Leverkusen--brandt/havertz



  • @NewUser67492 I think havertz has room to grow (rightly or wrongly in terms of divs)... As I said in another thread, during the open mic night... When asked about wonderkids, Havertz was the first name mentioned by all analysts and speakers. I think he is getting a lot of recognition across Europe. A good EL campaign could make him really hot property.



  • I think both are overpriced.
    For me the stand out player at present is Jonathan Tah at £1.43



  • @C-Arroyo I wouldn’t have any leverkusen defenders due to them being incapable of keeping a clean sheet. It’s probably due to the attacking nature of the team but still



  • Brandt signed a new 4 yr deal in the summer. But seeing as contracts mean nothing anymore its a guaranteed top price transfer. Id love to see brandt at liverpool, would be awesome in the prem. I do wonder if bayern get him though. Both players look like getting world class status and to fear a new germany in the future. Kroos goretzka reus havertz brandt. Thats some midfield 5 with sane on the bench. As for being too pricey, share split is going to chop their prices handsomely. Brandt around a quid!! Havertz just under £2



  • @Finlay77

    I could be mistaken but I expect dividends to be lowered in proportion to share split.
    If that happens I don't see any increase in value as each drops to £1 and £2 respectively.
    One would simply have to hold four times the amount of futures to earn the same return in dividends.

    In regard to compound growth I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is 100% general increase very suddenly, in response to shares costing less.
    I simply expect a longer period of stagnation once it settles, with investors holding a higher number of futures, which essentially return less in dividends (at inflated purchase prices).

    For me the two aspects are very much linked together, the tv and radio adverts have been out for some time now. I think the level of growth, due to to being a new product (nationwide) has peaked and is closer to saturation.

    On dividends :
    FI says that past payments have been "generous".

    In response to which I say :
    FI was able to afford them, FI hasn't gone bust as a result of paying them, FI has grown as a company in that time (by their own admission) and increased other expenses like marketing and staff.

    Based on the above points - why change a system that has worked ?
    Why essentially lower the dividends (by not raising them in proportion to future prices) ?
    Why "stop" being so generous ?

    Now is critical time.
    As "a large company" FI is going to try to maximize it's profits, whilst maintaining and growing it's customer based.

    We need to decide if that customer base is going to be made up of investors trying to make money, or gamblers happy to throw it away.
    Right now I simply believe FI is at a point where it's trying to see how much it can get away with (or how little in regard to dividends paid to customers).

    Dividends paid at future prices 12 months ago didn't damage or ruin the company.
    Why are so many forum members content with seeing dividends stay the same as player prices rise ?

    The cost of the investment has essentially doubled every 3/4 months (while returns haven't risen in proportion).
    It is naive, not to expect stagnation in growth at some point.
    Only fools would buy Pogba at £100 to get a 1p return.
    That is the direction in which we are going, even though we're far from that.

    I think we've already stagnated, we're due a dividend rise as well as a share split.
    4 fold - In line with increases in trade, commission, membership and player prices.
    The only growth we've seen this past few months has been due to deposit bonuses, in play dividends and this coming share split - each of those provides only short term stimulation to the market and aren't sustainable ways of maintaining growth.

    I hadn't planned on bringing up dividends on this thread.
    However I'm compelled to do so when someone else bring up the share split.
    Again - the two are tied together.
    Havertz and Brandt are not better value players because they cost less to buy - In order to asses value, we have to factor in the potential for dividend returns.
    The compound growth aspect of past ROI isn't relevant. That has been to date a result of FI growing as a product, not individual player merit (to a large extent). Those profits these past 2/3 years seem to be blinding people to accept lower and lower dividends.
    An annual reduction from 19.3% to 4.4% has been projected based on current player prices. That will hit everyone hard, even those who have the best portfolio's.

    I worry about what happens after that - I think raising dividends sooner, as opposed to later could be worth it for FI.
    I'm concerned that people will pay £1.50 for Brandt, £3 for Havertz and be holding them for 12 months on a stagnant market - If I'm not mistaken both have only won a single dividend each - A dividend return of less than 5% a year.

    That puts the product, it's reputation and compound growth returns at risk.



  • @C-Arroyo thorough and thought out post, and makes for interesting reading. I agree with the theory behind it, although the one thing I would adjust is the timelines.
    Personally I don't think we're near saturation - If we were then there would be no point doing the sharesplit, as it wouldn't stimulate any more growth. It would still be the same traders investing the same money. I think there is another 12-18 months of growth, and I'm expecting a slow down between 18 and 24 months. For me, I am banking on the prices rising to the same levels they are now, just for lower dividends.
    On the subject of Dividends, I too expect an increase will happen although not in line with the share split. I think its likely to be either at the end of the season to try and minimise the effect of leagues finishing, or during the summer to keep people interested in more than just a long transfer window.



  • I sincerely hope you're correct, for the sake of all new members currently investing in Havertz.

    He was my own first "big investment" at 90p.
    I'm good with 100% profit in less than 12 months on any single player.

    I do think though that young attack minded players are over inflated, in comparison to more defensive players (not merited by media attention).
    An example being Tah/Havertz. Both are gifted young Germans with 4/2 caps respectively. I think both are equally likely to join a top PL club in future (both previously linked to Liverpool/City.
    In the real world the value of the attacker is double the value of the defender. However on FI Havertz is 6 times the cost of Tah.
    Right now I'm holding more defenders. After a world cup win I'm not surprised to see another past hold continue to rise in Mbappe, what surprises me is that Varane, Umtiti and Hernandez (as well as Bayern bound Pavard) have all stayed below £2.
    Mbappe may win more dividends than the others combined, but I think it's a high risk strategy that will be dependent on winning media dividends to justify value.

    My advice to new investors at present would be to build a portfolio of top defenders initially.
    Look to cherry pick from expensive young attackers only once familiar with FI volatility and dividend structure.
    This should avoid early losses or frustrating long term holds.



  • @C-Arroyo in my friendship network I have struggled now to find anyone new to get into FI and that matches your concerns of saturation.
    It does take quite a unique person to be into FI...needs to have spare money, needs to be interested in football, needs to be interested in the stock market style (so understand a market) and needs to be a bit of a gambler.
    My financial mates have ruled it out due to lack of footy knowledge.
    My footy mates have ruled it out due to lack of market knowledge.
    And lots ruled it out as they wouldn't ever gamble- they accept the shitty bank rates for security.
    So word of mouth, radio adverts, tv adverts, sign up bonuses and referrals may have already played their part. Same thing happened with Coinbet I seem to remember. Everyone struggled to get their money out when at good profit due to lack of new buyers.
    The SS is crucial in keeping it alive. Better dividends might persuade the more financial minded.



  • @Westy

    My cousin is an anti capitalist who is bored by football.

    12 months ago he invested every spare penny on my suggestion.
    On a fairly random portfolio from Pogba to Smalling.
    With a return of around 200% in compound growth and a welcome addition of dividends.
    Aside from short term stimulants I haven't seen that sort of growth in around 6 months.

    As such were I going to encourage new members to join, it wouldn't be on the expectation of compound growth (unless it were a short term flip due to short term market stimulants, based on good timing). It wouldn't be on footballing knowledge (for this reason I would prefer to scrap media dividends altogether - make it about the football and merit player performances).
    Profits can be made now through Index familiarity, regular observation and trading on the basis of volatility and value in relation to dividend returns.

    12 months ago I encouraged my parents to invest.
    I would not be doing so today.
    If dividends were raised in proportion to player prices, at the level of 12 months ago - maintaining a 19% general annual return - then I would happily continue with free marketing on behalf of FI.

    I know I'm not alone in this regard.
    I read more and more people saying what we've just said.
    Many are new members, an increasing number of short term losses and portfolio's in the red. Resulting in negative feedback and marketing.

