This it the point. They really should be more clear (EMIs generally) on this point.
1 Like
It really should, but I guess wording and choice of what to make very clear etc can impact confidence.
Surprisingly though. I do see many people through work who have revolut accounts, no specific age demographic either. Many elderly folk for sure.
1 Like
Is that because they feel Revolut are too big to fail now? Or the size of the organisation engenders an element of trust?
The customers I deal with at work (a high street bank, fraud) are generally happy with Revolut.
Generally older folk are more inclined to stick with a high street bank cuz FSCS or ease of service, but it is enlightening to see those who frequent revolut.
1 Like
Terribly worded. If you didn’t know better then you’d think you’re getting better protection by not being a bank, which is far from the case.
3 Likes
I completely agree. If I didn’t know better I would think great, I can stick £100k in there and it’d all be safe. Revolut are similar, as I imagine a lot of other EMIs.
On a seperate note, I’ve got it as a “backup” for an upcoming holiday, but also because unless chase opens its doors this is for me the right mix of fintech and simplicity. They are starting to work on some new features, and If I hear back I’ll let folks know here on progress.
Well to some degree they aren’t wrong - you could have 100k with a bank and lose the excess and 100k with an EMI and lose some to the administrators. Whether it’s more or less than that differential is of course a rather unknown quantity.
1 Like
I personally think there is a difference. You know for sure 85k is protected. You have no such guarantee with any administrators.
Also EIM’s can’t lend or use the money for investment. So I can’t understand why any financial organisation would want to stay in that position any longer than they have to.
2 Likes
Yes true - they’re using the sum of 100k to further their own representation but it is of course quite risky to keep over 85k with one bank for a prolonged period of time. The amount you could stand to lose is a clearly stated sum. With an EMI the administration risk (totally different risk) applies to all values and is pretty unquantified.
Exactly, which is why I feel the statement that Algbra made regarding the security of your money is potentially misleading.
I appreciate everyone’s individual risk appetite is different but they should be clearer.
1 Like