Aissa Mandi - Real Betis - 46p
Rumours now that Setien wants him at Barca (earlier rumours of Atletico and also West Ham...). Scored well for PB under Setien at Betis and has dropped off since he left.
Anyone know the reason for the sizeable drop? Always wanted to get on given his PB potential so took this as the opportunity to do so. Given the dividend increase and the fact it looks like he is stalling on a contract with Bremen, shouldn’t there be some growth in this guy? Longish term hold for me in all likelihood plus dividends, so just interested in people’s thoughts at this stage.
@Vaughany Looks like Zapata got injured on international break (abductor strain) - Atalanta boss is not happy that he will miss the Man City game. Could be a good chance for Muriel to show what he has on the big stage - think they will start with him and Illicic up front. Muriel currently trading at 82p and Atalanta have lazio, Man City, udinese, Napoli and Cagliari up next, followed by the return leg at City. He has scored a goal every 60 minutes so far this season (albeit mostly off the bench), so definitely has a goal or 2 in him.
Like Dabbur too - can’t imagine he is going to stick around at Sevilla in January given it doesn’t look as if he suits lopetegui’s style, but he can definitely score goals in another Pb league with the right transfer. Picked up a couple of goals for Israel last week as well.
Just wondering thoughts on this guy? I know he didn’t make the grade at Leicester, but was decent at Monaco and better at Lyon before that. On loan at fiorentina for the season and has been brought into the fold for the past couple of games now he is back to match sharpness. Not suggesting he is the next rocket man, but surely you can’t go too far wrong at 29p? Anyway - not suggesting you all go out and buy so I make a tidy profit (picked up 900 this evening at 28p), although feel free to do so if you want to (!) - but interested to hear if anyone thinks I’ve been smoking too much of the good stuff....
I’m not being negative. I actually think the net spend bonus in 2 phases is a great idea (certainly the best deposit bonus they have ever done), and will bring a good amount of growth which will be stable for a decent period. So I’m a happy bunny and think FI deserve a pat on the back for a well structured bonus.
But, doesn’t the huge rise in the top end players (who are the dividend generators) just add more credibility to those on the forum who are pushing for higher dividends? Effectively it is the market saying that at a 10% discount, neymar looks attractive as a dividend yield prospect - when that yield didn’t look appealing enough previously. That would be the logic for the major rises being in the dividend players vs. the cap app players.
Think something will be done on divis in the medium term, but it’s interesting to see the dividend yield requirements of traders on those most guaranteed to win consistent dividends (historically being Neymar, Pogba, Messi, etc).
@NewUser159387 agree with you, and this isn’t a scaremongering thing at all. Ultimately I also see a good future for the market - otherwise I wouldn’t still be here. I guess I wanted to stimulate a discussion on IS and also a framing of the arguments around what FI could do to change the current trend. They are profitable and there are enough players who don’t earn anything to support the Pogbas and the Neymars. But if there was (in an apocalypse!) a mass IS of Pogba and Neymar (for example), my gut feel is that would create a problem for FI from a liquidity perspective. Removing that risk through order books (as you say) should change the dynamic a little bit and allow further expansion of the platform.
Glad to see I’m not crazy with my principle argument from the first couple of comments (even if my numbers were wrong!)
@Vespasian32 you’re 100% right. That being said, the maths look progressively better but still not great. Agree it’s great if people are buying from each other. But the IS risk still remains from them, and I guess that is more my thought / concern.
I’ve been quietly reading all of the posts on the current state of the platform, and the general fear around the way things seem to be developing. I’ve been here since September 2017 and have just over tripled my money, so can’t really complain in any way whatsoever - what other platform could I realistically have achieved that in. But I do find myself having sympathy for those who are showing genuine concern over the direction this platform is going in and are contemplating withdrawing funds.
