FI Investment Case



  • Caveat: Leave past experience and all biases at the door.

    I am a new born baby with £1,000 of cash. I want to invest the money and FI was suggested to me.

    What is the investment case today?



  • You will have to wait until you are 18.
    Pogba seems to be growing in popularity, and people on the forum are understandably starting to look towards the Euro's. I'm focusing on youth with transfer prospect. Rice and McNeil in particular look interesting.

    But if you want those immediate divs; Bruno, Kimmich, Messi.



  • The case would be that there are potentially very high dividends. 30 to 40% per annum isn't unreasonable.

    The case against is that CA is unlikely in the future and without it dividends could well be reduced in the future.

    It's currently a high risk/high reward investment.

    I probably wouldn't bother if I was a newborn baby with £1,000. Instead put it somewhere that's less high risk but with a lower reward. 10% per annum would see your £1,000 turn into £490K by the time you retired at 65.



  • @GeoffS said in FI Investment Case:

    It's so strange how people see things completely different to each other.

    I'd say almost the opposite. There's plenty of CA, but I don't think dividends are remotely high.

    The truth is we are betting, not investing. They use the word dividend so that you'll compare them to dividends on real shares but these aren't real shares and I don't think we should compare them to real shares. They are bets and the odds they pay out are low.



  • @Dan-The-Man

    Yeah, good that people have different views on value though, it's what drives a market.

    Just out of interest though, if you think dividends are low at the moment, on what basis do you see there being CA? If player prices go up that dividend yield drops, so if you think it's low at the moment why would people buy at an even lower yield?

    The only way I see CA happening is either if returns improve (i.e. divs go up, seems unlikely for at least the next 18 months) or risk reduces (i.e. liquidity improves and I don't know how they do that).

    I feel like the market has kind of found it's level (within a fluctuating range of around 20%) in the current structure of risk and return. So something has to change to bring about CA.



  • @GeoffS said in FI Investment Case:

    @Dan-The-Man

    Yeah, good that people have different views on value though, it's what drives a market.

    Just out of interest though, if you think dividends are low at the moment, on what basis do you see there being CA? If player prices go up that dividend yield drops, so if you think it's low at the moment why would people buy at an even lower yield?

    Because there's enough people trying to play the game. So for example, newbie here is about to stick £1,000 in. That money is going somewhere and if your money is where his money is going, there's CA for you.

    There's always going to be that next break out star, or someone who hits form, etc.



  • @Dan-The-Man

    I agree there is CA on individuals, as players breakout they'll go up in value (which in fairness is how it should be. I just meant across the market as a whole I don't think we'll see much for the foreseeable future.



  • @GeoffS You might be right, but you could also be wrong.

    I believe that additional dividends will be added to the platform over the next 3-12 months (possibly numerous times), with an added increase in FI's customer base over the same period which in turn will organically increase CA. We won't even mention the positive effects of FOMO, trader's positive emotions, player spikes, and a massive part of the game "future player speculation".

    Be interesting to see how it pans out over the coming months (nearly like a side bet 😊 )



  • CA = capital appreciation?

    20% increase per annum would be an excellent return and well worth the risk.

    With the platform only being 5/6 years old, I would imagine a growing userbase and expansion beyond the UK would make 20% a moderate estimate.



  • @NewUser554926 Yes Capital appreciation.
    https://forums.footballindex.co.uk/topic/20476/fi-abbreviations You may find this useful if you plan to be on the forums a lot



  • @Dan-The-Man
    i had a conversation a while ago. i said been investing in football index not sure what to make of it at the moment. he said ive heard of it and said should i buy in. i said dont yet as its pretty mental at the moment and i couldnt recommend it. the next chat we had he said he had looked at it and thought the rewards weren't big enough.
    i get it as a £7 player like fernandes player has to win 50 gold days to pay off his price which is a monstrous amount. of course there is media, team of the month and resale value but these prices take a lot of paying off without thinking about injuries, loss of form, formation changes, any matrix changes, transfers, fi changing the bet/reducing dividends, fi going bust. the value has to be at the lower end where one top performance can pay off 50%+ a players price. far less risk involved.



  • Just go Bruno blokes a div beast and recycle your div winnings to othersplayer that's what I've done, each to their own



  • @Karl

    Hopefully I'm wrong and you're right. If they do add additional dividends then that will also lead to CA. I'm just not sure they want to increase payouts at the moment seeing as the commission they are earning can't be covering the existing dividend payouts.

