Of course lol, by the time we can cash out we’d probably only make like £5
The agreement doesn’t involve Monzo - in all honesty the agreement isn’t even really about Monzo at all. It would be unfair to accuse Monzo in the way CrowdCube have gone about this.
The shareholders aren’t the registered owners of the shares CrowdCube are - we are the beneficial owners of the shares.
The nominee set-up means although we have the beneficial entitlement CrowdCube can manage the shares (and now want to charge for it even if this clause is very ambiguous).
The changes don’t look positive for the investor but they’re not and won’t be designed to really - but I would hold out until CrowdCube say something.
EDIT: overall it still isn’t a great experience which is bad
Whilst I’d lay the “blame” squarely at the feet of CrowdCube, who are clearly not doing this for the benefit of the investors, I still think Monzo fell short.
Possibly because of the lofty expectations that they are expected to live up to, but a 48 radio silence before responding (and then, not much of a response TBH) isn’t what I’d have expected.
Even if the same message came straight away (we are aware, we’ll keep you posted" etc), would have been OK.
So much emphasis has been placed on crowdfunding, that I’d have expected someone at Monzo to get out in front of this as soon as it become public.
Like I said, it’s not Monzo’s fault, but it’s something they could have communicated better.
Unless I misinterpreted /misread something, someone further up was told by Monzo that their lawyers were in contact with Crowdcube. Any good lawyer would advise their client to not comment until the issue was resolved - at least not with a response other than “bear with us, we are working on it”, or something of that sort.
Hadn’t seen that.
In that case, fair enough.
I imagine it’ll be one of those things that all slots into place after it’s all said and done.
Or it could be an ApplePay situation where no questions were answered and everyone is left to guess
Taking that into account, what could they say? I just think in a way their hands are tied - we “chose” (for lack of a better word) CrowdCube (I’m on these Ts&Cs anyway as not an early crowdfunder) and we agreed to this arrangement.
If Crowdcube want to try and change the terms they can - Monzo can’t say or do anything the agreement doesn’t involve them.
I guess the only thing I would like (if I was in this position) is for Monzo to try and get to the bottom of it (which it looks like they are doing).
Given how this thread has gone, I’d have thought a “we are aware” message would have put a lot of peoples minds at ease (especially with no immediate pressure to vote).
But to wait 2 days, and then come out with “we are aware”, just feels like they missed a beat - It doesn’t take 2 days to formulate that message.
There are some implicit assumptions as to “when” they became aware in there that may not be true. That could explain the delay in time.
Well, yes, I’m assuming they became aware when the thread was posted at the very least?
Given this is a staff managed forum, when do you think they became aware?
I definitely agree that this would have calmed the initial “panic” - and I’d hope that although not something they are directly involved (or likely to be able to change) they will be working on ironing out the whys/whats/hows etc - but maybe they needed to do some digging before they could say anything?
Not at all - You were saying I was assuming a timeframe on “when” they became aware, which I was (as stated above).
Your comment made it seem like they could have answered immediately when they actually became aware (which would have been 2 days after this thread started), something I feel is unlikely.
Just wondering if I misinterpreted what you were trying to say?
I don’t want to be the poster boy for being annoyed by all this - Because I’m not.
But if they had to do some digging, you’d have expected a more thorough answer when they finally did say something.
My point was that what they eventually said, could have been said from the start (minus the CrowdCube employee answering questions, which may have been negotiated later on).
No no don’t get me wrong at all - I can definitely see the overall sour taste this leaves in the mouth - I think I can sometimes come across fairly blunt
I just think Monzo are in a tough position as they really can’t do anything - although I can see that had they come out of the gate quicker and said something this may have helped cool the matter!
Out of interest are you in the earlier rounds? The complete cynic in me thinks that these are being put in to “marry-up” all the Terms for the different rounds of the crowdfund and they’d be unlikely to enforce much of the terms and are there as “backstops”.
That’s the thing - I’m not
It doesn’t affect me in the slightest - But I can see why the radio silence would have been disappointing.
CrowdCube are clearly the ones at fault - Their communication is a shambles if nothing else!
Why do you assume they’d be unlikely to enforce terms? Why bother changing them if they are unlikely to be invoked?
Also, for there to be ‘backstops’, these would have to be written into the updated terms.
Agree with you here - I think it just hasn’t been handled in the best way at all (difficult as the whole Nominee process of holding shares and beneficial titles are complex).
The total valuation of Monzo via Crowdcube are nearly worth as much as Crowdcube. In another year, or so, they’ll probably be worth more than Crowdcube.
Poorly communicated changes from Crowdcube are getting out of hand, so I’d be happier if Crowdcube was no longer administrating the nominee structure.
I’m not assuming just my personal opinion on it. For one, having all the terms “marry-up” makes things easier from an administration perspective. And the two terms I’ve seen that have been “added” are the liability and the charging of fees.
If Monzo are already paying CrowdCube to manage the shares then I can’t see any argument from CrowdCube that puts a legitimate price on managing them (as they’re already being paid for it).
The liability point for me is just a “if you decide to sue us” that isn’t for any reason you’d sue them for - they’d use the share value? The shares are technically worthless, you wouldn’t sue for anything other than fraud, negligence or breach so I can’t see a scenario where this would apply.
This is what CrowdCube are attempting - my shares at least are on these terms.
By backstop I mean that they are terms that are in all likelihood not going to be used but there just in case - still abhorrent but I think I’m just a bit cynical to the commerciality of these clauses.
Ultimately I might actually like to vote yes if this was something Monzo were asking for and had communicated that it was helpful to them and us investors.
However, I’m just not seeing it that way yet. I’ve voted no, and I see you can update your vote later if you change your mind, so I would suggest people vote no until we hear more if you are similarly concerned like me.
This conversation is interesting, but there are just too many assumptions to even begin to switch voting choices.
Ah, OK. I read ‘backstop’ to be “we’ll charge you but restrict it to a certain percentage”.
I always think if lawyers have gone to the trouble to put things in Ts&Cs, then a company would have no qualms in using those terms to their advantage.