4 ms·

Hi HN, we're Karina and Andres of Monto (https://www.monto.mx/ https://www.monto.mx/). We give employees of our affiliated companies access to their earned wage

Hi HN, we're Karina and Andres of Monto (https://www.monto.mx/ https://www.monto.mx/). We give employees of our affiliated companies access to their earned wages 24/7. We're currently operating in Mexico. With Monto users can pay for basic services (like water, electricity) on time, avoiding penalties. They can stop paying overdraft fees and avoid having to resort to abusive credit alternatives like shark loans, employer loans, payday loans, credit cards, bank loans, department store credit cards, pawn shops. The conditions on these options are abusive and prohibitively expensive for low-income workers and have resulted in serious financial stress for millions of people. Andres was working in investment banking in New York, but ended up back in Mexico for a while working on the family business and advising some friends with their business. Through these experience he was shocked to find out: 1) The level of indebtedness that low-income workers had in Mexico. 2) Companies were not offering benefits that promoted financial wellness in most cases they were offering problems that exacerbated the problem. 3) The lack of transparent, low cost, easy-to-use financial products in the market. He decided to move back to Mexico after living abroad for 12 years, and start a company that would fix this for people. Users have immediate access to their earned money with Monto - we deposit the money in 2 minutes into any bank account. Withdrawals are secure and confidential. Users don't need to fill out an application, provide documentation or fulfill a long list of requirements – any employee of our affiliated companies can use it. Users pay a small fixed charge per withdrawal, regardless of the amount. There are no interest payments or hidden fees. In contrast to other alternatives, we don't perform credit checks and usage of Monto cannot affect our users in any way (e.g. credit score).

gotostatement 5y ago
> Users pay a small fixed charge per withdrawal, regardless of the amount. Really disappointed to read this. Wages are so low that working people can't pay their bills, so your solution is to lower their wages even more? There was another YC company like this but they were charging the company, not the employees. You may not be a loan shark, but you are enabling the company to pay low wages and offloading the cost of mitigating the problem to the already-exploited. This is ethically dubious, at best
- lowkey_ 5y ago
  Agree with you. If Monto only works with 'affiliated companies,' at least strike a deal with those companies to take the financial burden off of their low-wage employees. That other YC startup Payflow (that was actually ripping off UIs, to their detriment) proved it to be possible.
- karinaderbez 5y ago
  Employers or users can pay the withdrawal fee, that's up to the company. We encourage companies to offer it as financial benefit. Regardless, users love our product and see a lot of value in getting the flexibility to decide when to get paid. In contrast to other options in the market there are no interest payments or hidden costs.
  - gotostatement 5y ago
    I can see how in the short term it's a positive service - they can now keep their lights on, their water running, etc. But as a long-term proposition, a permanent adjustment to the status quo, it just feeds into an exploitative system in the same way that loan sharks do. You're filling a gap that should be filled with higher wages, and reducing wages from the most-vulnerable to do so.
    - samstave 5y ago
      I agree with your sentiments, loan-sharks gunna loan-shark.... Though, if there is a good lining here, its not the retarded interest rates check-cashing and pay-day loan places charge... and thusthis seems a step in the right direction... Although, I am also reminded of MONDO.COM YOU CAN DO ANYTHING AT MONDO.COM! THats what this BSP sounded like... ---- I wish them well though.
    - jamiequint 5y ago
      You're arguing for reducing options for people who don't have money to ... make yourself feel better? Surely them having an option to choose for themselves is better than no option, unless you think you know better than them (which would be pretty arrogant and small-minded of you IMO).
IceDane 5y ago
People who are not making enough money to make ends meet -- and thus end up with overdraft fees or having to make use of things like instant loans or credit cards -- don't need to get paid faster. They need to get paid more. Whether they can afford to live or not is a matter of simple arithmetic: money left = money made - expenses. Being able to tap into their underwhelming income faster to cover a mid-month bill doesn't help them in any way, it just pushes the problem around, so that come payday, they will have even less and have to repeat the same process. This product is only less distasteful than text message money lenders because it doesn't come with exorbitant interest rates. This product isn't helping anyone. It's just capitalizing on the poor.
- IMTDb 5y ago
  > People who are not making enough money to make ends meet [...] don't need to get paid faster. They need to get paid more. Or they need to pay less. If the cost of being poor represents a significant fraction of the total spending for these people, lowering that through arbitrage is still a benefit. I mistakenly went negative once on one of my bank accounts (purely due to sheer laziness/inattention), I was amazed by how expensive that small mistake was. People who are unfortunate enough to have than happen regularly spend a lot on those fees, especially compared to their almost non-existent disposable income. Anything that can help/reduce those expenses is a win in my book.
  - IceDane 5y ago
    You're neglecting the fact that they will also have expenses the month after, and the month after that. Tapping into their income faster just means that this month's bill gets covered by their salary, but next month's bill goes on credit. If anything, this product is bad like credit cards and overdrafts, in that it will enable people to make financially unsound decisions while feeling like they can actually afford it, when they can't. They're just burning the candle at the other end.
    - dumbfoundded 5y ago
      For ease of numbers, let's say you make $100/week and have to spend $90/week on personal expenses. If you get paid once every 2 weeks, you have: Week 1: -$90 Week 2: +$20 Week 3: -$70 Week 4: +$40 Week 5: -$50 Week 6: +$60 Week 7: -$30 Week 8: +$80 Week 9: -$10 Week 10: +$100 So it takes you 9 weeks before you never go negative and to be able to afford to take the job, you need $90. If you get paid everyday, it's: Week 1: +$10 Week 2: +$20 Week 3: +$30 Week 4: +$40 Week 5: +$50 Week 6: +$60 Week 7: +$70 Week 8: +$80 Week 9: +$90 Week 10: +$100 It's clearly nicer to get paid everyday all else being equal.

