Crowdcube request to change Investor Nominee Terms

(Sajid Sabir) #65

If there isn’t much difference to the way things are being done now then why the change. Seems like Crowdcube just want to be able to make more fees out of investors to keep it’s own investors happy. It’s me who put my money in and I am taking the risk of the investment, not Crowdcube, therefore why should I give up my voting rights.

(Gio) #66

I voted NO.

(Jamie 🏳️‍🌈) #67

Two hours later:

So much for a consensus then.

(Gio) #68

I ended up voting no due to after digging through the texts realising that the new term removes rights, add fees, gives you less control in general, making you more susceptible to Crowdcube sole decisions on everyone’s behalf, giving them the opportunity to poll the nominees, or not. And that’s enough for me. Is it enough for you? What were your conclusions from reading the terms? Please share.

The biggest RED ALERT is the fees, more specifically the text:

  • Crowdcube may from time to time charge the Investor fees and expenses for providing the services under this Agreement. Any such fees and expenses shall be exclusive of any fees and expenses which are covered by the Investor Terms.

Does this mean that if they decided to, potentially they could create a 10% fee on ‘withdrawls’ when you get your shares value paid from Monzo’s IPO ? I guess so . . .

Another BIG RED ALERT is:

  • Save in respect of the Crowdcube’s fraud, negligence or breach, neither Crowdcube nor the Nominee shall have any liability whatsoever to the Investor and, subject to applicable law and regulation, may use any assets it holds on trust to cover any loss, liability, damages, costs and expenses incurred or suffered by Crowdcube in the due performance of its rights and obligations under this Agreement.

Does this mean that if we feel we’ve been wronged by Crowdcube (other than fraud, negligence or breach), and we take them to court, and we win, they will use our shares to pay us our claims, since they have no liability whatsoever?

On the same note, on the new text, they really like to make it very difficult for you to open a claim against them:

  • The Investor shall indemnify and keep indemnified Crowdcube, the Nominee and their respective / its directors, officers, employees, agents and shareholders from and against all claims, actions, proceedings, demands, damages, liabilities, losses, settlements, judgements, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which arise out of, directly or indirectly, any act or omission of the Investor, any breach of clause 8(a) or any breach of warranty by the Investor in clause 8(b).


Is there a HELL NO option?


This is my concern, let’s be realistic here people Monzo shares held in nominee must be worth an absolute fortune, I imagine Crowdcube is drooling just thinking of the % fees they can charge against us.

My advice Monzo, take the shares out of nominee and manage them yourselves.

And if you can’t do that then let Freetrade manage them, I hear they charge £0 fees :+1:

(Tom ) #71

Unfortunately that’s not possible, until such time that Monzo IPO anyway.

(Jamie 🏳️‍🌈) #72

I haven’t yet read the changes, I’ve been working.

When you used the word “consensus”, I was expecting debate, views put forward and challenged, and some sort of collective decision for the benefit of the majority.

After the mess on this forum this weekend, I was actually heartened by your community–spiritedness, which seemed to be for the benefit of people less able to understand the complex proposal. I didn’t expect less than two hours of minimal discussion, taking place whilst most were at work.

A disappointment really, but not the end of the world.


Did you get a lawyer to read through the initial terms, maybe they could explain the differences?


Freetrade manage their own shares, not held in nominee- not sure why Monzo chose this path.


I also need to read thoroughly tonight but from the above posts it looks like Crowdcube are looking for carte blanc to do what they want, when they want with our money.

Not happy with that thought.

(Dan) #76

To avoid a Confirmation Statement like this one :face_vomiting:

The nominee structure saves a lot of admin.

(Emma (still not the app)) #77

My heart goes out to their admin who had to do all that :cold_sweat:


Damn right this is how it should be - nice solid name against shares on the register, no ambiguity, no “voting on my behalf” - look right there, those are my shares.

So it’s an overhead - Monzo are big enough now.

If I recall it costs Monzo £10 a year to pay Crowdcube per shareholder, what are we now 36,000 share holders? £360,000 a year? Can’t we hire a team to do the work for that money?



I am less than impressed with the new terms, although admittedly I’ve not spent the time to compare them with those that I have already agreed to in order to understand the exact changes.

Quite frankly given that the value of the shares that Crowdcube manage on my behalf has changed significantly since 2016, and I’m paying more attention now. Clearly that’s a lesson for me for the future.

I’m minded to vote ‘no’ as I can’t really see a single reason I’d vote ‘yes’.

(For what it’s worth, I’d happily contribute £10 a year or so to Monzo to have them take over the admin rather than Crowdcube, but then of course I understand that’s not a sensible proposal for those that have one or two shares)

(Alex Moore) #81

I also am not super keen on article 9c of the new agreement:

“Subject to clause 3 and clause 7, Crowdcube may determine in its absolute discretion whether or not to circulate a notification it has received from the Company to its shareholders.”

Also article 2 wasn’t present in my original terms, not sure I like the phrase ‘irrevocably’ on that one:

“Each Investor irrevocably and unconditionally appoints Crowdcube with full power and authority to perform the actions as set out in this Agreement and the Investor acknowledges and agrees that it may not instruct the Nominee directly.”

Overall I agree with the general commentary here, there appears to be little additional benefit and on the surface more risk to the individual investor from the new terms.

(Splodf) #82

It doesn’t effect me, but I hope that makes my opinion impartial.

Under no circumstances should you vote yes on this without complete clarification on the additional fees situation. As far as I can see there is zero benefit to signing up to these new terms and only potential negatives.

Tell Crowdcube they can shove it.


I can’t see any benefits of voting yes to this.

Am I missing something?

Does anyone here think this is a good thing?


So I have a question - to my knowledge there is no way to transfer my Monzo shares to another holder, or to have them transferred to myself.

So what happens if Crowdcube decide to charge 1% annually the value of my investment, or 5% or 10%? There is no means for me to avoid paying this because I have no ability to move the shares somewhere else!

Does this mean suddenly Crowdcube are chasing me for £100’s or £1,000’s that I am being forced to pay - is this not against monopoly laws? Crowdcube literally have a monopoly on where my Monzo shares are stored.

Does this mean I will be forced to sell my shares if I don’t want to pay Crowdcubes fees? What if I can’t find a buyer?

Monzo have three options in my opinion:

  • Take ownership of their share register (are Tom’s shares held by Crowdcube?)
  • Allow/find other nominee accounts to hold the shares so that we are not stuck with Crowdcube.
  • IPO so I can do what the hell I want with MY shares.

(Brexit Day Is Gonna Be Shamayzing.) #85

So are we all voting yes or no?