Seeing this from @duncang (and not being able to get @davidwalton’s plaintive wail out of my head) I thought it’d be worth discussing just why Monzo hasn’t reached some form of parity for joint accounts. Especially as much of the parity being asked for (like overdrafts and paid accounts) would raise them money.
To that end, here are some hypotheses. What do we think? And Monzo folk, do tell us what the reason is, please.
Hypothesis 1: behind the scenes joint accounts are a mess. They were cobbled together quickly and in a way that’s not extensible. So that needs to be fixed first.
Hypothesis 2: analysis shows an insufficient market for joint accounts - or not enough return on investment
Hypothesis 3: joint accounts done properly would lead to unacceptable ongoing costs - either for the technology or in terms of support.
Hypothesis 4: momentum, received wisdom and/or bias - e.g. there’s a belief that there’s insufficient demand for the product, a shared (but not proven) narrative in the business that joint accounts are not important and/or bias arising from a lack of Monzo staff wanting joint accounts themselves.
Hypothesis 5: Monzo wants to do it, but there’s no bandwidth so, even though the business case would otherwise stack up, there’s just no resource to make it happen.
Hypothesis 6: there are undisclosed regulatory or legal issues preventing joint accounts from reaching parity.
Hypothesis 7: Lack of capability. Monzo just doesn’t know how to develop and manage joint products (like overdrafts for example).
Hypothesis 8: Joint accounts aren’t in Monzo’s private road map. Instead, the firm wants to redefine the concept and create shared pots or multiuser accounts. Or is concerned that an account for two people is exclusionary to those in relationships of greater than two people. Or doesn’t want to deal with revenue related issues around Plus for joint accounts…
I’m not saying that any of these are true - I’m just trying to find the reason why this seemingly isn’t important.