gotostatement 5y ago

> Users pay a small fixed charge per withdrawal, regardless of the amount. Really disappointed to read this. Wages are so low that working people can't pay their bills, so your solution is to lower their wages even more? There was another YC company like this but they were charging the company, not the employees. You may not be a loan shark, but you are enabling the company to pay low wages and offloading the cost of mitigating the problem to the already-exploited. This is ethically dubious, at best

lowkey_ 5y ago
Agree with you. If Monto only works with 'affiliated companies,' at least strike a deal with those companies to take the financial burden off of their low-wage employees. That other YC startup Payflow (that was actually ripping off UIs, to their detriment) proved it to be possible.
karinaderbez 5y ago
Employers or users can pay the withdrawal fee, that's up to the company. We encourage companies to offer it as financial benefit. Regardless, users love our product and see a lot of value in getting the flexibility to decide when to get paid. In contrast to other options in the market there are no interest payments or hidden costs.
- gotostatement 5y ago
  I can see how in the short term it's a positive service - they can now keep their lights on, their water running, etc. But as a long-term proposition, a permanent adjustment to the status quo, it just feeds into an exploitative system in the same way that loan sharks do. You're filling a gap that should be filled with higher wages, and reducing wages from the most-vulnerable to do so.
  - samstave 5y ago
    I agree with your sentiments, loan-sharks gunna loan-shark.... Though, if there is a good lining here, its not the retarded interest rates check-cashing and pay-day loan places charge... and thusthis seems a step in the right direction... Although, I am also reminded of MONDO.COM YOU CAN DO ANYTHING AT MONDO.COM! THats what this BSP sounded like... ---- I wish them well though.
  - jamiequint 5y ago
    You're arguing for reducing options for people who don't have money to ... make yourself feel better? Surely them having an option to choose for themselves is better than no option, unless you think you know better than them (which would be pretty arrogant and small-minded of you IMO).

IceDane 5y ago

People who are not making enough money to make ends meet -- and thus end up with overdraft fees or having to make use of things like instant loans or credit cards -- don't need to get paid faster. They need to get paid more. Whether they can afford to live or not is a matter of simple arithmetic: money left = money made - expenses. Being able to tap into their underwhelming income faster to cover a mid-month bill doesn't help them in any way, it just pushes the problem around, so that come payday, they will have even less and have to repeat the same process. This product is only less distasteful than text message money lenders because it doesn't come with exorbitant interest rates. This product isn't helping anyone. It's just capitalizing on the poor.

IMTDb 5y ago
> People who are not making enough money to make ends meet [...] don't need to get paid faster. They need to get paid more. Or they need to pay less. If the cost of being poor represents a significant fraction of the total spending for these people, lowering that through arbitrage is still a benefit. I mistakenly went negative once on one of my bank accounts (purely due to sheer laziness/inattention), I was amazed by how expensive that small mistake was. People who are unfortunate enough to have than happen regularly spend a lot on those fees, especially compared to their almost non-existent disposable income. Anything that can help/reduce those expenses is a win in my book.
- IceDane 5y ago
  You're neglecting the fact that they will also have expenses the month after, and the month after that. Tapping into their income faster just means that this month's bill gets covered by their salary, but next month's bill goes on credit. If anything, this product is bad like credit cards and overdrafts, in that it will enable people to make financially unsound decisions while feeling like they can actually afford it, when they can't. They're just burning the candle at the other end.
  - dumbfoundded 5y ago
    For ease of numbers, let's say you make $100/week and have to spend $90/week on personal expenses. If you get paid once every 2 weeks, you have: Week 1: -$90 Week 2: +$20 Week 3: -$70 Week 4: +$40 Week 5: -$50 Week 6: +$60 Week 7: -$30 Week 8: +$80 Week 9: -$10 Week 10: +$100 So it takes you 9 weeks before you never go negative and to be able to afford to take the job, you need $90. If you get paid everyday, it's: Week 1: +$10 Week 2: +$20 Week 3: +$30 Week 4: +$40 Week 5: +$50 Week 6: +$60 Week 7: +$70 Week 8: +$80 Week 9: +$90 Week 10: +$100 It's clearly nicer to get paid everyday all else being equal.