Dividend Increase or Collapse



  • Having thought a great deal about the Q+A between The FIG and EJ I'm left with only one valid conclusion.

    Firstly :
    EJ makes a great point about turnover and sustainability - FI has to always remember that any new investors are only likely to remain , if they are able to initially afford a diverse portfolio giving interest in "big games".

    The valid solution offered being share splits as needed to enable the above. Initial affordability of a portfolio that sustains interest level and engagement (trade....FI profit).

    Secondly.
    Though EJ has politely suggested a rise in dividends to follow each required share split, not enough has been made of this in his excellent appraisal.
    On reflection what I now perceive is a "Silent Stand Off at 10 Paces" - Between FI and it's community of investors.

    FI has suggested a dividend increase with G&A, however this is neither an actual or productive increase imho. These are stipulated dividends that encourage short term trading and increase profit.
    They should be considered separately from conventional dividends.
    They're viability should be measured by FI, only based on "increase" in trade due to short term flips. Otherwise they are dipping into one productive pool of profit, to sustain another that has no long term viability (assuming prices remain in the £'s per share for players.
    As FI prices correct and balance these flips at commission costs become less and less viable - Surely we all begin to lose.

    Further investors old and new need to retain an interest, an incentive to trade and diverse portfolios beyond 30 days. After this point they still need to see "winnings" that are in line with their cost of investment.
    The period of stagnation (with dividends essentially decreasing with each competitive IPO and rising player price) has been more damaging than it should be, than it would have been if dividend payments were in some way tangible, rising with player prices (which is what share split, dividend rise, share split, dividend rise method ensures).

    One is compelled to increasingly ask an important question.

    Where is the revenue being spent ?

    I sincerely agree with EJ.
    This could and should be a win, win scenario.

    I don't agree we're limited to 10 share splits over a decade.
    I believe this is FOOTBALL, a "REVOLUTION" and I would suggest a "LEGACY" - 100 years of share splits, redundant bookies and FI shifts being household talk.

    The "Stand Off" I mentioned will, make no mistake, continue...whilst FI maintains "Any dividend amounts will be reduced accordingly", suggesting proportionality.

    That truly would be a sad, wasteful and epic fail on their parts, ours too for failing to make the case strongly enough.

    So I'm asking for us to reach a consensus that we would like to see this system in place.

    Share splits as needed to maintain (for new investors) an initial portfolio that is diverse and produces.
    Along with proportional dividend rises that ensures long term investment and long term growth...until we truly become the biggest and best, the world over.

    The economy is full of short term flips.
    This product, football index - We should all throw our confidence right behind it.

    FI should be able to afford this dividend cost.
    IF membership grows - trade grows, as should profit.

    If player prices rocket upwards and dividends do not, FI spins it's wheels and sinks.



  • Post of the day sir

    Take a bow



  • The last split there was 200 players. We had at that time one 5p mb payout after the split.ive said this before when people bring up needing a rise. We cant demand a split so we can pile into the top 5 cheap and then demand a rise to happen 2 weeks later. Dividend rise will happen. Last time, that rise was a year later and was introduced as a performance buzz that took the index to another level. Nobody has patience here, we cant have it all at once. There will be no collapse.. There wasnt with the piddly one 5p dividend and there wont be this time. Nothing has changed. Your one neymar you hold today wins 5p just like your 4 would post split if 4 ways. They have a plan, ive no doubt about it, just like they did last time around. I do think the rise maybe quicker due to so many more users today though, and this was a fantastic post to read, keep it up



  • @Finlay77 one thing I’ve been wondering is how the prices rose before the share split last time. Was it still £100 invested for each 1p rise? If so, is it likely to be the same after this split?



  • That's an incredibly long winded way to say that we all want a dividend rise. Whilst the market continues to fly upwards, there is no real pressure on FI to deliver one.

    Unfortunately you are wrong - a lot of new investors don't really understand dividends and just like to buy young players and watch them fly up. FI would probably get by fine without a rise for a long time.

    At some point the bubble would burst and they would have to act. Recent history (the heavily inflated prices before PB when 200 players fought it out for 5p) indicates they may well let the bubble get bar more bubbley before they bump up dividends.

    Hopefully not though



  • @mike778 i think it will be christmas 2019



  • @GregF

    Prices rise prior to a split, in anticipation of a general spike in prices once players "appear cheaper".
    Logically one assumes this to be the case for higher priced players, but may come at the expense of those on the lower end.

