Micro Investing

Anthorn wrote: »

Those who actually use the app, have experience of it and therefore have something constructive to contribute are not going to do that for fear of being shot down. Actual censorship could not do better.

Really? Or is that just you and your butthurt?

Anthorn wrote: »

Well, that post makes a lot more sense than most of the previous posts I've read lol.

butthurt:
overly or unjustifiably offended or resentful.

an excessive or unjustifiable feeling of personal offence or resentment.

I rest my case

Anthorn wrote: »

I don't think "butthurt" applies to me.

Think again. Take all the time that you need.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Yes, you posted that in post #39 as an example or a "review". I replied in post 40.

It is not a review. It is lightweight comment on a new product that was about to launch, accompanied by quotes from the founders about why they think it is good. It is written from a press release and those comments from the business owners. The only piece of independent thought to provide some balance within it, is one comment from a consumer group to provide some balance that days investing small amounts will see your friends eaten by charges and you are likely better off using high interest cash accounts or investing more material amounts of money properly.

Due to the date of the article, at press release time, and it being about a new product "launching this week" it is clearly not a hands on proper review of user experience or customer service quality, it is regurgitation of marketing material. Yet you say above that you will not accept any of our comments because we are not hands on users and you must experience it for your opinions to be worth anything.

So, is the FT piece worth anything in that context? No, it just tells you how the product works according to their marketing. Oh, aside from the bit of balance from the guy from the consumer group that points out the cost disadvantages

Please don't post the other "review" links again, which have already been commented on, or the Wikipedia article again which you have done twice now. Certainly don't do that and them moan that we are just repeating ourselves, because that's on you.

You get yet another ROFL: ROFL. You ask a question regarding the FT article and then answer it yourself. Does that mean no-one else is qualified to answer the question? If you meant it as a rhetorical question then it should not have included a question mark.

In one breath the FT article is seen as invalid but on the other hand valid because it includes a criticism of the cost disadvantage. Which is it? Valid or invalid?

I agree the FT article is not a hands on review. But in this thread only my posts represent a hands-on review. No-one else has used it. So by your own standards it's wrong to regard the FT article as authoritative but right that people in this thread who have never used it be regarded as authoritative.

Lastly where is your authority to censor my posts by limiting what I may post? However in fact the only reason to censor is to stifle open discussion and I've already referred to that in a previous post. Perhaps I just have to agree with you and everyone else and you would be fine with that. But the very simple fact is that I just don't agree! I use moneybox, I find it useful and I post my reasons for finding it useful.

jimjames wrote: »

Except here you're not talking about saving, you're talking about investing which is very different.

No: You've already quoted me saying "save".

Let me try a different tack. (sailing term). Wasting my breath I know but there you go.

You are receiving a good income but the demands on it such as mortgage, pension and living expenses uses up all of the income. That makes you cash-poor which means you cannot save even if you wanted to because you cannot spare any capital and you cannot set aside regular amounts to save. That's where Moneybox comes in.

For some odd reason Millennials are seen to be representative of that group and I don't really see the reason behind that. In my view anyone can be cash-poor. However it's not only micro-investing which targets Millennials: New forms of bank account which incorporate the means to cope with tight budgets on the go are also launched or ready to launch. For example there is B from CYBG working from a mobile app and Starling Bank which is already in the throes of a beta release and working from a mobile app. I expect to get the Starling beta in due course and I already have B.

Lastly, Moneybox actually focuses on two groups: The first as already outlined is cash-poor Millennials. The second is first-time investors. I should think that those new investors who cut their teeth on Moneybox will eventually progress to other means of investing. Doesn't apply to me though because I'm already there. What makes Moneybox good for new investors is that it's automatic, a no-brainer. But from the very first day of using Moneybox new investors are going to have contract notes, they are going to get a projected return and they are going to be able to relate that projected return to their own investments and be able to calculate it for themselves. In a few words, "hands-on experience" which in my view is priceless.

So there you go. I've tried.

Dear habitual MSE contributors, here you got argumentative millennial, treat him as such, do not get wound up as you should know better:)
Dear Anthorn, I think everybody understands perfectly what you or someone else may like about the app and its motivational and educational and fun purposes. They just point out that it makes no financial sense. Which you refuse to accept because you are itching to argue:).
(goes away mumbling : " for some reason"... "cash poor millennials":D)