Thursday, June 18, 2026
Home Blog Page 2

Weekly corporate finance activity by SA exchange-listed companies

Novus has acquired an additional 6,001,060 Mustek shares at R15.00 per share on the open market (outside of the Mandatory Offer) for R90 million. The company now holds 28,96 million Mustek shares constituting 50.39% of the issued shares in Mustek. Together with concert parties this shareholding increases to c.70.68%.

Oasis Crescent Property Fund has issued 827,719 new units to shareholders opting to reinvest their distribution in respect of the six months ended 31 March 2026. The shares were issued at a price of R28.78 for an aggregate R24,49 million.

Following the results of the scrip dividend election, Spear REIT will issue 8,276,950 new ordinary shares in the company in lieu of an interim dividend, resulting in a capitalisation of the distributable retained profits in the company of R107.64 million. The shares were based on a reinvestment price of R13.00 per share.

OUTsurance (OGL) has issued 507,726 new shares in exchange for 1,162,705 ordinary shares in OUTsurance Holdings (OHL) for an aggregate R35,88 million. As a result of the transaction, OGL’s shareholding in OHL has increased to 92.86% with the remaining 7.14% held by directors and management.

Master Drilling has declared a special dividend of 40 cents per ordinary share from income reserves, valued at R60,2 million. The dividend will be paid to shareholders on 17 August 2026.

Omina is to pay a special dividend of 280 cents per share, payable in cash in respect of the year ended 31 Mach 2026.

Following the acquisition of Emmerson Resources by Pan African Resources and the request to trade its shares on the ASX, the company has received an ASX conditional admission letter with trading to commence on a normal settlement basis on 2 July 2026. The company’s shares will continue to trade, as a dual primary issuer, on the LSE and JSE following the proposed ASX listing.

On June 11, 2026, the JSE lifted the suspension of trade in Wesizwe Platinum shares on the bourse. The shares were first suspended in June 2025. This was due to the company’s failure to publish its audited annual financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2024 within the period prescribed by the JSE Listing Requirements.

This week the following companies announced the repurchase of shares:

Netcare repurchased 41,451,340 of its ordinary shares in terms of the general authority granted by shareholders. The total value of the shares repurchased was R696,3 million with the average price paid per ordinary share of R16.80. Since commencement of the repurchase programme in September 2023, Netcare has repurchased 193,2 million shares, representing 13.4% of the total shares in issue as at 30 September 2023, at an average of R13.61 per share.

In its annual report, The Foschini Group reported that it had bought back a total of 10 million shares at a weighted average share price per share of R105.89 for a gross consideration of R1,03 billion.

Ninety One plc announced an increase in the repurchase programme from £30 million to £55 million to be completed by 21 July 2026. The shares to be purchased on the open market will be cancelled to reduce the Company’s ordinary share capital. This week the company repurchased a further 163,561 ordinary shares at an average price 217 pence for an aggregate £350,082.

GreenCoat Renewables has implemented a share buyback programme totalling €100 million over 12 months with a first tranche amounting to €25 million beginning on 5 March 2026 – representing 13% of the issued share capital. This week 1,079,250 shares were repurchased for and aggregate €827,307.

Anheuser-Busch InBev’s US$6 billion share buy-back programme continues. The shares acquired will be kept as treasury shares to fulfil future share delivery commitments under the group’s stock ownership plans. During the period 1 to 5 2026, the group repurchased 537,216 shares for €36,97 million.

During the period 1 – 5 June 2026, Prosus repurchased a further 2,631,597 Prosus shares for an aggregate €107,22 million and Naspers, a further 905,808 Naspers shares for a total consideration of R805,88 million.

Two companies issued a profit warning this week: Brikor and Novus.

One company issued or withdrew a cautionary notice: Trematon Capital Investments.

Who’s doing what in the African M&A and debt financing space?

Kasapreko Plc’s IPO attracted total bids of GHS1,72 billion, more than double the targeted raise of GHS700 million, representing an oversubscription of roughly 146%. The IPO consisted of 583,333,333 ordinary shares at GHS1.20 per share. The shares are expected to begin trading next week.

Nigeria’s Agriarche, has received backing from French development finance institution Proparco. Financial terms were not disclosed. Agriarche – a female led agri-tech company, has developed an integrated agricultural model spanning multiple segments of the value chain, including commodity aggregation, logistics, payments for local and export markets through its flagship platform, Kasuwa.

Edafa Venture announced the acquisition of two AI startups operating in construction and healthcare sectors. Kuadra leverages AI to transform the planning, management and execution of large-scale construction projects through interconnected smart operating systems that enhance efficiency and streamline project operations. IRRI Vision is an Egyptian health-tech company that develops AI-powered solutions to support physicians and healthcare providers with faster and more accurate diagnostic tools, helping improve treatment outcomes and overall quality of healthcare services. Financial terms were not disclosed.

Blnk, an Eqyptian fintech company has raised US$12,5 million in equity funding and $24,6 million in local debt facilities. The Series A equity funding round was led by Algebra Ventures, with participation from SANAD Fund for MSME, Endeavor Catalyst and Emirates International Investment Company (EIIC). Debt funding was secured from a number of leading local banks, with notable participation from Suez Canal Bank, Bank Albaraka and National Bank of Egypt, as well as Non-Bank Financial institutions (NBFIs) including Corplease, Globalcorp and BM Lease, among others.

CreditChek raised US$600k in seed funding led by Janngo Capital to expand its credit data infrastructure and services across the East African market. Additional investors include Vastly Valuable Ventures, Unipeg Capital, and returning investor Assembly Investors. CreditChek, based in Nigeria, is a credit assessment provider. The company provides a credit data infrastructure platform that aggregates and standardizes borrower data for financial institutions.

Kenya’s Family Bank has secured the Capital Markets Authority’s approval to list on the Nairobi Securities Exchange on June 23. This comes after Family Bank raised KES 8 billion (US$61,8 million) in a 2025 private placement, exceeding its KES 6.09 billion ($47,1 million) target.

MNT-Halan, an Egyptian fintech ecosystem, has reached a valuation of US$1,4 billion following the first closing of a new investment round led by Al Ahly Capital, the investment arm of the National Bank of Egypt. A second closing is expected as part of the ongoing round.

IQSTEL Inc., a global Connectivity, AI, and Digital Services company, has announced a Binding Memorandum of Understanding to acquire a 51% controlling interest in Ultranet Telecom Group, a fast-growing telecom and technology company headquartered in Ghana with operations across Africa and international markets. The parties are working toward a Definitive Purchase Agreement within 60 days, with a target close in Q3 2026. Financial terms are not being disclosed at this time.

Wilmar International announced that it has entered into definitive agreements with Tropical General Investments Group to combine their respective Nigerian and Republic of Benin operating businesses, into a single integrated platform through a new 50:50 joint venture. Following the signing of the definitive agreements, Wilmar and TGI Group will contribute a portfolio of complementary operating businesses and brands in Nigeria and Benin to the joint venture, spanning upstream agriculture, oil palm plantations, edible oils, edible nuts, rice, culinary, food manufacturing and nationwide distribution amongst others.

Can you take the mailing list?

Direct marketing consent in South African corporate restructures

When a corporate restructure or acquisition closes, the acquiring entity typically inherits various commercial assets: customer contracts, supplier relationships, intellectual property and – increasingly – marketing databases. These databases are built over years and represent significant commercial value. Yet a question that is often missed in the transaction is whether the customer’s consent to receive direct marketing travels with the database to the new legal entity?

This question, which remains untested in South African courts, deserves closer attention from M&A practitioners, particularly as the Information Regulator continues to mature in its enforcement posture.

Section 69 of the Protection of Personal Information Act, 2013 (POPIA) governs direct marketing by means of unsolicited electronic communications: a responsible party may only engage in direct marketing by electronic means if the data subject has given consent (i.e. opt-in consent). There is a limited exception for existing customers, but even that exception is tethered to the responsible party that originally collected the personal information in the context of a sale.

The POPIA Regulations elaborate on the mechanisms through which consent must be obtained and recorded. Notably, Form 4 of the Regulations require that opt-in consent wording identify the responsible party by name, linking the data subject’s consent to a specific legal entity. Neither POPIA nor the Regulations address the question of whether consent given to one responsible party may be relied upon by a successor entity following a corporate restructure.

The answer to the transferability question is not uniform. It depends on the nature of the transaction.

In a share sale, the legal entity that holds the marketing database does not change. The target company remains the responsible party, and customers’ consent – given to that entity – is undisturbed. The change in ultimate ownership at the shareholder level does not, without more, alter the identity of the entity with which the customer has a direct marketing relationship. Share sales, therefore, present the lowest risk from a consent-transfer perspective, provided the target company continues to trade under its existing name and identity.

The position is materially different in a business transfer or asset sale. Here, the marketing database is transferred from the selling entity to the acquiring entity, i.e. a distinct legal person. The customer consented to receive marketing from Entity A; it is now Entity B that wishes to send the communication. Even if the business operations are materially identical (same brand, same products, same customer experience), the legal identity of the responsible party has changed. It is, at least, arguable on a strict interpretation of the regulations that consent given to Entity A does not automatically extend to Entity B.

The most legally defensible approach is to treat existing consents as non-transferable and to conduct a fresh opt-in campaign before the acquiring entity engages in any direct marketing. This eliminates regulatory risk and ensures full compliance with the letter of section 69.

The practical difficulty is obvious. Re-consent campaigns are expensive, operationally burdensome and, critically, tend to yield low response rates. A marketing database of considerable commercial value can be reduced to a fraction of its size overnight. For many acquirers, particularly those who have priced the transaction on the assumption that the database is a usable asset, this outcome is commercially unpalatable.

A more pragmatic approach, which carries a degree of regulatory risk but may be defensible in the right circumstances, involves a risk-based assessment coupled with enhanced transparency measures.

This approach may be supportable where the original consent wording is sufficiently broad to encompass successors or affiliated entities; where the nature of the business relationship remains unchanged from the customer’s perspective; where customers are clearly and proactively informed of the restructure and the change in the legal entity responsible for their data; where customers are given a prominent and accessible opportunity to opt out of marketing from the new entity at the point of notification; and where opt-out preferences are diligently honoured.

Acquirers adopting this approach should ensure that all post-restructure communications clearly identify the new entity as the responsible party, and should document their rationale in a personal information impact assessment. Monitoring for complaints and regulatory action is essential, and marketing to any data subject who objects must cease immediately.

M&A practitioners would be well served to address this issue early in the transaction lifecycle. During due diligence, the scope and wording of existing marketing consents should be reviewed with care. The commercial value of the marketing database should be assessed against the cost of a re-consent campaign, and consideration should be given to whether a phased approach offers a workable middle path (for instance, prioritising re-consent for high-value customer segments).

The transaction structure itself may also be relevant. Where the marketing database is a material asset, a share sale may present fewer complications than a business transfer, and this factor ought to feature in structuring discussions.

Until the South African courts or the Information Regulator provide definitive guidance, the transferability of direct marketing consent will remain a question of risk appetite rather than legal certainty. The prudent dealmaker will plan accordingly.

Priyanka Raath is an Executive in Technology, Media and Telecommunications | ENS

Africa’s fintech consolidation wave continues amid challenges

After years of fragmented growth, Africa’s fintech sector has entered an era of increased consolidation, with the continent’s tech ecosystem having recorded 67 reported M&A transactions in 2025, a 72% surge from 2024, and comfortably surpassing the previous record of 40 deals set in 20221. Fintech led the charge, accounting for 31 of those deals — roughly 46% of the total — as cash-rich platforms moved decisively to acquire market share, banking licences and infrastructure, rather than waiting on organic growth.

The shift is structural, not cyclical. The “growth at all costs” model that defined African tech’s venture-fuelled boom has given way to a harder-nosed calculus: profitability, regulatory moats, and scale. With African startups raising US$3,42 billion in 2025 — a healthy rebound from $2,24 billion in 2024, but concentrated in fewer hands — well-capitalised incumbents are well positioned. Increased partnerships and expansions also complemented M&A, as firms like Nigeria’s Rank (ex-Moni) snapped up AjoMoney and Zazzau Microfinance Bank for savings and credit services, and South African payments specialist, Stitch Group2 similarly acquired ExiPay and Efficacy Payments to bolster its infrastructure.

Two transactions encapsulate the moment. In Nigeria, Moniepoint completed its acquisition of a 78% stake in Kenya’s Sumac Microfinance Bank. Sumac, a licensed deposit-taking lender, gives Moniepoint instant access to Kenya’s $67,3 billion mobile payments market, bypassing a lengthy regulatory process. After an earlier attempt to acquire payments firm KopoKopo fell apart, Moniepoint pivoted to Sumac and secured this East African foothold (retaining Sumac’s infrastructure and staff)34, while also grabbing UK’s Bancom Europe for broader capabilities.5

In South Africa, Lesaka Technologies sealed a transformative $61 million (R1,1 billion) deal for Bank Zero in 2025.6 Bank Zero brought more than R400 million ($22 million) in deposits and over 40,000 funded accounts to the transaction, embedding a zero-fee neobank into Lesaka’s platform for consumers, merchants and enterprises. Chairman Michael Jordaan, the former FNB CEO who co-founded Bank Zero, joined Lesaka’s board post-deal, signalling governance depth.7

Both deals follow the same playbook: acquire a licence, retain the team, accelerate the model.

The M&A wave is inseparable from a broader shift in how capital flows in and out of African tech. With global IPO markets subdued, the traditional venture-to-public-markets exit path has narrowed, and Private equity (PE) is filling the gap. The African Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (AVCA) noted 63 exits in 2024 – up 50% year-on-year – with secondary transactions now accounting for a third of all exits. PE suits the new African tech reality: predictable recurring revenues in payments application programming interfaces, software as a service infrastructure, and lending platforms translate more cleanly into PE return models than into volatile public market multiples.

Three-quarters of Africa’s 2025 tech M&A activity was concentrated in Africa’s “Big Four” markets — South Africa (16 deals), Kenya (14), Egypt (11) and Nigeria (9) — the same markets that attracted the lion’s share of 2025 funding: $933 million, $811 million, $548 million, and $438 million respectively. The correlation is not coincidental. More mature ecosystems attract capital, which breeds acquirers, which deepens ecosystems further. The flywheel is turning.

The regulatory dimension is equally important. Across the continent, buying a licensed institution compresses years of compliance into a single transaction, as illustrated by Moniepoint’s Sumac play. In markets where regulatory frameworks are tightening, licence acquisition will continue to gain strategic importance.

Looking to the remainder of 2026, it is likely that the above trends will continue, although the current global economic uncertainty may have an impact – not least on the continued appetite of Gulf sovereign wealth funds for African fintech assets – while regulatory delays, valuation gaps between founders and buyers, and currency volatility will remain challenges. That said, the direction of travel is clear, with consolidation in Africa’s fintech sector set to continue.

Konrad Fleischhauer and Kayla Jackson are Corporate Financiers | PSG Capital

This article first appeared in DealMakers AFRICA, the continent’s quarterly M&A publication.

  1. https://www.ecofinagency.com/news/3001-52458-african-startup-m-a-hits-record-67-deals-in-2025-led-by-fintech ↩︎
  2. Efficacy Payments has been acquired by Stitch Group, enabling the Group to offer card acquiring services ↩︎
  3. https://dabafinance.com/en/news/kenya-clears-nigeria-fintech-moniepoint-to-acquire-sumac-microfinance ↩︎
  4. https://techcabal.com/2025/06/02/moniepoint-kenya-sumac-78-kopokopo/ ↩︎
  5. https://www.ecofinagency.com/news/3001-52458-african-startup-m-a-hits-record-67-deals-in-2025-led-by-fintech ↩︎
  6. https://www.finasa.org.za/post/south-african-fintech-ecosystem-30-day-summary-feb-march-2026-funding-regulation-key-deals ↩︎
  7. https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/LESAKA-TECHNOLOGIES-INC-10275/news/South-African-fintech-group-Lesaka-acquires-Bank-Zero-for-61mn-50411637/ ↩︎

Ghost Stories #105: Altron – a multi-platform, multi-decade moat

Listen to the podcast here:

The Finance Ghost welcomes Altron CEO Werner Kapp fresh off a standout capital markets day that left a strong impression: this is a business whose growth story isn’t tightly tethered to South Africa’s traditional economic constraints. From FinTech and HealthTech to telematics and IT security, Altron operates a portfolio of platform businesses that quietly underpin everyday life, even if most consumers don’t realise it!