    My current understanding is that commission will be paid following share split in the same way. There should be increased trading though, and increased profit for FI.

    On which note I also think 2% on sales is not a good long term methodology.
    1% each on buys and sales makes more sense.
    Right now the incentive is to hold for longer, before selling and paying commission. Incentive to hold equals less trade in the long term.



  • Personally it would be brilliant if they could come up with a way to link dividends to commission generated by FI. So a percentage of FI's income would go into the dividend pot.

    This would more mirror a proper stock market as the profits of the company would be paid back to investors (providing they had the right players) more akin to a real dividend. The better FI did, the more was returned in dividends.

    I suspect this would cause problems though in relation to them being a gambling website (which is important to avoid capital gains tax) as it is no longer a fixed odds bet.



  • @C-Arroyo said in Dividend Increase or Collapse:

    @GregF

    Prices rise prior to a split, in anticipation of a general spike in prices once players "appear cheaper".
    Logically one assumes this to be the case for higher priced players, but may come at the expense of those on the lower end.

    My current understanding is that commission will be paid following share split in the same way. There should be increased trading though, and increased profit for FI.

    On which note I also think 2% on sales is not a good long term methodology.
    1% each on buys and sales makes more sense.
    Right now the incentive is to hold for longer, before selling and paying commission. Incentive to hold equals less trade in the long term.

    Makes no difference.

    Making it 1% on buys and 1% on sells would not encourage people to trade in and out of players. You may be more encouraged to sell (as commission is lower) but you will be less encouraged to buy (due to the buy charge). Net result is same. Hold the player as you don't want to pay 1% commission to sell and another 1% on your new buy.



  • @GregF ive never understood how they do that. If it was 4 ways i guess it means it would be £400 per penny rise maybe at such a reduced share price? If it remained the same pogba at 4.00 would become ten so quickly and within a month becomes 15 probably. What then? Another split as his price is too high yet again? I dont know to be honest mate, fi should just tell us when it is and by what factor. All the confusion and hanging is getting on alot of peoples nerves i think now



  • @mike778

    Is that a problem if proportionality is linked to "current player prices" - as opposed to FI trade profits ?

    I'm not too hot on legalese.
    We retain proportionality, but it's not directly "linked" with trade profits.
    I could understand it being a problem if it were directly linked to FI profits and dividends paid. It's a sustainability issue though - I think a critical factor in this product is that "all" members have the ability to take part in big games with big players.
    As long as they have one or two shares it's fine, as long as it's proportional - others can hold thousands.

    My post came after reflection.
    EJ makes the point better maybe.
    It's about maintaining those interest levels - even for the smallest investors. We need that to maximize potential.



  • @C-Arroyo agree 1% to buy and 1% to sell. Far better that way. The last period of time between split and pb introduction id say 95% of the index were deemed dead money and worthless. There will be madsive money to be made at the mid- bottom of the index for those with patience. Also last time we had one mb payout, now we have pb and g@a. 80p a share for lewandowski for g@a sounds good to me as you can get far more shares for your money



  • @mike778 said in Dividend Increase or Collapse:

    @C-Arroyo said in Dividend Increase or Collapse:

    @GregF

    Prices rise prior to a split, in anticipation of a general spike in prices once players "appear cheaper".
    Logically one assumes this to be the case for higher priced players, but may come at the expense of those on the lower end.

    My current understanding is that commission will be paid following share split in the same way. There should be increased trading though, and increased profit for FI.

    On which note I also think 2% on sales is not a good long term methodology.
    1% each on buys and sales makes more sense.
    Right now the incentive is to hold for longer, before selling and paying commission. Incentive to hold equals less trade in the long term.

    Makes no difference.

    Making it 1% on buys and 1% on sells would not encourage people to trade in and out of players. You may be more encouraged to sell (as commission is lower) but you will be less encouraged to buy (due to the buy charge). Net result is same. Hold the player as you don't want to pay 1% commission to sell and another 1% on your new buy.

    Exactly my point.
    Encourages more trade - More profit for FI.
    This post isn't a selfish one sided attempt.

    I would hope more profit from more frequent trade, makes a tangible dividend increase more affordable and sooner. Encouraging the hold isn't good for FI sustainability.



