"Storonsky said Revolut was being asked to hold 7% capital requirements, compared to the 2% stipulated in banking legislation.
“We are not allowed to grow and compete internationally,” he told the newspaper."
If they wanted the licence, they’d find the money right?
Right?
Can you explain what you mean by this? I don’t understand.
Pretty sure banks have to hold 3.25% (that number is in my head from somewhere)
So them being ask to hold 7% means they are seen as risky (double the risk??? idk) but the delay in filings and the comments made within them doesn’t help.
If they wanted the licence they’d meet the requirements to do so.
It’s not uncommon for banks to put more down than the general %.
Especially if there’s risk involved.
Looks like they also improved/changed Group Bills service 
Was not allowed to printscreen chat/payment window, because of “private content” 
Believe both Monzo and Starling were asked to up their capital requirements at the start of Lockdown, as the regulators got edgy, and both did it with no complaint.
It’s getting a bit embarrassing the whining from Revolut
In fact Monzo had to get to 13.6%, so Storonsky needs to wind it in
The tone of the quotes in the article is increasingly childish, and dare I say it, maybe a bit desperate.
I’ve long wondered whether we’d see Revolut coming back to the capital markets before a listing. Maybe we will…
Completely this. The silly thing here is the more they push the more likely others are to pull further away.
If, and it’s a big if, Revolut were to finally get a licence it’ll be because there’s been a change of leadership I reckon.
I wasn’t sure if it was publicly available about this but absolutely, other banks have done it with flying colours and those have since been reduced to more suitable levels.
Reading more about it all and seeing how the CEO reacts to compliance does make me think slightly different about the business than I did not long ago.
I do still believe they will get the licence though, as above, maybe under new supervisions.
Sources at the Department for Business and Trade confirmed that it wanted to meet with Nikolay Storonsky, chief executive of Revolut, just days after he attacked Britain’s “extreme bureaucracy”.
Officials in France and Spain are understood to have courted Revolut, which is headquartered in London, in recent weeks as bosses grow increasingly frustrated over delays in securing a UK banking licence
Cool, didn’t realise the size of the org meant we should turn a blind eye to them playing fast and loose with the rules.
No one is hostile, but the playing field needs to be level, and not the one the biggest voice wants to suit them
As for Badenock meeting them, that’s nice; she has no influence on the Treasury, BoE or FCA, her department can lobby, but won’t change a thing
Not in the slightest.
Am interesting conversation somewhere in there about the role of government(s) and big companies.
I’m in the “companies need to obey the rules but can constructively lobby for changes that benefit the country as a whole” camp myself.
If they want to head off to Paris in a huff then let them. At this point it feels more like it’ll be the French picking up the mess rather than anything else.
Why don’t they go to Lithuania?!
This as ever is good by Chris Skinner, who’s knows more about fintechs then all of us put together
Don’t know what you’re on about, always liked Chris, whether I agree or disagree with him on a subject, as he brings a lot of knowledge to the table, others might have a different opinion, but don’t try that nonsense with me
Sadly that’s exactly what you said
Haha yeah; if only it wasn’t hidden away, otherwise you can tell yourself a story that doesn’t exist.
I’m a big Skinner fan, mainly cause I disagree with as much as I agree with.
