Are we redefining the "bottom" for this category of player?...

  • I believe the "bottom" is being redefined. The bottom now might be the new norm, with a new value and price that some players should/will be for a very long time.

    To elaborate; I'm not talking about your Messi's, Lewandowski's and De Bruyne's, but I think that trading mentality has changed, it's concentrated and focused on dividend maximisation, rather than capital appreciation, or other types of benefits to holding players.

    Therefore there are now two main categories of holds, simply, those who win PB and those who win IPD (in-play dividends). I have not included MB (media buzz) because it is going to change soon, and I want to talk about current market mentality, not hypothetical situations.

    Defining the price of non-PB players:

    IPD Players: Any player that does not win PB or MB, should be valued based upon an average of their historic/possible IPD haul for a 30 day period, right?

    Joao Pedro for example, his value should be determined by his in play performance alone. If he averages 2 contributions (assists or goals) every 3 games, and he has 9 games in the next 30 days, he could return 0.12p.

    If he is only ever going to return me 0.12p, and I wanted to make 50% profit on him during his 30 day period, take into account the commission to buy and sell, why would his value ever be breaching the 24p mark?

    Now obviously we have to factor in other variables, such as a link to another team where he would play a major role, or if he is in an upcoming international cup (in which case his price should inflate), etc etc.

    But players in the same category, returning a few pence over a 30 day period, but nothing else, are being re-valuated. Are you going to hold a player like Joao Pedro for 3 years? In the hope that he starts contributing PB? Probably not is the answer.

    I am asking this question because we're seeing a lot of "this has to be the bottom", "it can't be much lower than this", "i believe we're at the bottom now, i can feel it".

    Well I believe this select category of players values are not "at the bottom", but now a fair reflection of their actual value. And as much as we have lost on bigger top 200 players, we have lost a fair amount on the lesser known, who have dropped down to the £0.18-0.60p mark.

    Without capital appreciation, why would holding these types of players be beneficial? or, why would these types of players justify being anything more than a £0.24p player? Do we believe these players will grow in value? or are they destined for a life of being "flipped" and moving only on spikes of activity?

    Thanks for reading and I have everything I own crossed for some form of recovery to our portfolios over the next few days/weeks/months.

  • I agree with this, for these players previously people were bidding over a pound for the chance to win 4p sometimes it was farcical really. Some young players who have never even played a first team game were over 2 quid!

    The new double commission on buying and selling is problematic too as its effectively now 4% to make a profit. So the lower the price the better really for these types of players unlikely to ever win star player etc.

    I was thinking of working out a rough indication of player value based on recent returns so I can find value. Where can I get a list of average media and match day dividends?

  • @UncleBeard
    It’s a massive part of the market which needs sorting imo - I really hope it doesn’t become that platform where CA is just completely forgotten. Although I appreciate Chasing CA Over dividends isn’t always a profitable approach - it’s defiantly the most enjoyable part of the platform and most satusfying when you get a player right. I really hope they do something to stimulate this part of the market otherwise the platform might as well just consist of 500 players.
    The great thing about the index when I first started was that there were many ways to make money, many strategies - none were right or wrong - often it was dictated by how much people had to put in, lower budgets could chase CA and anyone with larger budgets could chase the Big boys. It just worked...stimulating CA without being to the detriment of PB players will be FI biggest challenge IMO and I think if they manage to do it they’ll be rises across the board with every player pulling each other up rather than just relying on a handful

  • I think they need to relax the deadlines for buying players that are then eligible for match day dividends. 3pm currently isnt it? So if my cheap player has a once of worldy and looks like hitting top player no ones going to bid for them because they can't!

  • I do wonder whether they should set prices based on the total number of shares owed across the whole platform. So say your top 10 players would have a bottom price of say £8 that you can't bid below unless they drop out of the top 10 players for share count. Then the next 10 is 7.50, the next 10 is 7 and so on until the top 100 is a minimum of £3 for entry. Prices below that are then unlimited based on supply/demand

  • @G27 Yeah, you're right, it also gave credence to the FI slogan "what's your football knowledge worth", it felt like it meant something. Perhaps they could change the slogan to "who knows what your portfolio values worth?"

    Even pumping into the top PB players seems unstable. I know mathematically it is worth it with some of them, but sure does sucks the fun out of the platform if there's 20 players worth buying into, then another 80 with a greater risk, and the rest are not worth a glance.

    @NewUser557668 Yeah, the IPD you can purchase up to midnight on the day of the game I think. But for PB it might be a 16:00 cut-off.

    I understand what you're saying about leveled base pricing, but theoretically that is what is happening now, top yields are around £4, then the outside PB winning chancers, all the way down to the IPD only, and then the bottom feeding good-for-nothing deadbeats. The pricing system you mentioned, wouldn't make money on a 3 year hold, and regardless there's only about 5-6 players who are £4 would guarantee 100% on their value.

  • If FI were to increase the ipd window to say two or three months instead of one, I think this would give value to the players out of the top 200 and increase value overall on the platform. With the extra market activity chasing ipds, the commission earned by FI would increase. I'm no expert and this is probably a flawed idea but something along these lines would definitely get the market buzzing again.

  • @UncleBeard the mechanism you applied for your evaluation of Joao Pedro make absolute sense. The only variable is the desired return.

    If you are chase a 50%/month then I believe we could all agree you have set very high expectations and consequently only if a player price stays very low they become achievable.

    But if, for example, you would be satisfied with potentially 50%/year (still better then some other investments, not better than pure betting), then using your same numbers we can assume he could return 12p/ month, let’s say 10p as you have to recycle, now that over 9 month of full season is 90p and given the return you want to achieve you should be happy to pay for him anything below £1.80, again let’s say £1.50 to be on the safe side of recycling.

    Long example simply to say that the price should be rationally only determined by the desired potential return. As long has we have the ‘betting person’ mentality (high return in short time) prices will stay low, but if people chasing medium or even high returns over longer periods of time start to show up prices will rise, not only for IPD but across the market. Hopefully of course 😅🤷‍♂️

  • @UncleBeard said in Are we redefining the "bottom" for this category of player?...:

    If he is only ever going to return me 0.12p, and I wanted to make 50% profit on him during his 30 day period, take into account the commission to buy and sell, why would his value ever be breaching the 24p mark?

    Say you paid 50p + 1p commission = 51p, earnt 12p in IPD and sold for 50p - 1p commission = 49p.

    You would have made 10p profit on your 50p purchase in 30 days.

    20% profit in 30 days !!!!

    Your valuation of 24p is way too low. Making 50% profit in a month is unrealistic.

  • @Kozo-Kira thanks for the feedback.

    Yeah the 50% for a year would be very reasonable, but the problem with lack of market liquidity, flipping players is a very difficult game, i've lost out a few times because people sell faster than I have on the morning after a game, and you're stuck with a player with no IS, waiting for the next spike to sell him on.

    Therefore my 50% for a 30 day period, is low risk (valued) players, and to buy 500 shares or more, because the rick is not worth the reward of £5-10 worth of dividends.

    But yes, in an ideal FI market world, we'd have the facilities to exercise plans like that, and just press that "refresh for IPD button" and off we'd go for the next months dividends.

    @Honeylight Hi, thanks for the response. Yes same again, I know, it was a bit of an extreme example, but again, as stated above, it is just because IS isn't always available, so if it's not, I'd like to spend as little as possible per share.

    But my question to you all would be why is it that a 0.24p valuation seems too low? if he only on average contributes 3 IPD's per month, and that's 0.12p, why would his value be 75% more than his actual yield? Why would it be acceptable to pay 50p?

Log in to reply