I’m going to assume that comment was a joke and refrain from explaining why it’s wrong…
The S&P 500 is good but it’s only US and it’s heavily dominated by the magnificent 7, which are all tech companies.
I personally prefer even more diversification. The ones I pick still includes the S&P500 but I have included other regions and markets as well.
My best-performing investment over the years has been my FTSE Global All-cap index-tracking fund.
Dodge and cox global stock account for me which I’ve a few years and is 50% up over that time.
How do you know they are not considering it? And just like Monzo pays a lot of attention to their product developments based on the Monzo community they might also pay attention about what the early investors on this board think, no?
They would’ve done it otherwise, stop all the babies crying about it.
They used to. They don’t anymore.
also a Panorama episode, which is on iPlayer already (and on old-fashioned telly tonight or tomorrow depending on where you are in the UK):
Literally received a phishing email from a scammer claiming to be Revolut in the last hour!
Didn’t they let the fraudsters sign in on another device without a selfie video - something which has since been fixed?
Well… there is no gain from reporting on a positive. The investigation was only going to reach one conclusion, that the big firm did wrong and the little person is innocent. That sells.
The BBC seem to be going much the same way as other media outlets. I remember when Panorama was an example of true investigative journalism, exposing real scandals.
Not sure whey the bbc are calling Monzo a e money account.
They probably think it’s still a top-up payment card. A lot of people think that.
Revolut states that they take fraud “incredibly seriously” and have invested heavily in fraud detection and prevention. Not sure how much truth is in their statement.
do they? They correctly refer to Revolut as that, and make it clear that they don’t yet have a banking licence, but I’m pretty sure that in the programme Monzo is referred to as a bank.
This can be true; they have; and it is effective.
But people being negligent and giving sensitive details away, passcodes etc and a passage into their accounts; there’s only so much a bank can do: the rest is on the customer.
Society is negligent because they expect money back without consideration to their own mistakes. No accountability for their actions and it’ll never change until all banks just stop saying no.
They might but you’d expect the BBC to get it correct…
There’s a balance to be struck… if you blame the customer entirely, there is no incentive for the banks to improve systems. If you blame the bank entirely, there’s no incentive for the customer to look after their own money.
I’m actually not sure that banks saying “no” would stop this completely. Lots of fraud succeeds because customers are caught at vulnerable moments (in this particular case, she was alone in her office, and tired the morning after she ran an ultramarathon). Indeed, if you make customers completely responsible for their losses, you’re likely to create a state of anxiety that would itself leave them vulnerable to being exploited. Also, if you look elsewhere, at road accidents for examples, we all know about the risk of death and injury, but people still crash cars, speed, don’t wear seatbelts, text and drive, drink and drive, etc every day. Clearly, these risks aren’t enough to stop bad driving, and I don’t think the occasional person losing their life savings would make everyone suddenly wake up to fraud.
Do you remember during Covid they had to put up signs on how to wash your hands properly? People are idiots
I can only assume that the BBC wants the bank to design their fraud prevention systems to cater for the most stupid idiot at the cost of everyone else
It’s very easy to scoff at how stupid scam victims are. But the scams are quite sophisticated, and caught on a bad day a lot of sensible and intelligent people can find themselves the victim.