In this conversation, Werner unpacks how these platforms drive resilient, annuity-style revenues, while also leaning into powerful structural tailwinds like digitisation, mobile adoption and the evolution of the payments ecosystem.

The discussion goes deeper into the mechanics of the Altron model. From competitive moats built over decades, to the strategic role of data, AI and capital allocation across a diversified platform base, there’s much to discuss. Werner also explains the thinking behind the group’s AI factory, its disciplined approach to growth vs margins, and why regulatory change in FinTech could unlock meaningful upside.

This is a rare, detailed look inside a South African tech business that touches millions of lives every day.

Topics in this podcast:

  • Why Altron’s platform businesses can grow independently of SA GDP constraints
  • The difference between platform vs IT services exposure to economic cycles
  • Real-world examples of how Altron products are used daily (IDs, payments, healthcare, vehicle tracking)
  • South Africa’s digital adoption curve and key structural tailwinds
  • The impact of payments modernisation (PayShap, SARB reforms) on FinTech
  • Building and defending a moat through data, distribution and embedded systems
  • How Altron uses cross-platform data insights to enhance value
  • The role and strategy behind the AI factory (and why it’s not a GPU business)
  • Managing capital allocation across multiple platforms with a strong annuity base
  • Growth vs margin trade-offs in a competitive tech landscape
  • Netstar dynamics: OEM channels, Chinese vehicle growth and market shifts
  • Fintech upside from potential direct access to payment rails
  • Why Altron’s 91% annuity revenue model is central to its investment case

This podcast has been sponsored by Altron. As always, I was allowed to ask whatever I felt is relevant to investors. Please do your own research and treat this as only one part of your research process. Please always speak to a financial advisor before making any investments.


Transcript:

The Finance Ghost: Welcome to this episode of the Ghost Stories podcast. I must apologise for my voice. I have a cold. So doing my best here.

Someone else who’s certainly been doing their best and doesn’t appear to have a cold is the team at Altron. They are fresh off a very impressive, highly insightful capital markets day. I must say I really, really enjoyed it.

To talk to us here today, we have Werner Kapp. He is the CEO of Altron. He’s going to take us through some of the themes in the group strategy, some of the stuff that came through from the capital markets day, which I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to. I attended online.

I always applaud companies who take the step of a capital markets day and actually make it publicly available. So well done. It’s always so good for the broader investor community to just get a sense of what’s going on.

The key message that I took out from it was that Altron’s growth is not constrained by many of the factors that we are so accustomed to in South Africa. GDP growth, infrastructure investment, all that kind of stuff doesn’t seem to be much of a constraint in your world.

And that’s because the digital world is just so different. It’s got exciting adoption curves; it’s got lots of opportunities linked to data. Very excited to hear more about these things on this podcast. So welcome, Werner. Thank you so much.

And would you say that my key takeout from the day is an accurate view on things?

Werner Kapp: Firstly, thank you very much for having me. I’m a big fan of your show, so it’s really nice to be on it. Glad that you enjoyed the capital markets day. I think it’s a fantastically accurate description.

I think probably the only thing to zone in on would be that I think it’s particularly our platform businesses that are not necessarily constrained by the structural economy.

I think our IT services businesses (so those are the businesses that provide IT services to large public and private sector enterprises) – they are impacted by consumer confidence, business confidence, fixed capital investment. So all the normal structural GDP.

But because of the role that our platform businesses play specifically in digitisation across the economy, but particularly the informal segment, yes, I think it is an accurate description.

That’s obviously why we are delighted to have been able to produce the kind of results that we have and why we are really, really excited about the business going forward.

It’s a great opportunity, not just for us, but for the country as well. And I think digitisation has the opportunity to close that digital divide over time.

The Finance Ghost: Yeah, absolutely. No company is an island, but you do have a very large boat. So it does seem to be quite an encouraging story right now.

So, I think let’s dig into more elements then of what we saw yesterday and just where the business is at the moment.

Something quite interesting – obviously I look at everything across the market, and the JSE remains a market where I think the more traditional sectors like mining and retail, they get a lot of attention.

We just don’t have that tech culture that you’ll see on the NASDAQ and those sort of places. And yet we use technology every single day in just about every single thing that we do.

One of the more powerful messages that you delivered during that capital markets day was the extent to which Altron’s services are so ingrained in our daily lives. I found that very interesting. It’s these platform businesses that you speak of, right? We actually see and touch them all the time. We just don’t realise it.

So perhaps you could give the listeners just an overview of the Altron group. Very high level – people can obviously go read that for themselves. And then perhaps more importantly, those real-world examples of how we actually use your products every day in South Africa.

Werner Kapp: That’s probably one of the things I like the most about Altron and one of the things that really excited me most about the opportunity when I first joined the group.

At corporate level, at a high level we’ve got what we call platform and IT services businesses. Our platform business is Netstar, a well-known consumer brand in stolen vehicle recovery, and in telematics.  

Then we’ve got our FinTech business and our HealthTech business, and our IT services businesses are Altron Document Solutions, which is a managed print business. It’s the Xerox partner for South Africa and a couple of other African countries.

Altron Digital Business, which is a systems integration business, and Altron Security. And then we have a joint venture with a global company called Altron Arrow, which is an electronic sub-component business. That’s the corporate side of it.

I think the cool side of it, that a lot of South Africans probably don’t know about engaging with Altron on a daily basis and how we enable things – I’ll give you four practical examples.

The most practical one is your smart ID card that you carry around with you. There are about 27 million smart ID cards in South Africa in issue, printed by us, and your biometric data is securely encrypted on that card by Altron. So that’s the first one.

If you go to a private practitioner, if you or your family go to a doctor, there’s about a 45% chance that your physician would run our private practice management system. So that appointment is facilitated. About 60% of the healthcare transactions in South Africa gets done on our switch.

So, 60% chance that if you’re on private health care, that the facilitation of that payment, of your appointment by the medical aid or getting your medicine for that cough of yours later today at the local pharmacy: that payment would be facilitated by our switch.

We’ve got about a million people whose safety – both from a vehicle perspective, assets and family – if you’re a Netstar subscriber, we’re tracking what you’re doing – we track about 170 million km on a daily basis of vehicles and assets across the country.

My kids, by the way, they’re writing exams right now. I guess like most kids in the country. It’s a really good chance that the exam papers – we printed about 500 million exam pages last year.

And then probably the last one is – and you can keep an eye out for it, by the way, next time you’re at your local coffee shop, drive through, a number of clothing retailers – that payment system is facilitated by Altron. If you look at your payment device, you may see an Altron logo on it.

I went Christmas shopping a while back in a well-known shopping centre in Joburg. Three or four of the places where we bought Christmas gifts, the payment was done on an Altron card machine.

The Finance Ghost: It is a really, really big business and it touches so many elements of our daily life, which I really enjoy.

And something else that came through in that capital markets day, which then explains just why this is all possible, is that the South African population is actually quite digitally savvy.

And I agree with that. You’re obviously seeing it every day, but I mean, even just my own perception, it does make sense. And that is such a key ingredient for what you are doing. Things like the shift towards a cashless economy, those sorts of trends. Digital IDs as you say, just take us through some of these growth tailwinds in our country, what you mean by comments like South Africans are digitally savvy, and then obviously how the broader Altron Group is actually positioned to maximise the opportunities that flow from this.

Werner Kapp: I think we’re one of the countries with the highest mobile penetration rate. Across the board, you see people, whether they’re standing outside taxi ranks, whether it’s us in corporates in queues, people are forever on their mobile phones, very digitally savvy.

People are listening to podcasts like yourselves on their phones, consuming apps all the time, etc. So, I think just that and the fact that we have a very good connectivity infrastructure in South Africa.

There are world-class data centres, there’s a very good connectivity infrastructure. We’ve got a significant amount of capacity coming from subsea cables across both the east and the western coast of the African continent.

So, I think when you combine those two (which by the way is something you see in emerging markets across the world, but I think it’s particularly prevalent in South Africa), you get this adoption. People are very, very happy to use digital solutions rather than physical solutions.

And what’s happening in South Africa is a couple of things and you’ve touched on it.

One is the Payments Ecosystem Modernisation project, which the South African Reserve Bank launched a while back. I mean you would have seen PayInc and the PayShap rails that were really introduced.

And what that does is really open up some of the payment activities in South Africa, really to stimulate particularly sort of fintechs in that informal economy. Some of the costs can be quite prohibitive for both the consumers of that service and the merchants.

So, we certainly see that as a great opportunity because obviously if you add the deregulation, we certainly intend to apply for some of those payment activities. It’s being gazetted right now. So, we believe that we’ll have the opportunity to do that by the end of this year.

You’ve touched on it, been in the news quite a lot recently: we’ve seen the Minister of Home Affairs talk about a digital national identity. Sunday evening, we saw President Ramaphosa, for example, speak about some of the challenges with illegal immigrant workers in South Africa and the fact that they want to bring the old green ID book and passport to an end. There’s an opportunity for us.

MyMzansi is another example where I think the South African government has also realised that they can improve services to us as citizens through the use of digitisation, which really goes beyond some of the physical constraints and some of the public service constraints that we have in the country.

Certainly they are spaces that we play in. And also, public and private healthcare. Although our HealthTech business primarily plays in private practice. But we do think because of the data records that we have – we’ve got data records of about 15 million people in South Africa – we also think should there be NHI (and NHI will be absolutely dependent, by the way, on electronic data records), we think we’re well positioned for that opportunity as well.

The Finance Ghost: Absolutely. So, you’ve alluded to something there that I wanted to touch on, which is just the extent of the moat in your business, in the world that we now find ourselves in. So, for example, one of the things I picked up yesterday was that the group is roughly 90% annuity revenue. I think it was a little bit higher than that.

You’ve got a bunch of moats. I think that came through really well as well. For example, when the MD of the HealthTech side talked about – just “time in the saddle” was one of the messages that I got. You’ve been out there for decades doing this. That takes time.

Anyone who’s built a business knows you don’t just wake up and displace something that’s already there. I mean, this is year six for me of The Finance Ghost and it’s been an incredible journey that has a very long way to go.

It’s very, very easy to sit with a spreadsheet and talk about this and that. Go build a business and you’ll see how hard it is to actually get that market penetration and hang on to it.

And this is a big part of the bull case, right? You’ve done this in a lot of your businesses. You’ve got the data, as you’ve talked about.

I guess the one thing that an investor might ask, and it did come up in the questions from analysts and at your CMD – stuff like just why this particular group of platforms actually belong together in one place, in one Altron?

For example, does the data from one platform make another platform better? Shared services, synergies?

Maybe just explain to us why Altron looks the way it does. Because as you said at the capital markets day, there isn’t actually another group that someone can directly compare you to.

Werner Kapp: Yeah, it’s a very, very good question. I mean, if I could maybe touch on the moat maybe for two minutes.

You’re 100% right. Our platform businesses are a 30-year overnight success. Right? [Laughs].

And I think a moat is a combination of the software – we’re talking about people consuming services on mobile applications. That experience comes across as very simplistic and very seamless for the consumer. But behind that ecosystem is an incredibly complex embedded ecosystem with high volumes.

When you go to the pharmacy later today to get your cough medicine, you’re presenting your medical aid card and that’s a very seamless, easy process for you, right? Which I think hardly goes wrong.

But the ecosystem that the software has to traverse in the background is really, really complex and it takes years of experience and the software and embeddedness, I think that’s the first thing.

And the second one is the distribution channels that it takes. if you think of the distribution channel that it takes to onboard over a period of time 20,000 doctors, for example, onto your software. What it takes to onboard 5,000 microlenders onto your software, teach them how to use it, how to improve their businesses through it.

If you look at our Netstar business, you deal with the majority of insurance partners, over 150 dealers, etc. And then obviously there’s the data part, which I’ll touch on a little bit later.

I think it’s quite important for people to understand that competitive moat. And listen, we’re also paranoid, we also feel we’ve just begun, right? Nobody has the right to win all the time. So it’s something that we reinvest in all the time.

The businesses, they’re all unique businesses, they’re distinct businesses and we’re very clear about that, right? You would have met or seen online some of the MDs of those businesses and we run them in a federated fashion. The fact that we are multi-platform and in these different vertical industries is part of our strength.

Where the synergies come in, I would say it’s across three things.

The one thing is, particularly when it comes to enterprise customers, our opportunity is to service enterprise customers better when those businesses work together.

To give you just a practical example of that, if you combine consumer data in fintech with movement data in Netstar, to healthcare data in the HealthTech business, and you’re able to get insights from that to, for example, an insurer to really personalise a product offering for you, that’s quite powerful.

The other part is the reason why we’ve invested in the AI factory is really to bring that kind of power locally to South Africa, not necessarily as a standalone money-spinner. We don’t have the intention to become a GPU-as-a-Service company or business in South Africa. We leave that to the large-scale capital operators who want to do that. But we really see that as an enabler of business.

I really think it’s probably a little bit of customer cross-selling, more in the enterprise space than in the consumer. Because as consumers, you’d appreciate that’s a very distinct offering that they get.

The second one really is how we use data across those businesses to really add value to the service offering.

The third one is really how the AI factory underpins that because essentially what it helps us to do is to scale those offerings and also things like servicing our customers, better operational efficiencies within those business, just quicker and at a lower price point.

The Finance Ghost: Let’s take the conversation to that AI factory, because as you’ve quite correctly pointed out, nobody has the right to win all the time. It actually doesn’t matter how long you’ve been at this for.

This AI era feels like we’re all just a big startup now. No one knows, right? Got all these IPOs coming. Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX… it’s all happening.

And Claude released a new model literally last night. I see lots of people on my feed talking about how their token usage is now just ridiculous and it’s obliterating their plans. We’re going to start to see some price discovery around tokens and what AI actually needs to cost to be sustainable.

So, lots going on here clearly. And you’ve taken a slightly different route, which is to say we want to at least develop a fair amount of this internally, if I understand it correctly, and you’ll have to forgive me, I’m not a techie. A lot of my listeners are also not techies. So that’s why it’s actually quite helpful because if I am not 100% sure, they probably aren’t either.

So maybe just talk to us about exactly what the AI factory is internally, and also how it competes for capital. Because that was a fun thing that came through at the CMD, I think. The CFO specifically said there’s no blank cheque for this. It competes for capital like any other division in the group.

So, what exactly are you building there and why is it exciting?

Werner Kapp: Great question. Very, very simplistic answer: it’s not AI that we’ve developed. So, the technologies that we’re using are Nvidia, which I’m sure would be well known to most of the listeners. That’s the core hardware and software part of it.

The large language models that we use, we call them curated models, which kind of means, listen, they’ve pre-built that model for specific use cases.

A very simple one, for example, is insurance claim processing at scale. It’s done by AI rather than by human beings, and that’s done at a much quicker efficiency level. They’re, what we can then do for customers, is take that curated model and then you obviously build a specific, what people call “agentic AI”.

You train that model very specifically. The model will discover, okay, this is how the data sets and the rules work in my business. The way Andy Mabaso, our CTO, describes it is essentially what a large language model gives you is 200 PhD students at your fingertips to do this stuff at scale.

What specifically the AI factory is, it’s just a local instance of that. So, SMEs, people are consuming this service from companies from abroad, so subject to exchange rate, et cetera.

Big issue is also data sovereignty for people and security, right? We’re seeing that a heck of a lot more.

So, all that this really is, is a local instance of Nvidia and its models. It’s in a world-class data centre. We partnered with Teraco, it’s just around the corner. It really just gives us the advantage for ourselves and our customers to be quite flexible, quick speed to market.

There are obviously some dollar-based cost components to it, but we own the base infrastructure, if that makes any sense. So, it can scale at a lower cost. And of course, the models (I mean you talk about consumption of tokens), they are subject to whatever the cost structures may be of those providers. But it really just gives us data sovereignty and speed to market.

What it means for us as a business is twofold. And I suppose I’ve touched already on one element of it: significant deployment of that within specifically our platform businesses. Not exclusively, but naturally those kind of businesses, high volumes of transactions on a daily basis, often fielded by humans who are constrained by their capacity, kind of naturally lends itself to the deployment of AI. So, we are deploying that within our business to service our clients better.

Just to give you an example, Netstar receives 505 million data messages a day. And it’s very important for us to interpret those data messages at scale. So, for example, do we get false notifications? If you’re a Netstar customer, you may often get a call saying we’ve received an alert, press one if it’s a real situation, that kind of thing. So the AI factory is helping us with that kind of stuff.

In the fintech business, it’s helping us analyse, for example, things that we call strike date analysis. So, for the microlending software business, it is really quite important. What is the right time of the day, by the way, to the hour, for debit orders (as an example) to be successfully collected. So we’re doing a lot of that stuff.

And then through Altron Digital Business, which is our systems integration business, we have a large data and AI practice. And that data and AI practice really uses not exclusively the AI factory. It could also be using other enterprise AI tools, obviously Copilot for example, if you’ve got a large Microsoft installed base.

There we really help our customers. So, it’s sort of a consulting engagement where we really help our customers. Because a big question on everybody’s lips, and you kind of touched on it early on, right, which is: it’s fantastic, there are these amazing things, but how does that ultimately get deployed within my organisation at scale and improves the bottom line?

So, I hope that makes sense. That’s kind of the two elements to it, internal usage and then really helping our clients deploy AI better.

It competes for capital the same as all of our other businesses really compete for capital. When guys are asking us for capital, we have hurdle rates, we look at what the returns can be, what are the time periods for those returns. So that’s kind of a simplistic process.

Although sometimes, to be honest, you take a bit of a punt sometimes, right?

On the AI business case, that wasn’t that simplistic. When guys compete for capital, for example, in our Netstar business, we deploy a lot of capital into the capital rental devices. That’s the tracking device that enables the service. That’s a no-brainer, right? We understand the payback period of that exceptionally well.

It’s not that clear necessarily what the payback period is going to be for AI factory. So, there’s a simplistic competition for capital, which is really based on your normal kind of capital. What kind of IRR are you going to get in how quick a period of time?

But things like AI, we just felt that it’s really, really important for us as a business to get to know this stuff quickly. And that’s a bit of an explorative journey. I think the commercialisation of that is starting to become obvious to us, as I said, within the businesses.

So now what happens is we have KPIs. Each member of our executive team has a KPI that says I have seen two or three specific use cases for AI in my business. So, we’re starting to see that come through and that’s how we can measure it. And then the other one is obviously revenue, particularly within our Altron Digital Business in that data and AI practice. So, if that means that we’ll deploy more capital as it becomes more successful, we will.

But as I said, the intention of this is not for us to be a provider of hardware and software AI services necessarily at scale. We don’t believe that that’s our focus. We’re a capital-light platform-type business. And this really helps drive that.

The Finance Ghost: No, absolutely. That makes a lot of sense, and I completely agree with you. Obviously sometimes you just need to take a punt, right?

If you’re out there building a business instead of just running it on spreadsheets somewhere, you’ll understand that the only thing we know for sure about forecasts is that they’re wrong. That’s all we know for sure.

We just hope to figure out why they were wrong and maybe “what do you need to believe for this to be true?” and that kind of stuff. But it’s going to be wrong. Especially in tech, I think everything moves so fast, right? What choice you have, you need to not be left behind.

Werner Kapp: I’ve been in tech for 30 odd years now, and I think that’s the exciting part of tech, to be honest. But you do need to have an innovative, entrepreneurial-type spirit to do that, which we encourage in our businesses. And look where we’re really fortunate is that I think you opened up with the 90%/91% annuity revenue.

So that’s really powerful and we think it’s a big part of (a) our competitive moat and (b) our value proposition to investors is that in any given day (and listen, things can go wrong – you could churn some of that revenue, so that’s something we look at), but on any given day, when we open our doors in a financial year, 90% of our revenue is pre-booked.

So, it makes our earnings quite predictable. It’s highly cash generative also and that means that I think it gives us a little bit more flexibility around capital allocation and making those longer term bets because hopefully it goes without saying that as much as of course you always have to try and deliver short term numbers and earnings, we’re here to build a sustainable business, right?

We’ve been around for 61 years and that’s maybe when you asked the earlier question around, what are those synergies between those businesses? The other synergy, it’s maybe slightly more boring than data, but it is capital allocation.

People have often asked us as an example, why don’t we list the Netstar business?

And the answer is, well, we don’t need to do right now a capital raise to be able to grow that business going forward. Because we’ve got this combination of highly cash generative businesses and that gives us an ability to be able to be selective.

Our competitors play in one space. They can only allocate capital. They don’t have all businesses that are competing for capital, and you can deploy it where you see the best return and the best opportunity to build out your moat over time.

The Finance Ghost: When you’re innovating off that level of annuity revenue, it’s like working hard all week and then having a good time on a Friday night. You know, you’ve earned that right. You’ve got the base done. It’s when you don’t have any of the annuity revenue and you are out on the jol on a Monday at lunchtime, that’s a problem. You know your week’s going to be bad. It’s a great position to be in.

Werner Kapp: I just wanted to mention about the annuity. Firstly, you can never take that for granted because my annuity is someone like yourself who has entrusted us with a service to protect their assets or your car or your family, right? So I think that’s the first part.

And then the other part is there are parts of our business, your IT services business. You talk about working hard during the week and going on a jol over the weekend. You know, there our annuity business is about 50%/51%. So that’s a different ball game. Margins are a lot lower and you literally work on this kind of three-month billing cycle.

So, every Monday there, to use your analogy, you go to work with a hangover, but you’ve got to pitch up and you’ve got to be out there and you’ve got to do new deals. It’s not that we don’t love that business. And that’s the world that I come from. And that’s probably, by the way, why I appreciate that annuity business more than anybody else, because I’ve spent 25 years in businesses where we always used to say, “Right, it’s the new month, we’re back to zero, let’s go back and fill up that pipeline”.

And I think if you get that combination right, almost fanatical, if that’s the right word, attitude towards servicing your current customers.

Like I said, I come from a world where can you imagine losing part of that 51% base? So I think if you can get that combination right and then be really, really focused around acquiring new customers or new subscribers, which, touch wood, we seem to have done reasonably well over the last four years, then you’ve got a great business.

The Finance Ghost: Yeah, absolutely. Look, it’s your fault that I’m using these jolling analogies because your capital markets day had this wonderful EDM music playing in between. And honestly, the management team strike me as just great people to have at a braai, especially your CTO. Thoroughly enjoyed him. So just a cool culture. I can see it across the group.

Let’s maybe move on from that then and talk a little bit more about the financial stuff. So, tech companies unfortunately have a little bit of a reputation of being willing to chase revenue at almost any cost. More the international players, but still. Stuff like margin, cash flow, this sometimes takes a backseat in pursuit of growth.

I don’t get that sense at Altron, which is great and I’m very happy to see it, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have some sources of margin pressures. So, one of the things that came through at the CMD, for example, is the marketing spend at Altron.  

Obviously your big listed competitor, we’ve seen their margins do a little bit of this (for people who can’t see me, obviously, which is everyone, up and down, up and down based on marketing spend and investing ahead of growth and that kind of thing). So that seems to be a feature of that market.

Fintech platform – also vulnerable to fee compression, especially as you see competition in verticals like informal merchants really heating up. Everyone’s talking about that Kasi economy now. I saw you reference GG Alcock on the day. That guy is getting all over the place at the moment because everyone is so interested in the space. Well done to him.

Perhaps you can just take us through your group’s overall approach to market share versus managing margin, how you prioritise these things and just how you think about keeping the income statement in one piece in what is essentially a very exciting world.

Werner Kapp: That is a heck of a good question, firstly. We’re not a tech company that chases revenue at all costs. And the reason why I say that is, tech companies who kind of chase revenue at all costs are companies where, because the world is evolving so rapidly, the reality is to be a successful global tech company, you’ve got to be first to market and you’ve got to sew up that market and that ecosystem as quickly as you can.

And there’s multiple examples of that. So, we’re not that tech company. We deliver digital services and we’ve discussed the fact that we’ve been around for a while.

Having said that, the struggle is real. Absolutely.  The balance between revenue and margin is real. Again, where we are quite lucky in the platform businesses is the unit economics, obviously. Your fixed cost base is fairly stagnant and as long as you’re adding subscribers to that base, you get a margin uplift.

Having said that, it is a blend. You’ve got to get both right. Because in any given year, we can switch off our cost base and make a heck of a lot more profit. But what are you going to do over the next two or three years?

To touch on that, certainly at Netstar, (which is what you referenced), we have doubled our marketing budget there, particularly in consumer.

I don’t think I have a simple answer for you. There is margin compression risk. We were quite clear to the market in our capital markets day. People were asking us around our margin guidance in the platform segment. They asked, “Why is it so conservative?” And we said, “if we have to defend our territory and that means short term margin compression, we will. But also, if we want to invest now for growth that we think is going to pay off three years from now, we’ll do the same”.

Not a clear answer, but it has been a big focus of ours. If you’ve looked at any of our results presentations, we talk about growing revenue whilst improving operating leverage.

At the same time, we’re quite fastidious about cost management. Wasted costs. When we did our property consolidation, we reinvested about 80% of those savings in our ability to service our customers in sales and people and in leadership. But I also find that corporates can waste a lot of money if you don’t keep an eye on it.

It’s kind of the normal business triangle: revenue, margin and cost. But we would not like revenue at all costs. I suppose that’s the simple answer. We wouldn’t like to have revenue at all costs. But if somebody’s going to come in and go after that 91% annuity base of yours, and you’ve got to take short term measures to defend that base, then we’ll do that.

The Finance Ghost: I would imagine that’s also one of the benefits of just having these platforms all together in one group, is they’re going to be at different stages in their life cycle. This one might need more capital right now, that might hurt margins for a little bit, while that one’s reaping what they’ve sown and their time will come.

This gets to then just come through in the wash because that’s the reality – people will always ask you for more specific guidance and especially institutional analysts will always try and really dig down – but there’s only so much you can share publicly because your competitors are also listening, absolutely, and are trying to figure out what you’re doing.

So that’s also the nice thing with having all these different platforms, right? By the time it all rolls up, it’s a number. But there’s a million underlying business decisions that have led to that.

Werner Kapp: That is why I specifically spoke about the fact that we believe this is unique and we believe that this is our differentiator. You’re 100% right. We’re across vertical industries. That means that you could not cross-subsidise, as I said earlier on, the cash generated.

You can make the right decisions in business and you can say, “Look, this business is not going to have the greatest year necessarily from a revenue growth perspective, but that’s fine”. The other one is going to.

We really, really believe that is a unique advantage that we have. And as to guidance and disclosure, our guidance and disclosure are very good. We’ve certainly taken the market through a lot of detail, and all this stuff is available. But yeah, you do walk quite a fine line between disclosure and competitive information.

And ultimately, we’ve got to build the best business that we can, and we’ve got to deliver to our customers and our shareholders. And if we do that, I think sustainable earnings growth is something that comes along with it, over a period of time.

The Finance Ghost: Yeah, I agree with that fully. I’ve got two more questions for you, just based on some of the specific verticals in the business.

So, the first one is Netstar. One of the opportunities that came through very strongly from your managing director in that space was the benefit of working with the OEMs (Toyota was the specific example) vs. just relying on, for example, someone goes and buys a used car, and they then contact you or whatever.

Now, obviously your cost of acquiring a customer must be much better if you’re grabbing them at OEM stage. The car just comes with this thing, which is a very different world, obviously, so I can see the appeal of that.

But a lot is changing in the South African automotive landscape around the Chinese brands and local manufacturing. Maybe it’s a very simple answer. Maybe the answer is you’re not really seeing an impact. But the shape of our roads has just changed completely. The brands, et cetera, et cetera.

Are you seeing any kind of impact in Netstar from, for example, the shift from used vehicles to now these more affordable new vehicles? Or is the business just kind of carrying on regardless of what asset you’re protecting?

Werner Kapp: There definitely is an impact. Maybe just to give a little bit context to that, Netstar essentially has three channels to market. One is direct. Somebody essentially calls you or contacts you and asks you if you want a Netstar subscription. The other one is through the insurance channel, and then the other one is through the dealership directly.

The ratio between new cars and used cars in South Africa has shifted. The attractiveness of price point of the Chinese cars and then probably some tailwinds from an interest rate perspective as well. But I think the price point attractiveness of the Chinese cars certainly the big reason.

But for us, remember we got these kind of multiple channels. So, firstly we’re very proud to be the exclusive tracking partner to WeBuyCars. So that gives us access to a broad range of vehicles, and you might have heard them also speak about what they see as the impact of Chinese cars to their business, and how they’re going to deal with that in the longer term.

Obviously, we are also onboarding the dealerships of the Chinese cars, so it’s a bit of a swings and roundabouts for us. We’re agnostic from providing a service to a consumer perspective of what exactly the brand of car is. And obviously we provide those services to used cars, new cars and large fleets in rental companies.

So really, we don’t see it as an existential threat. We see it more as an opportunity and ultimately it comes down to making sure that we get the execution right of our sales and service channel. Particularly in the dealership channel, which we’re working very hard on.

The Finance Ghost: For listeners who are interested, if you go back actually just a few weeks, you’ll find a podcast with the WeBuyCars management team where they did talk a lot about the Chinese cars. It is very interesting. So go and give that a listen.  

Last question while I still have any voice left at all. I’m going to talk about the fintech business now, and this major regulatory overhaul that could give the non-bank fintechs direct access to the national payment system as I understand it (again not an area of expertise for me, but that’s as much as I understand).

That could do wonders for the cost of sales in your fintech business. That’s something that I picked up from the CMD. Just give us an idea of the opportunity here and what this means for fintechs like you?

Werner Kapp: There’s a number of opportunities. It creates new avenues for new services, that traditionally only banks could render, that the fintechs could render.

But probably the biggest short-term opportunity for us is that today – I don’t necessarily know that that will fundamentally change in the longer term, I think there could just be cost compression – but we need a sponsor bank to be able to access the payment rails. And that is close to about 80% of our cost of sales in our fintech business.

If you don’t need that sponsor bank, which like I said, I don’t think will completely disappear. And remember, there’s a cost associated with actually buying these payment activities. But ultimately for us there is a significant margin uplift opportunity in the medium to long term.

The Finance Ghost: So maybe as a parting comment then, Werner, and thank you so much for your time today. Why do you believe investors should be paying attention to Altron as you enter this phase of your growth story now?

Werner Kapp: We’re exceptionally well positioned, I think, in this burgeoning digital economy of South Africa. We’re exceptionally well positioned in both the formal and the informal market.

The second one is the multi-platform businesses that we have. We get a little bit of a diversification across a number of vertical industries. And then of course, the 91% annuity revenue.

And then we have a very strong balance sheet. Our balance sheet is ungeared. So that gives us a lot of flexibility to invest ahead of the curve and do acquisitions should we have to. We haven’t seen the need to do that yet.

And last, but certainly I don’t think least: it’s a little bit of an intangible. But I’m a big believer in leadership and culture. We’ve got an exceptionally committed, experienced leadership team with a proven track record.

They’re very proud of what we’ve achieved, but even more excited about the next phase of the journey and we certainly love investors to come along for the ride.

The Finance Ghost: Well, congratulations to you and the team on what I think is a pretty exciting South African growth story and from my side as well, just well done on doing a capital markets day.

And this is a challenge that I’ll throw out to corporate South Africa is: do more of these things, because it’s a wonderful opportunity to bring your story to the market and to actually let people see your divisional execs. Because we don’t often get that experience.

Very, very well done. Congrats, all the best on this.

And to the listeners, obviously make sure you go and do your own research. This should just be part of your process of learning about Altron and figuring out if this is perhaps for you.

And either way, Werner, thank you so much for your time. It’s really, really cool. I hope we’ll do another one of these at some point. All the best with the strategy.

Werner Kapp: I’d love to. Thank you very much. Thanks for your time, really enjoyed it.

Ghost Bites (Afrimat | Fortress Real Estate | MTN | SPAR)

In this edition of Ghost Bites:

  • Afrimat is selling off some quarries and concrete plants for R215 million
  • Fortress Real Estate is ticking over nicely
  • MTN sets out Ambition 30 at its Capital Markets Day
  • SPAR hits rock bottom – hopefully

Afrimat is selling off some quarries and concrete plants for R215 million (JSE: AFT)

They needed to do this from a regulatory perspective anyway, but it’s a welcome injection of capital

Afrimat’s share price is down 23.6% year-to-date, with this previous market darling now suffering at the hands of investors. Or perhaps investors are suffering at the hands of Afrimat?

Either way, it’s not pretty.

There are many reasons for the decline, with Afrimat’s recent reporting having demonstrated the perfect storm faced by the company.

I must disclose that I recently bought into Afrimat after it was announced that the smelters are being thrown a lifeline by NERSA and Eskom. Time will tell whether I made the right call.

In the meantime, the latest news at Afrimat is that they have found a buyer for certain general aggregates quarries and readymix concrete plants. They needed to divest these assets as part of the conditional approval by the Competition Tribunal for the acquisition of Lafarge South Africa.

The buyer is Saturc and the price on the table is R215 million. A cash amount of R160 million is payable on closing (1 July 2026) and the remaining R55 million is payable over three years. That’s a fair split.

The announcement doesn’t give any financial information on the assets in question.

Ghost Bite: It would’ve been nice to have information on the profitability of these assets. My suspicion is that because Afrimat was a forced seller here, the economics of the deal probably aren’t amazing. On the plus side, it’s an injection of cash at a time when Afrimat could do with some capital flexibility.


Fortress Real Estate is ticking over nicely (JSE: FFB)

They are delivering real growth for investors

Fortress Real Estate has provided a pre-close update dealing with the year ending June 2026. Remember, this is a complex portfolio that includes directly held assets in South Africa and Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) worth R36 billion, as well as a R14.4 billion stake in NEPI Rockcastle (JSE: NRP). There is also a small non-core portfolio of office properties worth R681 million.

The direct portfolio is strongly weighted towards logistics properties (R24.1 billion). With vacancy levels in South Africa and CEE of 1.4% and 1.8% respectively, these assets continue to provide a dependable income stream. Vacancy rates tend to be lumpy due to the size of the underlying warehouses. For example, the increase in the vacancy level in South Africa from 0.3% to 1.4% is thanks almost entirely to one warehouse at Eastport Logistics Park.

The retail portfolio is only in South Africa. Like-for-like tenant turnover growth of 4.2% seems reasonable in the context of recent numbers we’ve seen from retailers. The vacancy rate is just 0.8%, excluding the recently acquired 51% stake in Balfour Mall, where the vacancy rate is extremely high at 45%. This is clearly a property in need of a turnaround strategy, but they got it on a yield of 10% based on existing tenants. No value was placed on the vacant 45%, so the upside potential is clear!

In the non-core office portfolio, vacancies improved from 25.7% to 22.1%. Although Fortress likes to sweep this portfolio under the carpet, only two of the 14 properties are classified as held for sale. Perhaps the market is just too weak for them to be offloaded any faster?

Speaking of disposals, Fortress isn’t shy to recycle capital. They have disposed of R362.4 million worth of properties in this financial year, with the pricing reflecting a 5.5% premium to book value. Properties worth R277.4 million are currently classified as held for sale.

This is important, particularly as Fortress engages in ongoing development activities to grow the portfolio. Capital discipline is a critical element of this strategy. The development projects are a mix of speculative builds (no confirmed tenant yet) and builds to spec for confirmed long-term tenants.

To help fund these activities, Fortress has a successful DMTN programme on the JSE that allows it to raise debt. For example, they raised R1.6 billion earlier this year in the form of a 7-year note. The current loan-to-value ratio at the fund is roughly 38.8%.

Fortress Real Estate’s guidance for FY26 has been reaffirmed. They expect a distribution of 176.48 cents per share, which would be 8.6% higher than FY25.

Looking ahead to FY27, there’s a further 7.4% increase. The nuance is that the FY27 forecast is based on total distributable earnings, not the distribution per share. In other words, that percentage would change if Fortress either issues or repurchases shares.

Ghost Bite: It’s less about the exact forecast and more about the approximate growth rate. These are high single-digit increases, which means that Fortress is doing a great job of providing real returns to investors (i.e. in excess of inflation).


MTN sets out Ambition 30 (JSE: MTN)

And if there’s one thing they aren’t short of, it’s ambition!

MTN is hosting a Capital Markets Day this week. It’s actually a two-day event, which shows you how much they need to get through!

Naturally, if you want the full details, then you need to check out this link and work through the slides. I always recommend that you spend some time doing this, as there is much to learn from the Capital Markets Day decks.

This particular event is to take the market through the new medium-term targets. We’ve now moved from Ambition 2025 to Ambition 2030. The starting point for Ambition 2025 was the 2020 financial year, which was a Covid-infested mess, so the five-year track record of delivery was obviously given some additional help by the choice of base period.

Still, MTN deserves a lot of credit – they’ve made immense progress in recent years. Subscribers jumped from 258 million in 2020 to 307 million in 2025. Adjusted ROE climbed from 17.0% to 25.6%. HoldCo leverage is perhaps the most impressive story, down from 2.2x to 1.3x!

Today, just 16% of HoldCo debt is non-rand denominated. Back in 2020, that number was 48%. MTN has transitioned from fighting for its life to telling an exciting growth story.

The underpin of Ambition 2030 won’t be a surprise to you. Africa is an extremely fast-growing region that offers a mix of economic and population growth. More humans require more connectivity over time. Therein lies the opportunity, with financial inclusion and AI as further tailwinds.

Here’s a number that really brings that message home: smartphone penetration in Africa is expected to jump from 53% to 2025 to 84% in 2030. Now imagine what this means from a FinTech perspective, as Africa continues to move from cash to digital transactions.

There are other growth engines as well, like MTN’s modest share of the total addressable market for SMEs on the continent.

To address this opportunity, MTN is organising itself around three platforms. The first is MTN itself, which delivers connectivity. The MoMo business is the FinTech play, and I’m pretty sure the next few years will see a separate listing of that business as a value unlock. The third is bayobab for digital infrastructure (the recent IHS acquisition and other services).

What does this all mean from a financial perspective?

The expectation is that service revenue will grow by at least high teens over this forecast period. This expect this to drive margin expansion as well. But here’s the chart that I think tells the story the best, extracted from the financial presentation at the event:

Ghost Bite: We live in a very exciting place. Africa is a risky business environment where governments do their very best to make it tough to do business. But when governments just stay out of the way, companies like MTN can unlock serious growth. Macro tailwinds on the continent help as well – long may they last!


SPAR hits rock bottom – hopefully (JSE: SPP)

The latest financials show the extent of the problems

SPAR released results for the 26 weeks to 27 March 2026. The market had already been warned that they are shocking. Now we can see just how rough SPAR’s reality is, with an operating profit margin in Southern Africa of a paper-thin 0.5%!

Let’s start right at the top, where revenue from continuing operations increased by 3.6%. Group gross profit margin dipped from 10.7% to 10.5%. Operating profit has tanked from R1.35 billion to R741 million. HEPS is even worse, down 53.9% to 199.9 cents. Sigh.

The balance sheet is also a major concern, with group net debt up from R5.4 billion to R7.3 billion. Some of this is due to the timing of creditor payments, but there’s also a worrying story about weak EBITDA and how this has impacted group cash flow.

SPAR’s group balance sheet is running a leverage ratio of 2.73x. Leverage in South Africa is too spicy for my liking at 3.29x, with little headroom vs. the covenant of 3.50x.

The segmental analysis really tells the story here.