A lot of people point out that this is not an investment platform, but a gambling site. I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. When I joined FI it was on the logic that I saw a product that I thought would appeal to the masses, as it allowed you to make consistent profit for football knowledge with a significant militant to downside risk (you wouldn’t make the equivalent of 5-1 on a weekend, but you also wouldn’t lose your stake if you got it wrong). Add on dividends and you had an investment style product (with true underlying value due to dividend potential) with the investment rationale based on your football instincts. Simple economics - more people join, more money flows in, prices increase. It’s just inflation. My bet was on inflation of the product, which means my bet was really on the FI teams ability to attract and retain users, rather than any particular player. That is what the footie represents, and to be fair, that hasn’t performed too badly (!) over the past few months and years. With all their marketing, partnerships and exposure, FI have thus far met their side of the deal in regard to growing and maintaining the user base of the platform.
The problem I now have is simple. The lack of transparency from management in terms of strategic direction means that I don’t know whether I have a future in this market anymore (as a fairly passive trader). I would wager that the majority of early users (the majority, not all, before I get jumped on!) are longer term, mainly pretty passive investors who got involved in this platform on a not dissimilar basis to me - long term growth potential as a platform. We can afford to be at the prices we bought in at. That absolutely requires short term gambling - the long term growth isn’t sustainable without the volume of users that new mentality brings with it. Maybe we shouldn’t be able to profit anymore - the gravy train has stopped and it is only right to accept that - but let’s assume for a second it hasn’t and think about how it could continue.
The real question is whether FI are able to sustain a business which supports both the short term gambling mentality and the longer term investment mentality. To do that, they need to enhance MB and PB, and probably increase commission (it is that and IPO proceeds which pay for dividends, and (would you believe this is a consideration.....) actually enable FI to make a profit and establish themselves as a long term, sustainable gambling platform). So how do they do that? They aren’t a money tree...
There is an argument to remove the IS option. I love this option - for all the talk of spreads (which I don’t think are OTT given the level of growth in these “shares” historically), it provides guaranteed liquidity in the market which should command a huge huge premium. BUT - it is a threat to the FI business model. Most of the MB, and (albeit to a lesser extent) PB is generated by a comparatively small group of players. These players therefore rocket in price. Let’s run a simple analysis (these numbers are dummies as I don’t have the real ones to hand - if anyone wants to input the actual numbers, I would be really interested to see the results):
Pogba IPOs for 50p. FI get 50p
Pogba generates £4.50 of dividends over 3 years.
Pogba price increases to £7 over 3 years.
You IS one day before the 3 year period expires at 6.50.
What is the economics for FI there? They receive £0.5, and have paid out £11.00, before their commission) over 3 years. To break even as a business, they need to have IPOd another 20-odd players who haven’t increased in price or earned any dividends. Put in that context, that seems pretty rough on FI.
And...., it shows the issue with IS. For FI, the reserves they need to hold to ensure that they can meet their role as liquidity provider are crazy. All because of the top end of the market. If that wasn’t an option, maybe they could be a bit free and easier with cash and increase dividends. I wonder what the reaction would be to this....
Clearly though, people who right now want to bail out of the top end players by using IS are effectively making the situation worse for both FI and users. These are exactly the players who FI shouldn’t want to be IS’d - that commission and spread are pretty meaningless in the context of the overall loss FI are seeing on the bet (and the decrease in their liquidity reserves). And that risk has to weigh heavy on their shoulders - if there was a possibility that FI couldn’t pay out on IS in the medium term (I mean for longer than and IS suspension), I think the resultant impact on the confidence in the market could end up with this platform going away completely.
What is the point of this excessive ramble, you might ask? To be honest, I’m not 100% clear myself - was just putting my thoughts down on the train on the way to work (so apologies if it is a little disjointed!). But I do think it raises the fact that, as long term traders, we need to question HOW FI can make the changes that work for us, and what we are prepared to forgo to help them do that. Just moaning isn’t the way forward, even if the moaning is hitting the relevant point. Also, a degree of collective positive action towards the platform will ultimately reap profit for us all. Jumping ship now probably isn’t the best thing to be doing - event if an awful lot of us are considering it. Right - I’m done. Thanks for reading and apologies for boring you all!!
Looks like your connection to Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.