• I've read and commented on many of the posts speculating on the continual crash of the index over the last six months. I've also watched/taken part in the chaos mirrored on the forum. Understandably and deservedly there is a lot of anger and frustration with FI HQ, who appear to be merrily dancing along to their own tune. Its a dead-cert they don't read the forum now (except to find another way to mockingly laugh at their customers).

    All that aside, amongst the good, the bad and the ugly reactions on the forum I have yet to see a thinking through of FI reasoning (assuming there is any of course). Why would this race to the pink sheets be useful? I'm working on the proviso that they want/need the platform to be a success. I would be interested to a discussion of what this crash might help them do in terms of attracting customers, working with Nasdaq and anything in addition.

  • FI need to address players with no sell price and players with a sell price but for minimal amounts of shares. Streamlining the player list could be one option and would help liquidity. There are still lots of people who want to trade but are locked in which doesn't benefit anyone. Maybe they should allow people who have players with no sell price to swap out to other players for the total equivalent value at buy price and pay the 2% commission on that swap. Maybe have a swap out window once a week when there are no or few games that day ?

  • they aren't working with Nasdaq

    the "Nasdaq powered order books " are shock horror not Nasdaq powered

    there's been no mention of Nasdaq since last September so either Nasdaq have had enough of their nonsense and said fuck this we are off ,

    or Fi don't have the money to use them anymore

    people keep talking as though " they must do something to save the market and stop the crashes " why !?!

    why do they care about the crashes they aren't involved in the market anymore crashes just mean more commission for them

    people cant seem to grasp no money can leave this product unless new money is coming into replace it , anything else just causes market contraction and downward price pressure

    theres nothing FI "can do" to stop this other than trying to get new customers on board and given they've just had an article published in the national press warning unsuspecting victims not to get involved with them

    i'd say that's going to be very difficult going forward

  • Not sure about re-genesis, but the exodus is real enough.

    Every change that FI have made this year is to reduce their exposure, and generate more money. It's really as simple as that.

    The flip side of those changes is that the extra money they need to generate is coming straight from their customers portfolios

    Nasdaq has become this holy grail that everyone is latching on to to save the platform, in reality it's just background software that will have zero affect on anything from the outside. Its main purpose originally was to enable the platform to be scaled up to handle a lot more customers. Now there are about 2000 left,
    there's really no sense in spending the money on Nasdaq at all.

    There's a player on the index that's been running on the 'nasdaq systems' for a long time, not that you could notice.

  • @NorfolkCanary
    Great post I have been thinking on similar lines for sometime. I want to trade but have cash tied up in players I can't sell and with all the uncertainty I am simply not prepared to pump in new money. So we have stalemate. Just taking out dividends as I win them at the moment and selling shares when I can make profit. Sad really used to be a great product.

  • @thelossadjustor of course they care about crashes. They may be inept, but they are a business.

    If prices are lower, any newly minted shares are lower in price too. That means less money for FI, less commission on flips, and relatively speaking a higher dividend payout per newly minted share. Was especially problematic when it came to IPDs, for obvious reasons. Profitability on IPOs is harmed too, as FI cant charge as much. It is much better for them if Sancho is worth £15 than £5 although the reality, of course, is that Sancho isnt, and was never, worth £15. And that is the big issue - massive overpricing was exposed by the introduction of OBs and the loss of IS. And crashes obviously cause a lot of blowback online too.

    The only plus for FI is that lower prices mean, at some point (assuming they dont go out of business), rising prices. And so new players joining in the near future wont be as royally fucked as older players and might be a little more positive about them.

  • @Timmy prices cannot rise because of the supply issue they aren't taking any shares out of the market

    there is no demand for all these hundreds of thousands of shares they have minted

    there is barely any liquidity on any player on there

  • @thelossadjustor

    The only way that FI turn this around for me is if they start supporting the market again with bids similar to the old IS. They could quadruple dividends, but whilst we are staring at players with none or hardly any bids it will make no difference to players values due to the risk.

    I get as fucked off with FI as most people with the constant changes and lack of delivery on promises, but IF they do get it right then there is no reason to believe that it cannot get back to its former glory days

  • @Baydog
    Yep keep saying it but this is the only way to get the market moving - especially outside the top players.
    FI control the market, the rules and the payouts but want someone else to provide the liquidity. Will never happen because it makes no sense whatsoever.
    And if somehow third party providers did come on board they would have been given so many guarantees and advantages over everyone else (eg special access to the market, extra data, advance notice of rule/div changes) the FI community would have a melt down anyway!

  • @NewUser565183

    Third party LPs seem like a complete pipe dream to me.

    I have been around here a few years so I have seen plenty of changes in my time. FI do seem to require moving value around every now and again, otherwise everyone just buys all the same players and sits on them for 3 years harvesting divs. If that happens then how are they supposed to keep raising divs? They need people trading so moving value around is part of process of generating income to raise dividends year on year.

    It is gambling, and I was always trying to second guess the next FI move to shift value around, and that was part of the game for me. The risk was low as if I got it wrong I could hit instant sell and take a minimal hit.

    The problem now is with the order book system if FI do something to shift value then there is no out. Bids will disappear very quickly and the punter is locked in to a large extent. With that the USP of the product about not losing your whole stake is diminished to a significant extent. Three year bet but pend 2 of those staring at a player in your port that you are unable to sell.

    FI provided all of the liquidity previously, which was no doubt an unsustainable model long term. My assumption was under order books would be that FI would provide bids at around 60% of buy price, and this would track up and down with the buy price and leave the void for traders to act in.

    It actually did seem like this was happening to a large extent when OB's were launched - almost the whole market was populated with bids, and there is no way that was just traders as there was decent levels of bids.

    In the lead up to the covid lockdown / international break before christmas seemingly all bid support was removed. Most players on the platform all of a sudden had no bids; this has continued for the most part all the way up until today and the prices of players have declined non stop.

    The negative sentiment and lack of confidence this has created has only been further compounded by the sudden removal of IPDs with no replacement announced.

    My own feeling is that FI has been switching the liquidity tap on off periodically since Nov/Dec their quietest period and with the nation in lockdown. What needs to be taken into account is if FI is providing the liquidity via LP001 then this is money that can leave the market. It is not the pyramid scheme where money can only leave if new money is entering. If FI is providing no liquidity then this is true, but when they are then money can exit without new money coming in.

    I have had a sneaky feeling since the end of November that FI will have something up their sleeves and will introduce it alongside resumed liquidity on the bids side. I feel the end of January (traditionally when people have money again since Christmas spending November onwards) would be a logical time to make a statement move and restore confidence.

    Whether it happens or not is anyone's guess, but whatever they deliver needs to include significant bid support as part of any package. If they get the sentiment moving in the right direction then their bids get taken to re-invest, if they don't get it right and provide liquidity then more than likely that money will be leaving the market

  • @thelossadjustor take your £400 and do one,hijack every fucking thread

  • @thelossadjustor I'm not in favour of FI's actions, I think the leadership is inept, and I have fears over the long-term future of the company.

    That said, you are spouting some bullshit. First you state that they 'don't care about crashes' because they 'aren't involved in the market anymore', which I've responded to you about and which you've ignored. Now, prices can't rise? Of course they can rise. If FI made a positive announcement in 2 hours, the prices would rise. It doesn't take much - prices have not reached some arbitrary bottom they can never be free of. They can go up and down and will go up and down.

    There are so many good reasons to criticise FI at the moment - spurious claims are really not needed.

  • @NorfolkCanary said in Re-genesis:

    Maybe they should allow people who have players with no sell price to swap out to other players for the total equivalent value at buy price and pay the 2% commission on that swap.

    How would that work in practice though? Would you only be allowed to swap out for other players that no one wants? If you could offload players that no one wants (eg. former IPD players) and buy players that you do want (eg. premium holds) then who owns the unwanted shares? Presumably, FI which means they have just bought them off you and given you the cash to spend elsewhere. This is worst for FI that the old IS if they offer Buy Price?

    If they removed or lowered the bid floor, everyone should have a price. I have a player who is worth maybe 6p, but FI won't let me offer for less than 19p or anyone bid more than 18p. Using your suggestion why would FI let me swap out at Buy Price of 38p, when he is worth 6p? It would be cheaper for GI to lower the floor. The Buy Prices are unrealistic.

    At the moment they are doing nothing. I can't see them doing anything as it is our problem not theirs.

  • If the ceos are sneering at us customers,why dont we just stop trading .Id rather lose 100% than have the ceos mock me,theyve got the loot they should at least pretend to be honest.

  • @Honeylight You are probably right that its not practicable from FI's point of view and our only hope is that they have a good PB game at some point. While so many players have no sell price it's hard to see new money coming in except for the top PB holds. FI need to do something to generate some value which could be a cumulative PB scores system that are eventually rewarded. The sooner FI announce what they are planning the better as the uncertainty is stiffling the market.

Log in to reply