@equalityforall - I’m not sure why you’re so upset and hung up about Monzo.
You can be happy for a company you clearly like - Revolut, without trying to attack others. Trying this hard is just showing how incredibly biased you are, and makes your opinion seem unreliable.
I’m going to pick away at a few of your comments, as they’re incredibly exaggerated or false.
This is false. Monzo have not said a single word about that they may not survive. Especially a date. Do you have a source?
In fact, on their last report, they specifically said there is no cash flow concerns for at least the next 12 months. Which is all they need to write about in their annual report.
The FCA has also had squabbles with Revolut for the very same thing.
You know he’s now President right? He’s taken a step back from the regulatory side, of which Monzo does perfectly well, to focus on vision.
Come on, i mean really? What’s your basis for “wobbing on its last legs”. I think you know as well as I do, that they’ve recently raised tens of millions of pounds, and their financial report shows they’re healthy.
from a Times article
" The troubled digital bank, which issued a warning on Thursday over its ability to remain in business, began an investigation of its “financial crime control framework” in June after a review by the Financial Conduct Authority."
There does seem to be a certain ambiguity in the Times article of who is getting reviewed and when this was asked for specifically of Monzo by the FCA, maybe its just journalistic licence for a story …I dont know ?
Presumably FCA keeps a public record of instructions to regulated banks of when they are in breach of obligations ?
I’m not sure where I read it. I don’t think it was The Times but having a quick look at the annual report, I believe it’s referred to by:
As such, its a matter(s) identified for Monzo
specifically to deal with by regulators.
No, things like this are not made generally made public by the FCA or PRA (part of the Bank of England) as they could affect investor/market confidence and alert bad actors as to where weaknesses may exist
The May FCA document you link to is not a review but basically a reminder to institutions what they should be doing anyway and that hasn’t changed due to Covid.
They say there may be a material impact, which is why this disclosure is there. If there wasn’t a potential material impact, they wouldn’t mention it.
(It does beg the question of why no contingent liability disclosure though… usually if something is material for an IAS 10 subsequent event disclosure, it would be material for an IAS 37 contingent disclosure…)
They say there won’t be any customer redress and, given this is financial crime related, one could assume that means potential regulatory fines. There had to be some potential cost for this disclosure to be needed.
I recently needed to have a DBS check for work - when I tried to use a Monzo bank statement as proof of identity and address, I wasn’t allowed to as they (the government agency responsible for criminal record checks) believed that you don’t have to provide proof of address to have a Monzo account. I can’t recall what I had to provide, it was ages ago!
Putting these things together, it looks like there could well have been failings in the financial crime controls in terms of Monzo’s KYC (know your client) processes. I do recall it was very easy to set up an account. Was it too easy?!
That can lead to big fines in some cases.
Let’s see how it goes… in any case it isn’t a great thing to see.
I always assumed that the need to receive and activate a card at the postal address associated with the account was what provided the proof of address. At the time I joined that seemed clever to me, and I wondered how they got round it with the current instant activation of Apple / Google Pay. Electoral roll perhaps?
There have over the years been posts here with tenuous reasons why a new applicant could not receive their card …
Your interpretation of this part of the report isn’t a million miles away from mine. In my case, I worked like this:
Assume Monzo are always* correct in that they “don’t close accounts without a good reason”
Assume that claims Monzo close more accounts than other banks do are true
Both assumptions being true, this would appear to point towards Monzo opening more accounts that they should not have opened than other banks do
I am aware of university campuses (and admittedly this is anecdotal, as I’m a bit too old to be near one now myself) where fraudesters try and trick naive students into becoming money mules, a trick which is much easier to pull if they can talk the target into installing the app on their phone right there and then, and potentially have the whole process done in minutes, as opposed to hours or days of grooming.
This might also be why recently we’ve seen more instances on the community of people with Cifas markers being turned down for Monzo accounts, when previously they were advised to “apply and see what happens” and were apparently successful (on the basis they didn’t come back and complain.
In any case, I should probably now sign out the same way here: