It depends on your definition of value 
They have no market value because they can’t be bought or sold.
I believe there may be worth something to the taxman if you should, for example, die.
But probably you would prefer not to die and then get taxed so maybe safer to believe them worthless for now
While they can’t be bought or sold I think asking what their value might be is a reasonable question to ask and the definition of value to be a pretty straightforward one.
All crowdfunding investors were told a value when they invested so I think it’s fair to assume they could use that same definition when that value is updated at future rounds.
Sure, you can’t take action with this new value but that doesn’t mean people don’t want to monitor it.
But But, some bloke on youtube who read a thing on twitter said Monzo was dead!
I think the issue with putting a ‘value’ on them, is we usually value things as the price they can be sold. Which is a null value.
If you give them a ‘value’ right now, what does that actually mean for an asset that can’t be bought or sold?
It’s a guage of what people/companies where willing to pay at that point in time. It’s just another data point that you can monitor and track and even put in a fancy spreadsheet or chart.
Sure ultimately you can’t do much else with that information but not everything needs to be actionable for it to be of interest. It’s nice to be able to see the level of appetite in the market.
Well, not really no. No one is offering to buy existing shares, they are buying new shares which Monzo will issue. It’s not a correct assumption that it’s what people would pay on an open market if all shares were for sale.
That’s the problem really, you are looking at a ‘value’ which actually doesn’t have any meaning.
But they are buying a percentage of the company, and therefore the volume of existing shares and their value impacts the value of their new shares.
I’m happy to disagree 
I still think your assumption here is wrong tbh, about what existing shares are ‘worth’.
Then again if people actually need to come and ask what the new share price is, probably they don’t know this much about how shares work anyway, or they’d just do the math themselves 
Monzo themselves are willing to use the word value when discussing latest funding rounds when it comes to staff, so I don’t see the problem with crowd funders asking for the same.
That’s for share options. That’s different - the current valuation is relevant to those, it sets the price of what they can be bought at for new staff, should (for some very strange reason) someone in the staff may want to buy them
I’m really confused what you two are disagreeing about.
Current “value” of shares is determined by the latest fundraising. When investing, “value” clearly means what something can be sold for, even though we can’t sell them, value can be derived by what someone else had bought for - i.e. new shares value the whole pie, giving a market capitalisation.
Future “value” is whatever someone might pay for them.
You see; that’s clearly a contradiction isn’t it? The value something that can’t be sold can be sold for is obviously nothing
This feels like an odd argument to be having.
Yes, shares can’t be sold right now.
But yes, they have a worth. If someone took them away from you then you’re being deprived of potential future wealth.
Think of it as an indicative value.
Right…
How about this - if you bought a house twenty years ago, it’s risen in value considerably, but didn’t plan to sell it. Is it’s value nil because you have no plan to sell it? Is it what you paid for it? Or is it fair market value - that would be derived by some sensible measure of current financial performance or expectation should you sell?
No, because it can be sold. Value is generally, the price that something would fetch in open market in an arms length transaction.
If your house couldn’t be sold, though - say it had an odd lease clause preventing it’s sale - it would be valued at nothing. That’s the better comparable here, they can’t be sold, so they don’t presently have any meaningful ‘value’.
They might be worth something in the future, but that’s dependent on how the business grows and how many shares are issued (and share options exercised) between now and then. As such, incredibly difficult to predict and actually, the current price companies are paying for new shares is barely relevant to that. The overall valuation is much more relevant, but it’s still only a small piece of data, they have far more of a risk appetite than the open market
I think you’re over complicating it. Just because shares can’t be sold doesn’t mean they don’t have value, and doesn’t mean investors wouldn’t want to know how the value of those shares has increased or decreased over time (which is a good measure of performance).
Maybe let’s agree to disagree.
And I think you are over simplifying it 
. But sure, let’s agree to disagree.
Just - don’t put too much stock in the ‘value’ of your untransactble shares would be my advice.
Like flats in tall buildings with cladding. They were bought for £££, and will, presumably, be sold again once remedial work is carried out, but whilst they’re unsellable, they are worthless; they have no value because nobody can or will buy them, and no bank will remortgage them.
There’s a theoretical ‘worth’ which is a best guess should the cladding be removed, but they currently have no value.
Would it, though? Surely if you asked an estate agent to value the house, they’d tell you what they think the fair market value would be even despite the fact it couldn’t be marketed.
I mean if you ask an estate agent they will tell you whatever you want to hear 
If you employ an actual valuer, then, yes they will value it at zero.
Well actually, they might use a different definition of value and a different calculation method depending on their instruction. There are other methods/meaning of value around.