The market for financial solutions supporting vulnerable adults is often described as “large”, “underserved” and “full of opportunity”.
On the surface, that may be true. But beneath those headlines sits a level of operational, regulatory and human complexity that is frequently underestimated — particularly by well-meaning amateurs entering the space for the first time.
At Money Carer, we’ve spent 20 years’ operating at the coalface of this sector. And one of the most consistent risks we see is not bad intent — it is complete naivety.
Vulnerability Is Not a Market Segment — It’s a Responsibility
Supporting people who lack capacity, live with disabilities, or rely on carers is fundamentally different from launching a consumer fintech product.
Vulnerability is not a demographic label you can simply wrap a prepaid card around and expect adoption, retention, or sustainability to follow regardless of a reality-based back-story.
Real-world money management for vulnerable adults involves:
* Local authority processes and procurement cycles
* Understanding the KYC reality of carer and family dynamics
* Safeguarding frameworks and regulatory oversight
* Court of Protection and LPA complexities
* Family dynamics and carer work pressures
* Daily operational workloads that do not scale like consumer apps
* Any solution that ignores these realities is not “innovative” — it is incomplete.
The Repeating Prepaid Card Pattern
We continue to see investor interest drawn to simple prepaid card propositions that present themselves as “transformational” while, in practice, offering little more than a standard prepaid card with a vulnerability narrative and a polished pitch deck.
History offers clear warnings.
Previous initiatives such as ‘Carer Card’, which ultimately ceased trading (Money Carer picked up most of the mess), and Guardian Card, which saw very limited market penetration before being absorbed into a larger organisation, demonstrate a consistent pattern. The issue was not branding or intent — it was the absence of a viable route to market and a failure to address the true operational complexity of the sector.
A prepaid card alone does not solve:
* Distribution through councils, deputies, or care providers
* Ongoing account oversight and safeguarding
* Compliance with the expectations of public-sector stakeholders
* non-bank account security and limitations
When “Fund Our Existence” Is Not a Strategy
From an investment perspective, the most significant red flag is when a proposition’s implicit ask is not “fund our growth” but “fund our existence for another year”. If a model relies on:
*Continuous capital injections to cover operating losses
*Future scale that depends on behaviour change by public bodies
*Assumptions that vulnerability alone guarantees uptake
Then it is not solving the underlying problem — it is postponing it.
*Shiny user interfaces and compelling social narratives do not replace the need for a commercially sustainable, operationally credible model.
A Word of Caution to Investors
For investors being wooed by the apparent size of the “vulnerability marketplace”, caution is essential.
* Ask the harder questions:
* How does this solution actually reach users at scale?
* Who carries the operational burden day to day?
* Where does profitability come from once safeguarding and compliance costs are included?
* What evidence exists beyond pilots and enthusiasm?
Without clear, defensible answers, history suggests the outcome is unlikely to change — regardless of how attractively the product is presented.
Building for Reality, Not the ‘Shiny’ Pitch Deck
At Money Carer, we believe innovation in this space is both necessary and possible — but only when built on a deep understanding of lived reality, not surface-level assumptions about vulnerability as a market opportunity.
Well-meaning amateurs may enter with optimism. Sustainable solutions, however, are built by organisations willing to confront complexity head-on — not wrap it in shiny packaging.
The sector, the people it serves, and the investors who support it deserve nothing less.
