeks and now they expect us to lose another 2% just for the pleasure of making a bid??? I really don't think so. They should be providing incentives TO trade, not coming up with ideas that put people off. I have got some bids in on players that I consider to be "cheap" at the moment but if I have to take an instant 2% loss the moment I trade then the risk has gone up and the price I'm willing to pay will go down - and by a lot more than 2%. I would imagine the introduction of this is going to reduce the turnover in the market by a lot, reduce their commissions and put even more people off the platform as the liquidity reduces and we see no sell prices cropping up all over the place (theres enough of that at the moment as it is). As you say, it is total madness.



  • It is lunancy - either pure greed or an indication that finances are not as pretty as they make out.

    It also seems counter productive, and diminishes the point of flipping top end players for IPDs. Obviously you dont buy Messi for IPDs but now, to flip a £5 Messi, you are paying 20p in commission. So you are relying on 10 IPDs in a month, which is batshit. Obviously we can flip between the margins but the margins will need to be a lot healthier to make it work now.

    It is a pandemic, the market is in a terrible state, and they have decided to reward those who have kept investing with this. I like this product, I have no doubt I will make money if it stays around with a healthy level of investment in the long term, but current market activity suggests people are unconvinced about that. You simply do not sell Jack Grealish for 2.42, Anthony Martial for 1.27, Robbo for under 1.80 etc etc otherwise and this 'crash' is the worse of them, because it is so sustained and happening before the IB. This is FI's fault.



  • So this is what they said:

    From the 16th of November we’ll be introducing a 2% commission on Bids, concluding the promotion that has been running. We believe that this will create an improved equilibrium between Bids and Market Buys, therefore encouraging the fulfilment of Offers.

    Can someone please explain how this will "encourage the fulfilment of offers"?

    Kieran Tierney, as an example, currently no bid but offered at 155. I can bid at 117 now or 117 and pay 2% after Nov 16th - why am I going to pay 155?



  • @Columbia, I agree, this is crazy. Using your example there, would you pay the absolute minimum bid of £1.17 now, or the absolute minimum bid of £1.17 +2%, so £1.20?

    To counter this, many would go 2% under, so bidding £1.14, so they can still feel like they are paying what they would have paid before. But to access £1.14, the Buy price needs to drop. Its all a madness.

    The only beneficiaries in this would be those with tight spreads. So, no one right now, but generally either GKs, PB holds, or early kickoff goalscorers. Plus Kimmich.



  • The 2% bid is my only main issue at the moment. Just makes no sense at the moment. The only way it encourages market buys is with tight spread which is not happening.



  • @Pez

    Crazy decision.. i can see and hope FI cancel this asap



  • They don't seem to realise that there is only a certain number of kicks in the balls that people are willing to take, and when someone decides to up and leave I doubt they ever come back.



  • @Pez said in 2% Example:

    The 2% bid is my only main issue at the moment. Just makes no sense at the moment. The only way it encourages market buys is with tight spread which is not happening.

    Yep.

    Ignoring everything else as a pure trading platform it looks very uncompetitive with its competitors. 4 percent is a lot.

    They are competing with betfair and FS as football trading platforms not the Ftse. Betfair charge 3 percent on profits (so on average 1.5percent) within that trade. FS has no commission.

    It's not directly comparable but another kick in the balls if you want to attract people just to trade.



  • Can you all please contact CS and put the case for cancelling the 2%, and any other ideas you have for improvement.

    I've contacted them and they say they are taking feedback on board at the moment. If enough people tell them what to do, they might do it.



  • I think they're asking for the 2% bid commission to pay for NASDAQ. It is a very expensive platform; plus maintenance/support for the NASDAQ technicians.



  • @NewUser395078

    If you have a twitter account then put it on that since it will get to many people. Tbh i think its a defo cancellation .. they dont have an option ..



  • @NewUser395078 said in 2% Example:

    Can you all please contact CS and put the case for cancelling the 2%, and any other ideas you have for improvement.

    I've contacted them and they say they are taking feedback on board at the moment. If enough people tell them what to do, they might do it.

    I am going to write something here. Main arguments will be:

    1. As discussed unless spreads narrow, people will just bid less making the situation worse.

    2. The 4 percent net commission is extremely uncompetitive against similar platforms

    3. A lot of people are extremely unhappy with the platform. They can dress it up how they like but it's a hike in trading charges. Ramping up trading costs is not going to do a lot to stop people being unhappy.

    4. Similar to three. Removing IS has moved a lot of liability from FI to us. Whilst people may not like it, people can accept it but leaves a bad taste in the mouth to then on top of that throw a buyers tax on us.

    Will obviously word it properly, use proper English, long words and maybe even a spell checker but that's the jist of the argument.


Log in to reply