Monday, 7 March 2016

So what sort of people does Crowdcube employ?

We have long wondered just how it is possible for Crowdcube to be getting things so wrong.

Maybe the answer lies in the quality of their staff?

Take for example a guy who describes himself as Senior Business Development Manager at Crowdcube. He goes on to claim that he has been responsible for funding £135m of deals in debt and equity, £80m since Jan 2015. He joined Crowdcube in July 2014. 

He is clearly one of their senior people  - so what experience of setting up companies, advising on company valuations etc, does this whiz kid have?

He worked for a year and a half at Cavendish Corporate Finance, a company founded by a possible uncle who now sits in Ermine. Before that he did odd jobs as a runner, intern and tea boy etc having left university with a degree in Art History. The standard run of jobs for an ex Harrovian with some very useful pedigree.

So at the tender age of 26 he is now a lead man at Crowdcube, having had what you could only describe as zero experience in this field.  

Say what though, he has bloody useful connections and is a super guy. Yah. Go Crowdcube.


  1. I feel so sorry for you RMB. You are a sad, bitter and clearly lonely man

    1. Neopotism is worth highlighting. The danger's of it is massivley under-reported and causes unqualified twirps to be placed in positions of power which in the financial industry usually leads to investors being burnt. The industry will belittle you RMB but that is because you are undermining it. Keep up the good work

  2. I agree. If he did benefit from an uncle being the founder of Cavendish, that is nepotism of the lowest order. It would indicate that crowdfunding is anything but meritocratic.

    1. He's the founder's 1st cousin - so similar. It is not the nepotism that concerns us but the total lack of any track record in this type of business that this guy has. Yet he is Crowdcube's senior business consultanty - makes you wonder if the junior one is still in nappies. Crowdcube consistently bore on about the quality of the 'experts' they employ.