That’s the key point. Have you ever read the small print of anything else? That stuff covers every eventuality because that’s what lawyers do. But the subtitle of the article is:
Digital bank’s overdraft offer criticised as ‘beyond the pale’
So apparently some clause in the small print of 70,000 words is an “offer”. It’s not an offer. Quite the opposite: Tom said on TV, on the blog, on his twitter, that it’s a dumb idea and people shouldn’t do it. But it appears that The Times, or perhaps just this journalist, has an agenda to push their paternalistic viewpoint on everyone else through misleading reporting.
‘beyond the pale’ is in quotes because the journalist is quoting the Chairman of Fair Finance’s criticism.
The sale of shares to customers is being made available to customers, subject to terms and conditions, a contract, small-print or an ‘offer’ if you will. That offer permits the use of a Monzo overdraft. This is a fact.
Why is it that every journalist that writes something that somebody doesn’t like ‘has an agenda’ or is guilty of ‘lazy journalism’, or ‘bias’ or whatever lazy trope is within reach so we don’t have to tackle the actual issue head-on.
The article is factually correct but it is presented in a way that offends the sensibilities of some folks on here. Some who have put a lot of work into the ‘offer’ and therefore are attached to the project, and others who are following their team.
You don’t like an article, fine - keep it factual and debate the issue. But some of the things I have seen on here are borderline shameful and risk harming the brand.
in fairness Roger Gewolb said " It is never a good idea to borrow money to buy shares unless one is a professional share trader. To do so in order to buy illiquid, unlisted shares in a relatively new company through a crowdfunding platform seems to us somewhat beyond the pale "
so both Tom , the journalist and Roger agree , Its not a great idea - and it has never been offered, Monzo have just said you can, just as you could borrow from any other bank with an overdraft to buy Monzo shares, but they all agree its not a great idea.
I can link you to several more when a lot of people have said the same if you want -
But clearly Monzo is quite prepared to lend money to customers who will use it to buy shares - Monzo isn’t in the game of telling folk how to spend their overdraft - remember?
Banks tend to lend money - don’t they ? Im not aware that you have to declare what you are going to do with the money other than you can afford the repayments
Monzo will NOT lend you money for the SOLE purpose of buying shares. I can go overdrawn with ANY Bank to buy shares, that does NOT mean Banks are willing to lend me money for that specific purpose.
Still curious how any Bank would stop a overdraft being used to buy shares?
what’s unethical, Monzo isn’t telling you what to do should you wish to borrow money? would you prefer them to say what you can and cant spend your overdraft on ?
and thats fine for you, if you don’t want to , others may want to borrow money to buy shares - daft idea , but should a bank be telling you where to shop next or what you cant pay for because we don’t agree with you spending your money with that provider ?
Im still struggling to see why its unethical to say you can do something if you chose to ?
If Monzo were actively encouraging people or giving them higher over draft limits just so they can invest then we could question the ethics but as for as I understand Tom has used word ‘daft’ for anyone thinking about using credit to invest.