    Got to say I'm relatively happy with the level of dividends on offer right now. Certainly on the players I own they offer a very healthy return. However I do think they need to address the significant portion of the market that are good players in real life but that don't win PB. These players had a value before due to IPD's and the MDE isn't a replacement. I also think they need to do something to encourage a bit more churn, at the moment I'm happy to sit on my port for the next two years (baring something drastic happening to one of my players), that's not great for FI as they aren't earning anything from players like me.



  • @NewUser628679

    Don't forget, if he wins PB on a gold day he's also got a decent chance of winning the 14p for star player. That takes it down to around 30 gold day wins.

    Media accounts for a big part of his returns as well, 79p in the last 6 months.

    Bruno returned £1.53 in the last 6 months, so call it £3 per annum. If you buy at £7 that's a 40% return per annum.

    I get that's not for everyone but I feel that's a very healthy return. The lower end of the market is far more risky in my view. Yes you probably only need two wins to cover their cost, but those wins might never come. In addition you're much more likely to get stuck with those players as demand is likely to be lower. However the rewards are much higher. 3 or 4 wins and you've doubled your money. Horses for courses.

    What I think FI can't do is replace the high risk/high reward of traditional gambling. You're not going to hit a 20/1 shot on here and I can understand why many traditional gamblers aren't interested or see the returns as too low.



  • @GeoffS
    it needs to be more balanced. more regular smaller wins for more players means increased circulation around the market and more people feeling engaged with the platform. unless a player scores 250+ or has a great month the chances are they arent involved at all in any rewards unless they grab a bronze day opportunity. this is why its boring, great if your man wins gold otherwise nothing. ipds were a reward and a consolation plus they gave new users a start off into the rewards. they buy a striker now he scores 2 in a game and theres a good chance he wins nothing.



  • @GeoffS
    a lot of it depends on what type of punter you are. some want or need the feeling of winning so having a regular dividend earner is ideal for them. i am in the pure value camp as bet and trade loads online so its all about prices for me and accepting the high variance that comes with that. so for my psyche feel more comfortable trying to find a player that can pay off his cost with one or two decent wins than thinking crap this guy has to win a lot to get me a decent return.



  • @NewUser628679

    Yes for me the predictability of wins for some of the big name PB players is a good thing. It might be dull but I'm happy with my regular Messi, Bruno, Kimmich divs. I do have plenty of mid range PB players as well but tend to stay away from the lower end of the market as I've kept my portfolio relatively tight.

    I do agree that losing IPD's has massively damaged sections of the market. I can see why they weren't sustainable but MDE's are not a replacement. They do nothing to encourage trading and they don't give value to the same sector of the market. Very poor.



  • @GeoffS
    one big advantage with your approach is being able to shift a lot of shares with the likes of messi and kimmich, which i imagine makes managing positions easier. buying at the bottom end comes with the risk of lack of demand which has been exacerbated with ipd removal.



  • @GeoffS said in FI Investment Case:

    @NewUser628679

    Don't forget, if he wins PB on a gold day he's also got a decent chance of winning the 14p for star player. That takes it down to around 30 gold day wins.

    Media accounts for a big part of his returns as well, 79p in the last 6 months.

    Bruno returned £1.53 in the last 6 months, so call it £3 per annum. If you buy at £7 that's a 40% return per annum.

    I get that's not for everyone but I feel that's a very healthy return. The lower end of the market is far more risky in my view. Yes you probably only need two wins to cover their cost, but those wins might never come. In addition you're much more likely to get stuck with those players as demand is likely to be lower. However the rewards are much higher. 3 or 4 wins and you've doubled your money. Horses for courses.

    What I think FI can't do is replace the high risk/high reward of traditional gambling. You're not going to hit a 20/1 shot on here and I can understand why many traditional gamblers aren't interested or see the returns as too low.

    This is the problem, and this is why its failing.

    It's such a niche product now that appeals to virtually nobody.

    There's no short term excitement to attract casual gamblers, it's flat and boring, you just look at possible yields on a spreadsheet.

    There's no long term stability and safety in the product to attract proper traders and investers, becuase it's run by monkeys and anyone who looks at it objectively from the outside looks at the t&c's and laughs.

    It is what it is now. A product that has hardly any customers and appears to be winding down.



  • @o_O
    thats spot on and the big contradiction of fi. when i joined up for this gig my thoughts were long term and every buy was made accordingly at all different prices. was mainly hoping for ca with dividends as an extra bonus. quickly came to realise with the state of the market that long term thinking was futile prices hopping about constantly with more dips than a rollercoaster. the key for me was quick high yields and minimising risk. now fi have twisted the rules again, removed ipd to try and promote long term thinking but the market is still knackered with no liquidity so any long term thinking is optimistic.


Log in to reply