Monzo in the media


Chip-X is very similar to other P2P platforms mentioned above in many ways. The main difference, however, is that it has access to account history (only available to chip savers) and can be more selective of applications based on that data.

In addition, the money lent to users will come from chip savings accounts, with the majority of any interest going back to the lenders (with a small fee for chip obviously)!

Let’s hope that chip and Monzo users can soon be at one (promised Q1 2019)!:sunglasses:

(Ray Singh) #22

Tom Bloomfield - Capital Conversation

(Phil) #24

We’re being drawn in by a trailer for an interview with Tom…
When is the full thing dropping?

(Sacha Zarb) #25

Hopefully a response from @tom in the morning or even tonight

Monzo in The Times
(Is Santa here yet?) #26

Are they saying a bank can dictate what you can and can’t use an overdraft for? That seems bizarre


I guess all the other crowd funding for different businesses checked who was using an overdraft… I doubt it ?

(Sacha Zarb) #28

This seems to be the angle the Times are going with

(Is Santa here yet?) #29

But it’s not a ‘here’s a share buying overdraft’ it’s an overdraft. I can’t recall Monzo saying we are crowdfunding so make sure you use your overdraft. And as Danny points out, if it had been on crowdcube it’s the same result


They appear to be suggesting that Monzo is allowing customers to borrow up to £1000 specifically for purchasing shares…

Absolute hatchet job. This journalist should go and get a job at the Daily Mail, they would fit in.

(Matt C) #31

What the hell? This is ridiculous! As @Dannytc points out, anyone paying with a debit card on crowdcube etc could effectively be using their overdraft.

I can see why the paper is taking this angle, because I personally agree that people shouldn’t be using the overdraft (borrowed money) to buy shares. Monzo haven’t been telling people to do it though! A few people on the forum have mentioned it as a joke I think, but no staff.

(Is Santa here yet?) #32

Disagree. If the overdraft facility has been agreed then it is not up to the bank to dictate where you can and can’t spend it (unless it’s for legal reasons). Logically of course you shouldn’t but if you are due paid the next day it seems harsh to say it’s a terrible idea to enter your overdraft for 1 day


:joy: I thought that it was a joke/mock up thing


This is hardly shocking reporting - It’s headline grabbing (at a push), and it’s accurate reporting.

The only “grey” area is the fact it’s a bank doing the crowdfunding, and therefore the potential investors could indeed borrow money from said bank, to invest back into said bank…

If you have to go into your overdraft to invest in Monzo, I’d suggest it’s probably not the right time to be investing.

Regardless of if you get paid the following day, the fact you are that close to your overdraft in the first place, there will be many more things that take priority over buying Monzo shares.


I don’t think that’s the point. I think the main point is in the 5th paragraph

Companies are banned from making loans to investors to buy their own shares, but the use of overdrafts does not appear to be covered by the rules.


I don’t get it. They’re a bank though.

Or are Monzo going to have to prevent people going into their overdraft to buy the shares - which would probably result in a reverse opinion of ‘nannying’ and controlling as it’s not legally required.

(Nick) #37

That’s an absolute hatchet job of an article. It’s neither accurate nor fair. It takes facts and misrepresents them in order to push the line the writer wants.

Look at the Gewolb quote. He says that it’s not a good idea to borrow money to buy shares and such behaviour is beyond the pale. The writer of the article then uses this to accuse Monzo of going beyond the pale. The accusation is not there in the source, the connection is made by the writer.

Note also, emotive phrasing, where “Monzo emphasises” the share price rise, rather than “as part of helping people make an informed investment Monzo have provided the necessary information”, say. Also rather buries the fact that equity groups have already invested at that level, so it’s a fair rate.
Other example of emotive phrasing, saying Monzo is in a ‘scramble’ to offer banking services rather than a less emotive and more accurate phrase like ‘working on’, or something similar.

Cherry-picked quotes from the Monzo forum also. He could’ve just as easily quoted me or others advising people not to put themselves into debt to make an investment.

I’m not sure why Hosking has an axe to grind against Monzo, but that’s all he’s doing here. Fair and unbiased reporting it ain’t.


Excuse my tiredness (new baby… lack of sleep).

But ignoring the dislike for the article, and the “click bait” headlines/quotes… what part is inaccurate?

(Matt C) #40

We are a bunch of novices apparently!

(Nick) #41

I was editing my original post to add some examples while you replied, so if you have a look you’ll see some now.


Banned from issuing a loan for the purpose of buying shares, yes. A Monzo overdraft is pre-existing and wasn’t approved for that purpose.

The approval of the overdraft and the purchase of the shares have no relationship. The article suggests there is a relationship, that is entirely untrue.

I don’t have an overdraft with Monzo and I agree that it’s unwise to borrow money to purchase shares in a high risk startup. That isn’t the point though.

The article may be accurate but it’s still worded to be misleading, at least in my opinion. :man_shrugging: