IPDs



  • Does anyone believe a good idea would be to have Ipds open constantly? I’m very new to trading to be honest so there may be something I’m not aware of that makes it a bad idea. I believe that would give security and confidence to the market. Very appealing to all types of investors big and small. Thoughts?



  • @NewUser515012 said in IPDs:

    Does anyone believe a good idea would be to have Ipds open constantly? I’m very new to trading to be honest so there may be something I’m not aware of that makes it a bad idea. I believe that would give security and confidence to the market. Very appealing to all types of investors big and small. Thoughts?

    No.

    FI would go out of business within a year. Plus there would be even less trading going on than there is now.



  • That depends the share price and the dividend payout though surely?



  • Yes it would be a good idea as it's near impossible to refresh players (without taking a substantial loss rendering any dividends won redundant) when the markets in a slump, as it is right now, and 95% of players have zero chance of ever winning PB / MB / TOTM so essentially they're redundant as capital appreciation is also dead so that's another avenue for potential returns closed off.

    I don't see any reason why FI can't create an option to refresh IPD on a player should you choose which involves a cost direct to FI at a % of the players current share value.



  • @NewUser515012 said in IPDs:

    Does anyone believe a good idea would be to have IPDs open constantly?

    It would be great for traders, but a terrible idea for FI.

    Traders could buy a 20p striker/goalkeeper and just rely on them getting 10 goals/assists/clean sheets in 3 years. FI need the buy/sell commission to pay for the IPD, so they want need you to flip them or let the IPD expire.

    As other have suggested, FI could include a refresh option to cover the commission, but traders would all hold for the full 30 days. 2% buy and sell commission on a 20p player is 0.8p. the player only needs 1 IPD every 2 months to recover that. Better for FI if traders flip players every other day.



  • No.
    If IPD's were constant then FI would need to come up with a new incentive for short term gamblers that they are also looking to appeal to.
    The option to refresh IPD's when you wish for 2% commission cost is the most likely/sensible for all parties really.



  • @Honeylight but then they wouldn’t be a 20 p player as the demand would be greater, surely it all depends on the value of the player? And it would give far more appeal to the lower end of the market. It’s just thinking out loud really but I wonder if any experienced marketers on here who think this could be possible



  • @NewUser515012 said in IPDs:

    but then they wouldn’t be a 20 p player as the demand would be greater

    but traders already own the shares so any initial capital appreciation would be enjoyed by traders who already hold. FI would be paying out more IPD and getting less commission in return.

    I think it could stagnate the market because no will sell at a loss and could just hold indefinitely. For it to work, it would require a major change to the rules and it is the constant rule changes which have caused the problems that we currently have.



  • @Honeylight good point around the shared already owned. Just an idea really, haha I don’t I have the first clue about market mechanics. Maybe some other way to give more value to the bottom end of market


Log in to reply