Do you really think if they could raise £20 mill in venture capital that they couldn’t raise an additional £2.5 mill without crowdfunding?
I doubt there was any need to crowdfund, it’s just opening it up to the early adopters.
If Monzo hadn’t wanted to crowdfund, they could have taken the £20 mill and just done the next round of funding a little sooner…
Actually it’s very easy to calculate and is pretty basic finance. Risk and return are intrinsically linked in terms of finance and investments. In the market, you are rewarded for the risk you take. Therefore, if you can calculate risk, then you can calculate reward and vice versa.
In fairness, I thing many investors will not receive anywhere near as much return as they think or hoping for. I’ve heard people thinking the value of their investment has gone up 2x or even 3x but this is highly unlikely to be the case, especially when you take into account the dilution.
You do if you want your challenge to be considered. Flat Earth Society springs to mind, and at least they try to produce evidence, even if it’s wrong!
This is my point exactly. I think they were unable to raise in VC, so they used crowdfunding.
And I blame the dinosaurs
No evidence for this but hey, seems to be the way we’re rolling today
I initially bought shares at £0.51 that are now worth £2.36 after all dilution to date. You seem to be making many assumptions about Monzo and their history of investment whilst really not doing your research.
But why?
I agree, you need facts to prove that you’re right, but you don’t need facts to simply state an opinion. Not once have i said I was right. In fact, I’ve even admitted to being wrong and misunderstanding things a couple of times already.
Please show me your calculation.
If you’re not aboard the Monzo train on the forum, then you must be wrong.
I just find it hard to imagine a company being able to raise £20 million and not being able to raise an additional 12.5%…
logic
The proportion of money offered to the crowd in each round is miniscule, and was deliberately done to offer the public a decent stake (from an individual perspective) in the company. Passion Capital et al would have easily offered the extra few million, but Monzo decided to use the crowd for some of the non-financial reasons mentioned above.
Note that no equity was “given away”. It was sold, at a fair price, based on what investors were willing to pay, and (I think) at the same rate as that offered to the institutional investors. Raising money in this hybrid way gives you the best of both worlds - the expertise and huge finances of the institutions, and the brand ambassadors offered by the crowd. Having the VCs there also gives confidence to the crowd that it’s a company with a solid plan, and a good chance of executing it.
If I had a an active community of users ‘on board the train’ I’d want them to come aboard rather than watch it accelerate away
Dinosaurs??
What Dinosaurs 
?
It gets to a point where investors say no more. If i’m willing to invest £10m, then the company wants more, so I invest an extra £5m. Then they want even more again and I set my absolute limit at £20m. I won’t be willing to offer more simply because they are requesting more. There has to be an absolute limit that each investor is willing to contribute. It’s not an i’ll give you as much as you need until you’re profitable relationship as this is exposing the investor to a high amount of risk.
TL;DR
Synopsis please
Don’t bother reading this thread.
Crowdfunding? Meh!
Heres the share prices for the first 3 rounds:
https://community.monzo.com/t/maintain-our-participation-resist-dilution/7622/26
Heres the details from their last round on Crowdcube (£2.3566/share).