    6 weeks after the share split - That's my main concern.
    What happens to new members who arrive late to that party.
    We lost a few after deposit bonuses, there'll be more this time around.
    I don't think 19% is generous at all - It's reasonable, marketable and sustainable.
    4.4% is a joke frankly and anyone is better with money in a high st bank (growth aside).

    You're bang on - 4.4% creates a niche market of individuals who enjoy trading stock and watching football.

    However 19.3% adds parents, cousins, friends, my accountant and my local branch manager (we went to school together) as well as all those masses the buses and billboards are supposedly targeting.

    I was screaming at people to buy Havertz at 90p.
    The only way I could be as enthusiastic about buying him at £9 is if dividends were x10 what they then were.

    There's better value elsewhere now (Sterling at £8), but the drop in value has been a general one across the index.
    I'm not buying at £9, but more importantly I will not be encouraging others to buy at £90.

    Not unless AC is able to persuade his company to maintain the 19% figure he said he's like to retain/improve (I don't doubt the sincerity of those who built this product over a friendly pint).
    He followed that point at the trader meet, by thanking the new board for the work they've done.
    Every Gooner knows what it's like to sit around doing sod all for a decade because some grey haired guy with an economics degree is a master at pinching pennies from many to increase profit for the few.



  • 4% interest on an investment is pretty good isn't it? Same as decent shares, better than money in a bank, & interest rates aren't likely to rise. Then there's player price rises on top - which is down to individual choices. Plus football is a proven product; unlike coins, & coins were all about price rises. I'd rather own a Peter Crouch share than a Kanye West coin. Plus the whole thing is fun anyway.



  • @pwp24 Just what i was thinking. I’d love to know what high street bank is paying out 4.4% interest. I haven’t seen any sort of return like that on cash since pre-2008



  • @Coleyscrooge for those putting around £250 in per month they can get 5% regular savings...



  • @Westy said in Leverkusen--brandt/havertz:

    @Coleyscrooge for those putting around £250 in per month they can get 5% regular savings...

    Yep I have that with Nationwide.



  • @kristiang85 yeh so 4.4% with risk involved is going to turn some away.



  • @Westy presumably capped therefore at £3,000 per year? And subject to income tax? FI returns are uncapped and not taxed.



  • @C-Arroyo Good post. However, MB has to stay. When there are no eligible matches, how do you make money? As it's a treble win, it keeps things interesting.



  • @Londoner MB definitely has to stay. Otherwise this whole thing may just not exist over the summer!



  • @Londoner

    Hadn't really looked at things that way.
    So I can see the benefit on non-match days.

    I'm inclined to think that the daily dividend drives up the price of a few individuals too much.
    It's great to hear us being discussed more on talk sport.
    I just think we're wasting a lot of potential.
    If every time we're given radio air-time in future we're simply repeating how many pence Pogba has moved in any individual week it gets boring. I think hosts and pundits will engage far more if we're discussing players who've had star performances - Kingsley Coman this past week for example.
    We have associates like Motty and Balague who are regular contributors to written media and tv as well as radio. More and more influential people are taking an interest and talking about current prices.

    Does it do any of us good long term if we keep returning to the same player, or select group for months on end ?

    One of the best aspects of FI imo is the use of Opta.
    It's data driven and is a great measure by which player values correct and balance, based on relevant factors.

    I read a question on the forum this past few days...
    Are media allowed to invest ?
    This alone is good reason to do away with it or reduce to non match days only.
    The media is interested, they want to engage and invest, they've indicated this at present on talk sport. That gives us great potential to be a household name (talked about by half time panels) and even the media themselves.
    FI saves itself huge marketing costs and we entertain years and years of global exponential growth.

    Opta is an asset, Media dividends could become a hindrance.
    If it were purely Opta, anyone could invest and push the product. The only people who could be accused of manipulating prices being the players themselves, as well as the managers who select them.



  • @C-Arroyo well I got that badly wrong 😂


Log in to reply