Media buzz

  • I’ve been signed up to FI for a month now and made £330 profit so far off of £3,000. Only one of my players, Kane has ever won a MB. Please can I have some explanations why most people on here seem to go on about MB all the time? Isn’t it about price rise as well surely? What’s the point buying Pogba at £14.50 for example just to win some MB of 8p per share if he could drop from that high? Surely that would wipe out any worth of receiving dividends? Perhaps I’m doing things wrong but I’m over 10% up which wouldn’t be possible in any safe investment over a year. I’ve invested in a lot of £1-£3 range of young players mostly under 22.

  • @NewUser171924

    Because it’s not just 8p or bust. It’s 1095 chances to win over the lifetime of your 3 yr bet. The players that look more likely to sweep up media dividends over that time are more likely to attract investment, which explains Pogba/Neymar prices.

    Add to which media buzz is generally more easy to predict, and open to a smaller pool of potential winners (I.e. the top 200).

  • @playingcards1 Also without dividends we are just playing a pointless game of swaps with real money.

    If football index pulled divendends, the whole index would crash to zero within minutes.

  • @NewUser171924

    I've owned Pogba for just over 2 months & had 161p in dividends (mainly MB but perhaps 1 PB iirc) which represents 20% return on my purchase price, hence the price rise, so I could also sell for a capital profit of 80% after commission. So he's effectively doubled in 2 months but as I still hold him I've not only had 161p/future in "free money" to buy further players I also expect him to provide a continued flow of these dividends, which not only gives me income but also supports his price so win/win at least until the Mourinho spat is resolved. When the situation changes I will consider selling but not before.

    Capital growth is very important but dividends (or the expectation/anticipation of them) is a very important driving force in a players price. Pogba holders can demonstrate a solid income flow to justify his current price; can the same be said about Sanchez @4.80 or one of Chelsea's "next big thing" wonderkids? So £14 may be more sustainable than £3-5 depending on the players prospects.

    There's no right or wrong way to make money on FI but nothing preventing doing both dividend milking & buying future potential as part of a balanced portfolio.

  • @Misto said in Media buzz:

    @playingcards1 Also without dividends we are just playing a pointless game of swaps with real money.

    If football index pulled divendends, the whole index would crash to zero within minutes.

    Yep most of my profits have been via capital gain but I only buy players whose dividend potential justifies their price.

    The problem with trading players who 'are unlikely to win dividends' is they are essentially worthless. You can make money as people buy into them but its on fragile ground. If the price of a player unlikely to win dividends drops then logically there is no reason to hold the player so they should crash to their ipo level.

    As to pb v mb, dividends are dividends Either should drive the market and lead to capital gains. I am not bothered which type but generally media is more predictable.

    From a trading perspective, PB is more akin to fantasy football. Whereas MB is more reading the market and working to trends. People are probably better off concentrating on what they are good at.

  • As FI becomes more mainstream and the depth and knowledge of this increased user base increases players prices will start to more accurately reflect returns based upon the dividends they have produced and will most likely produce in the future. This will see some players change dramatically for instance Pogba and Neymar actually will look cheap to an experienced stock and equities trader when compared to KDB and Leroy Sane.

    We are all still in the honeymoon period of FI with the majority of players increasing in price due to the product still being in its infancy but once it settles down can you really see some players who have produced little or no dividends being half the price of those that have produced the most dividends especially when there is a past track record to look at. Personally I would say Sancho at nearly £5 is better value then both KDB and Sane due to his unknown potential compared to there known returns. However he is poor value compared to Neymar at 1/3 of the price.

    Based on the current dividend format and without any changes I see portfolios in the future being made up say of the top 7 dividend producers and then lots of under 19 starlets that may make the top 7 in the future. This is because once there are past performance dividend figures for say 4 years that show that the £4 to £8 player has won say 50p on average in dividends whilst the top 7 players have averaged £6 in dividends people will simply stop buying them.

    Thankfully we are a little time away from this and that leaves opportunity to buy and sell these players for profit knowing some football fans will still buy these players.

  • Fletch I appreciate your response and all the others on here as well. However, how can under 19 starlets turn into dividend magnets within the 3 year period? There won’t be many Mbappe’s coming around anytime soon. Therefore, I don’t agree with what you are saying about that. I do understand now though it is important to have some dividend producing players in the portfolio. At this stage in FI’s growth though I still feel there is a lot of value in players across all ranges in chosen widely for growth purposes and not dividends.

  • @NewUser171924

    You are missing my point - In real money terms players should only increase in value if there chances of winning dividends increase so growth in player prices should directly reflect the dividends they have/are/will produce. Currently players are growing in value just because new people join and have to buy players but once it becomes mainstream prices will reflect dividend value. The under 19's will be bought because by the time you need to sell them 3 years (may be changing ) they will be 21 and people will be buying based upon the next 3 years so should in theory increase in price.

    I am looking at this from a pure investment principle which will not be fully relevant until FI is older and has more liquidity. But you should be asking yourself each time you buy a player is will he produce dividends and how much because that is what his price should reflect.

  • Thanks Fletch - appreciate your comments. At this stage I will continue with my strategy of buying into players I feel are undervalued before FI is fully fledged...

  • @NewUser171924

    No problem - Remember they are only undervalued if there chance of winning dividends has been underestimated. At some point in the near future lots of traders will be holding futures in players that do not and have not returned dividends and as order books will be ion place you will only be able to sell them for much lower prices that will reflect there real chances of winning dividends.

    Even though FI has loads of room for growth I am predicting that order books will be the real game changer and you definitely do not want to be holding players that in real terms are overvalued.

    The forum is great for these discussions I learnt loads from other traders when I joined and lots of my profit is down to advice I received if no always taken :) good luck

  • What do you mean 3years .. maybe changing??

  • At the last traders meet it was mentioned that they are looking into the 3 year rule and hopefully would be able to announce something in the future. They have already allowed the few futures that have gone through 3 years to have a 1 year extension.

Log in to reply