Just for a little bit context regarding the YouTube video and it being discussed. iIt was posted here yesterday and that’s potentially where the confusion has been caused.
Chosen not to merge because discussing the video here and within the other Topic seems fair to myself 
It might be a issue of terminology but I wouldn’t count banks which have been nationalised as ‘bought or bailed out’. Several did effectively go bust before they were nationalised.
Here’s my question: Does the FCA have list of what is actually investigating Monzo and others for?
Also I did notice there’s a lot of PR fluff in the document, that isn’t really necessary.
And as a side point anyone dumping stock on Crowdcubes Cubex site yet?
The FCA will know why it is investigating Monzo and/or other firms but won’t make this public until it’s finished.
That’s a such pain in the arse… I wonder if an FOI request could get a better answer, I assume its for KYC etc regulations but who knows.
As this really is the issue, not the hype around the headlines
Having now looked at the accounts, there are two things which stand out.
One, revenue has fallen. This is not a surprise given Covid but needs to be borne in mind when Monzo says x% of their revenue comes from account fees.
The second and more concerning imho is that their staff costs seem to have gone up 33% (p105) and the annual report says they plan to recruit even more staff.
In an economic environment that we find ourselves in, controlling costs is key and it doesn’t look to me as if Monzo are doing that.
I mean I personally thinking the fall in revenue is caused partly to bad design (launching a premium product with a travel based product during a pandemic is hilarious) but also the perennial “WhatsApp” design problem people are now use to it being free (WhatsApp, fintech apps etc)so how do you monetise new features without alienating a customer base. The former is eminently fixable, the latter is bite a bullet situation ( which can then go against internal culture)
The problem is hiring cost is hire too low you don’t get anyone good, hire too high and your costs explode. It’s finding the right balance and that requires good recruiters which monzo seem to go through/ lack in house experience.(finding value for money is key)((also automating what you can without falling foul of regulatory laws/rules)
Breaches of money laundering rules and compliance with financial crime regulation.
Monzo made it harder to open an account last year, so seems the FCA thought they were making it too easy, which resulted in increased money muleing.
ETA: from today’s papers
I might do some afternoon reading on breaches 
. As that in itself doesn’t really tell you anything about the seriousness of the potential crimes and then the remedial penalties
EDIT: ah that news cutting is interesting…
EDIT2: Having dug through the Monzo notes the FCA report is related to:
(relating to a s.166 Skilled Person review under section 166)( There may also be other breaches which given the skilled review didn’t happen who knows)
of the Financial Services Markets Act 2000)
which relates to:
https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/SUP/5/?view=chapter
Which in turn raises the question what is a skilled person:
In terms of criminal and civil liability the punishment isn’t particularly clear assuming the FCA use this document:https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DEPP/6.pdf
The interesting bit is: 6.5D Serious financial hardship
Leading to the logical question: If you’re already a going concern a serious fine will put you in further hardship thus meaning a large fine isn’t possible, however the balance of this is whether the lax regulations was deliberate(This is an interesting point you design an App to have an easy setup flow and probably close account flow)(If this is abused for money laundering is that deliberate probably not), there are list of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the document
Re: the Annual report did they check that the announcement of the investigation did not contravene this:
EG 4.6 What a subject of investigation can say to third parties - FCA Handbook
EG 6.1 Publicity during FCA investigations - FCA Handbook
https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/EG/4.pdf( 
)(Arguably disclosure itself is confidential as it could affect share price(Although not publicly traded Cubex?)
(They the FCA haven’t issued a notice that I could find)
(Oddly also none of the other previous Monzo annual reviews mention it)
(Publications search results | FCA)
Summary: If monzo did break a host of laws through negilence even if they were previously warned they deserve to be punished for it and harshly too. (Take everything with a pinch salt I am neither a lawyer or a AML investigator)
I made my post yesterday on the Monzo In The Media thread with good intentions, not bad. If I come across something of interest I like to share it, with the thought that other people might find it of interest, rather than out of some vague malevolence, or stirring tendency. I do that across various channels. Perhaps I am kidding myself, but I like to think it is appreciated.
Secondly, the fact that some people are infrequent visitors should not imply that their input is any less valid that someone who spends all day, every day on these boards. If you choose to do that, that is your prerogative. Conversely, if I choose to post once every 3 months, that is mine. Some of us do have a life outside Monzo, and other crosses to bear.
In fact, to be honest, the main reason why I don’t post on these boards very much is PRECISELY because of the unwelcoming attitudes encountered, on nearly every occasion.
Also, of course there is going to be more activity on the board when there is an ‘event’, or something appears in the media.
I consider myself very welcoming to new members of the forum, as evidenced by lots of likes and comments on the new joiner page, but I am also happy to admit to being a bit of sick of anyone who logs in for the first time in a year, normally when the annual report or some “bad” news comes out just to stick the boot in and then promptly disappear again. It is a community as well as a forum
Edit: Clarify that I was not responding to any one person
I don’t understand any of that
Any chance of discussing the thread topic rather than each other. It just gets very boring very quickly.
Moving on… 
Random and potentially stupid question. Why are these reports made public, and does every business do them or is it just banks?
Edit: beaten to it 
Well the figures have to be reported every year and the investors need the update so I suppose make it shiny and get some PR out of it.
In the past the Starling report - did not look at this year’s to see if it was different to before - was much shorter and not that deep
Could only imagine it was down to the difference in the number and/or type of investors
But then I really have no great experience in this area, so that is speculation!
Great question though
I was always taught that the more fancy an annual report was, the worse the results tended to be…
It’s the business equivalent of the “Yes Minister” quote about “getting the controversial issue into the title so you don’t have to discuss it in the text”.
The Bank of England clearly states that during the 2008 financial crisis “governments provided capital injections or ‘bailouts’ in exchange for full or partial ownership of individual firms”.
Therefore nationalised firms do fit the definition of a bailout.
Yes, in these circumstances the mechanism of the bailout was partial or full nationalisation