  • As a new player, being able to buy top players for cheaper totally would keep me here longer, I almost left for good. I see the share split as a very good thing.

    As a poker player, I see the dividends as a form of rakeback, receiving back a % of the commission appeals.



  • A sensible and relevant suggestion EJ made was to increase the number of dividend winners (as opposed to a rise in current). To have tiered winners for PB as is done on triple media days for MB winners.
    Top 3 forwards
    Top 3 mids
    Top 3 defs

    This seems to be the best way to go, a dividend increase can be factored into that, it has a long term benefit to members old and new, sharks and guppies. It increases trade in a larger pool of potential winners that changes based on form, injuries etc
    We could even be looking at top 10 winners in each section at some point in future - The more interest each of us has, the more diverse our portfolios, the more we'll get excited and trade, the more money FI will make in sustainable and long term commission.



  • @C-Arroyo said in Dividend Increase or Collapse:

    @mike778 said in Dividend Increase or Collapse:

    @C-Arroyo said in Dividend Increase or Collapse:

    @GregF

    Prices rise prior to a split, in anticipation of a general spike in prices once players "appear cheaper".
    Logically one assumes this to be the case for higher priced players, but may come at the expense of those on the lower end.

    My current understanding is that commission will be paid following share split in the same way. There should be increased trading though, and increased profit for FI.

    On which note I also think 2% on sales is not a good long term methodology.
    1% each on buys and sales makes more sense.
    Right now the incentive is to hold for longer, before selling and paying commission. Incentive to hold equals less trade in the long term.

    Makes no difference.

    Making it 1% on buys and 1% on sells would not encourage people to trade in and out of players. You may be more encouraged to sell (as commission is lower) but you will be less encouraged to buy (due to the buy charge). Net result is same. Hold the player as you don't want to pay 1% commission to sell and another 1% on your new buy.

    Exactly my point.
    Encourages more trade - More profit for FI.
    This post isn't a selfish one sided attempt.

    I would hope more profit from more frequent trade, makes a tangible dividend increase more affordable and sooner. Encouraging the hold isn't good for FI sustainability.

    No it doesn't encourage more trading.

    If you are charged (1%) to buy a player, you might as well keep hold of your existing hold.

    All it does is making it slightly more expensive for people joining the index and buying future and slightly cheaper to leave the index.



  • @C-Arroyo said in Dividend Increase or Collapse:

    A sensible and relevant suggestion EJ made was to increase the number of dividend winners (as opposed to a rise in current). To have tiered winners for PB as is done on triple media days for MB winners.
    Top 3 forwards
    Top 3 mids
    Top 3 defs

    This seems to be the best way to go, a dividend increase can be factored into that, it has a long term benefit to members old and new, sharks and guppies. It increases trade in a larger pool of potential winners that changes based on form, injuries etc
    We could even be looking at top 10 winners in each section at some point in future - The more interest each of us has, the more diverse our portfolios, the more we'll get excited and trade, the more money FI will make in sustainable and long term commission.

    FI have clearly refused this. They stated as such on the podcast.

    They don't want to water down the dividends.



  • @mike778

    No.
    What you said is correct about new members or members leaving.
    That shouldn't constitute a majority - even combined.

    So the majority - long term traders have an incentive to hold longer, less trade, marginal for the individual. Significant for FI



  • @mike778

    Yes and if you keep quoting them they'll assume as traders we accept that, along with a proportional dividend decrease to follow any share split.

    If EJ goes you'll take a hit, I'll take a hit.
    I'd rather we all stay !



  • @MrWh1te said in Dividend Increase or Collapse:

    As a new player, being able to buy top players for cheaper totally would keep me here longer, I almost left for good. I see the share split as a very good thing.

    I'm glad you joined the conversation.
    It's the point EJ made unselfishly.
    I agree it's critical long term, share splits being a must for the average "punter" to take part and retain interest.

    Honestly though - I feel a share split will only result in short term and unsustainable trading/growth.
    There'll simply be another rise and fall - as with deposit bonuses.

    The clever thing is to increase membership, retain membership and increase sustainable long term incentives to trade.

    I could only now at this time recommend others "risk" their money following a dividend rise.
    I will keep my money here, however I will not encourage others based on a share split or deposit bonus and certainly not on a 2p dividend that will cost you 4p to sell.


Log in to reply