Read on Twitter
FI UPDATE THREAD
It's 'Thread-Day' on #footballindex Twitter and since I'm yet to read anything that reflects my feelings I thought I'd join the party.
I thought it had more positives than negatives, and I was surprised and relieved to see such focus on FI's business model.
It's 'Thread-Day' on #footballindex Twitter and since I'm yet to read anything that reflects my feelings I thought I'd join the party.
I thought it had more positives than negatives, and I was surprised and relieved to see such focus on FI's business model.
2/
My immediate reaction last night was very positive, but I admit to having misread the part about share issuance and subsequently deleted a 'home run' gif I'd posted.
The share issuance details dampens my enthusiasm somewhat, but overall I still consider it a net positive.
My immediate reaction last night was very positive, but I admit to having misread the part about share issuance and subsequently deleted a 'home run' gif I'd posted.
The share issuance details dampens my enthusiasm somewhat, but overall I still consider it a net positive.
3/
This update was never about divs or IPD compensation for me.
The IPD decision demonstrated that for FI the ends justify the means, so I wanted to know the IPD loss was at least contributing to a move towards a more sustainable business model.
I think this threatens that.
This update was never about divs or IPD compensation for me.
The IPD decision demonstrated that for FI the ends justify the means, so I wanted to know the IPD loss was at least contributing to a move towards a more sustainable business model.
I think this threatens that.
4/
This also acknowledges what we should now accept: FI's business model is still a work in progress, and there is little point pretending otherwise.
Until this nears completion I have come to accept that there is still scope for significant change to the way FI operates.
This also acknowledges what we should now accept: FI's business model is still a work in progress, and there is little point pretending otherwise.
Until this nears completion I have come to accept that there is still scope for significant change to the way FI operates.
5/
It is through this lens that I am assessing this update.
MDE looks ok, although is in no way adequate compensation for IPDs, and it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
But for me the share cap and issuance update are key as they address FI's need for sustainability.
It is through this lens that I am assessing this update.
MDE looks ok, although is in no way adequate compensation for IPDs, and it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
But for me the share cap and issuance update are key as they address FI's need for sustainability.
6/ SUPPLY CAP
I've seen people question the need for this and it baffles me.
If every FI trader bought and held until retirement, valuing purely on IV and effectively betting exclusively against the house, supply would be a non-issue.
But this isn't the case.
I've seen people question the need for this and it baffles me.
If every FI trader bought and held until retirement, valuing purely on IV and effectively betting exclusively against the house, supply would be a non-issue.
But this isn't the case.
7/ SUPPLY CAP
Anybody looking to trade in and out of players is impacted by supply, as the larger number of shares, the more competition there can potentially be to sell.
We've seen this already - the players with most shares are by far the most volatile. It's irrefutable.
Anybody looking to trade in and out of players is impacted by supply, as the larger number of shares, the more competition there can potentially be to sell.
We've seen this already - the players with most shares are by far the most volatile. It's irrefutable.
8/ SUPPLY CAP
The ÂŁ1m cap will have little immediate impact - only Sancho is close and it'll still be some time before he reaches it.
But a lower benchmark would force FI to buy back shares of premiums, which would have been better for the market, but is probably unaffordable.
The ÂŁ1m cap will have little immediate impact - only Sancho is close and it'll still be some time before he reaches it.
But a lower benchmark would force FI to buy back shares of premiums, which would have been better for the market, but is probably unaffordable.
9/ SUPPLY CAP
So at this stage the cap is primarily a signal of intent - they want to create scarcity at the top end to help drive up prices once the market is healthier and new money increases demand.
This should be a huge positive for premium holders long-term.
So at this stage the cap is primarily a signal of intent - they want to create scarcity at the top end to help drive up prices once the market is healthier and new money increases demand.
This should be a huge positive for premium holders long-term.
10/ SHARE ISSUANCE
I'm still unclear how this will work, but it seems that FI will now be actively minting below peak.
This isn't good from a trading perspective as it adds another barrier to selling, but it's an acknowledgement that commission wasn't enough to cover costs.
I'm still unclear how this will work, but it seems that FI will now be actively minting below peak.
This isn't good from a trading perspective as it adds another barrier to selling, but it's an acknowledgement that commission wasn't enough to cover costs.
11/ SHARE ISSUANCE
This is very much an 'ends justify the means' move and one I reluctantly accept.
Ultimately I suspect it could have been a choice between this or eventually reducing PB/MB, in which case my assumption is most traders would want to retain the dividends.
This is very much an 'ends justify the means' move and one I reluctantly accept.
Ultimately I suspect it could have been a choice between this or eventually reducing PB/MB, in which case my assumption is most traders would want to retain the dividends.
12/ MATCH DAY EXTRA DIVS
Positives: I think this offers holders more predictable and regular returns and reaches a wider % of the player pool. It should also be affordable and easy to budget for FI.
PB players and DEFs that score/assist should benefit. This is also ok for GKs.
Positives: I think this offers holders more predictable and regular returns and reaches a wider % of the player pool. It should also be affordable and easy to budget for FI.
PB players and DEFs that score/assist should benefit. This is also ok for GKs.
13/ MATCH DAY EXTRA DIVS
Negatives: I don't think it significantly adds to the marketability of FI and doesn't come close to compensating for IPDs.
Those with pure IPD players (goalscorers) are probably forced to hold and hope for the odd high PB score (hello Luis
).
Negatives: I don't think it significantly adds to the marketability of FI and doesn't come close to compensating for IPDs.
Those with pure IPD players (goalscorers) are probably forced to hold and hope for the odd high PB score (hello Luis
).
14/
Overall I thought it was an adequate response to the position FI is in.
Not particularly generous, but more than sensible.
I don't expect a significant impact on the current market, but I think it provides stronger foundations for future growth.
Right now I'll take that.
Overall I thought it was an adequate response to the position FI is in.
Not particularly generous, but more than sensible.
I don't expect a significant impact on the current market, but I think it provides stronger foundations for future growth.
Right now I'll take that.
