๐Ÿšจ#FigCast Ep. 74. ๐Ÿšจ SHARE SPLIT EVE Ft. The great @TallbobFi ๐Ÿ˜€



  • Discussed:
    ๐Ÿ‘‰Share split (duh) ๐Ÿš€
    ๐Ÿ‘‰Dividend rise ๐Ÿ‘€๐Ÿ™
    ๐Ÿ‘‰ #FootballIndex communication๐Ÿ—ฃ
    ๐Ÿ‘‰Tech issues ๐Ÿ˜ต

    All this and more!

    Listen๐Ÿ‘‚๐Ÿ”—: https://footballindexguidepodcast.fireside.fm/74

    You can also listen on:

    ๐ŸŽ iTunes/iOS: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/football-index-podcast/id1291934749?mt=2๐ŸŽ

    โ‡๏ธSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2TrKFOCRUcGtfQ70zlbtD1โ‡๏ธ

    ๐Ÿ‘‰Castbox, pocketcasts, overcast or wherever you listen to podcasts! ๐Ÿ™



  • @The-FIG

    Enjoyed that - keep up the good work

    One slightly unrelated question
    On the bank builder videos, you have a portfolio roughly ยฃ850 which i'm assuming is not your main portfolio.
    Is this something that has been sanctioned by FI?



  • @Advinculas-Index Hey mate. Thanks for your kind words!

    Yep, this was a bonus account set up in collab with FI :)



  • @The-FIG
    Ah! i thought as much 0_1552910364385_upload-19254e70-1bab-4616-9c99-4115128130a2



  • @The-FIG

    Good episode.

    Have to disagree with your stance on IPD though... think a large part of the market is cornering gamblers that have moved away from betting to the Index. The constant income from IPDs is a psychological benefit -> I think Bob briefly mentioned the counter argument along the lines of, you can have a baron spell of PB/MB even if you have a diverse portfolio theoretically covering both...so at least having a small tangible return on IPD is a boost that keeps you hooked.

    I think maybe a change could be to remove the 30 day nature, so it is more in line with their values (long term investment, not a bet)โ€ฆ maybe reduce the payout, but remove the time limit on it. The other aspect, without IPD, there could be such a huge price gap between dividend winners and non-winners.



  • @Vespasian32 I think removing the time limit on it isn't possible as it would essentially be an unlimited liability, for the whole of the players' career for FI (which I'm not sure is allowed on a reg side, and would be awful for their books)

    Whilst I take your point that gamblers need to be cornered, that comes with time and isn't instantaneous. My reasons for potentially getting rid of IPD come July when time comes are:

    --> If FI are looking at opening the squad up for example, to decrease complexity of the product, that to me shows that their testing has concluded the product itself is too complex. Whilst IPD's are simple to understand, they're not in the context of Football Index, when you have all these other moving parts.
    --> PB is the USP, with MB giving it a 365 day a year feel (something gambling can't do). I already think FI have the tools at hand to disrupt gambling massively. They just need to be iterated upon (MB and PB scoring matrix, opening up MB, MB to be sourced from all papers not just UK ones for example.) I don't really get why, if the selling point of your product is 25% finish, start something fresh (IPD) when the original focal points aren't complete yet.
    --> A lot of people talk about the volatility and trading it creates. I'm not sure the margins are very big for FI with IPD considering the liability. Add that to the manual nature of the payouts, I question whether the commission outweighs the payouts + man hours involved to provide the payouts.
    --> Other companies are going to do the in play side more successfully

    I do understand why people like them in isolation, but for me with FI it doesn't quite feel right. It gives me confidence, that although I'd question FI's long term vision if they were kept or increased- others don't which would mean it isn't a deal breaker!


Log in to reply