The Southern Africa business was impacted by many factors, including the ongoing woes of the KZN distribution centre (a R123 million impact on operating profit) and what the group describes as “promotional overspend” on Black Friday (a R212 million impact). There are also concerning metrics regarding the health of the independent retailers and the resultant impact on SPAR’s debtor book.

There was very little revenue growth in Southern Africa to cushion the business against these blows. Revenue was up just 1.7%. Grocery and liquor wholesale revenue could only manage 1.1%, while Build it was good for 1.3% growth and SPAR Health achieved an impressive 26.1%.

Here’s the real crisis: gross profit in South Africa was down 1.4%, yet operating expenses jumped by 18.5%. This absolutely crushed operating profit, down 60% to R396 million.

Retailer loyalty went backwards on a rolling 12-month basis, dipping from 78.9% to 78.5%. The relationship with the independent retailers remains very difficult, although the final months of the reporting period saw a stabilisation in the loyalty rate.

If we really dig for a highlight, then we can consider SPAR Rewards with sales growth of 9.3% year-on-year.

In Ireland, things were better than in Southern Africa, although that’s hardly saying much. Revenue was up 2.2% in euros, with gross margin up 20 basis points to 13.7%. Operating profit inched higher with a 0.8% growth rate. Thanks to a decrease in debt, there was a decline of 22.8% in net interest.

I don’t think anyone really cares about the joint venture in Sri Lanka, but I’ll mention it for completeness. Revenue growth was 7.6%, but operating profit fell year-on-year. With 12 corporate stores and 13 independent retailers, I’m not sure why they are bothering in that country.

Is the day darkest before the dawn?

Well, I keep asking SPAR for a Capital Markets Day to give the market access to the divisional executives and their plans. In the absence of such an event, we must rely on the strategic commentary provided by SPAR in the announcement. With the share price closing 5.9% higher on the day, the market seemed to be cautiously optimistic.

Aside from the SAP Finance go-live in the next period (I’m sure that will be a nervous moment), the group is taking steps to control marketing spend (there’s a new return on investment framework) and drive better procurement in an effort to protect margins and working capital.

They are also going to (finally) figure out a local store proposition on SPAR2U. Literally the only differentiator at SPAR is the community-focused nature of the franchisees. If they can find a way to deliver that value proposition digitally on a store-by-store basis, they just might have a chance.

I would certainly be a customer of that effort, if they get it right. I have an excellent SPAR a couple of kilometres from my house, but I have to go past a Woolworths Food and ignore the Sixty60 alternative in order to go there. SPAR2U solves that gap.

In the meantime, there’s obviously no interim dividend for shareholders. SPAR needs every cent they can get as they head into the second half of the year.

Ghost Bite: My tiny speculative position on SPAR has gotten a lot smaller. And I’m not adding to it until I see more compelling strategic plans from the group. SPAR2U is the ultimate test for me. Personalising the digital experience for each store won’t be easy. If they can achieve that level of execution and data integration with stores, then SPAR just might have a chance. If not, then it’s hard to see much of a future here.


Results of previous poll:


Nibbles:

  • Director dealings:
    • Although the CEO of AVI (JSE: AVI) opted to sell only the taxable portion of his share award, a different director sold his entire award worth almost R2 million.
    • Four directors of Spear REIT (JSE: SEA) elected the dividend reinvestment alternative to the value of R465k. This isn’t quite as bullish a signal as a normal on-market trade, but it still speaks to alignment with management.
    • An entity associated with the CEO of Africa Bitcoin Corporation (JSE: BAC) bought shares worth almost R250k.
  • Shuka Minerals (JSE: SKA) announced further updates from the drilling at Kabwe Zinc Mine. As usual, unless you’re a geologist, the announcement will mean almost nothing to you. I always skip to the CEO commentary in these scenarios, as I know absolutely nothing about mining geology. It appears as though the CEO is pleased overall, so that’s encouraging.
  • Novus (JSE: NVS) has acquired another R74 million worth of shares in Mustek (JSE: MST). This significantly increases their direct stake, from 41.85% to 50.39%. Together with concert parties, they now hold 70.68% of shares in issue.

Ghost Bites (Araxi | Jubilee Metals)

In this edition of Ghost Bites:

  • Araxi investors have been reminded of the lumpiness in the business
  • Jubilee Metals is ramping up the Molefe Mine

Araxi investors have been reminded of the lumpiness in the business (JSE: AXX)

The growth story has suffered a wobbly

It’s rare to see a single chart doing a great job of explaining the underlying theme in a set of numbers. But I think this one is rather effective:

As you can see, the year ended March 2026 won’t go down as the happiest time in Araxi’s journey.

The period shows us an important risk in the business: the dependence on microchips in payment terminals. As anyone following the tech industry will know, microchips are becoming an increasingly rare and expensive commodity thanks to insatiable demand from the AI sector. This led to a delay in the delivery of a substantial customer order, with revenue from the sale of terminals dropping from R308 million to R230 million.

Another source of lumpy revenue is software licence fees. There was a once-off fee of R42 million in the base period, so this line item fell from R118.5 million to just under R77 million.

Together with general economic headwinds, these issues led to a 6.8% decline in group revenue. EBITDA fell by 16.4% and EBITDA margin contracted by 270 basis points to 24.0%. HEPS was down by a nasty 18.2%.

As a consolation prize, the dividend per share was kept steady at 12 cents per share, as you saw in the chart above. HEPS was 14.37 cents in this period, so there’s not much more wriggle room in that payout ratio.

This is a textbook example of the “stickiness” of dividends and how management teams would rather sell their first-born children than cut the dividend.

Araxi also presents a set of “underlying” numbers that make several adjustments. Other than splitting out that lumpy software fee, they also take out restructuring costs in the Software division, reverse transaction costs for the Pay@ deal and make other fair value and classification adjustments.

If you’re willing to go with that view, then revenue was down 3.6%, but EBITDA was up 5.9% as the margin expanded by 220 basis points. HEPS was up 10.1% through this lens. But don’t get too excited: this “growth” is because the base period looks far less demanding after these adjustments, rather than because FY26 is suddenly excellent. In fact, adjusted HEPS is 14.03 cents on this basis vs 14.37 cents as reported!

If you look through all the noise, there are a couple of highlights worth noting. The first is that despite the delay in terminal deliveries, the number of terminals in the hands of customers has increased by 5.4%. The second highlight I would consider is that the Software division saw a 77% increase in underlying EBITDA thanks to restructuring initiatives.

Still, this isn’t the set of numbers that investors wanted to see as the foundation for the Pay@ deal, in which Araxi has taken a considerable risk on a major acquisition. They’ve acquired an 80% stake for a meaty R1 billion, funded by R200 million of existing cash reserves and R800 million in senior debt. This takes them to a net debt to EBITDA ratio of 1.6x after the closing of the deal.

On a pro-forma basis, the contribution of the Payments division increases from 56% of group revenue to 66%. EBITDA moves up from 93% to 90%. The Pay@ deal takes them much deeper into the fintech and payments infrastructure in South Africa.

Given the complexities of the Software space at the moment, you really have to wonder why they don’t dispose of that business. It’s an even smaller contributor than before, yet it remains capable of dishing up headaches and distracting management. Even with all the work they’ve put in, the “underlying revenue” in Software was down 1.5% year-on-year!

There’s an interesting trend that comes through in the analyst presentation, which was also visible at the Altron (JSE: AEL) Capital Markets Day that I watched online. POS devices (payment terminals) are becoming more than just payment acceptance tools. They now include value-added services like inventory apps, which allow small merchants to track stock on their payment machines. With 64% of revenue in the Payments business being of a recurring nature, it’s critical that Araxi retains customers through delivering innovation.

Ghost Bite: This is a new era for Araxi. Instead of running a fortress balance sheet, they are now in a position where financial leverage can work against them in a weak period. Payment terminal delivery delays may be out of their control, but it’s a reminder of the layers of risk faced by the business during this AI supply crunch. This is going to be an interesting story to watch!


Jubilee Metals is ramping up the Molefe Mine (JSE: JBL)

Will investors like the “hub-and-spoke” development model?

Jubilee Metals released an operational update regarding the Molefe Mine in Zambia. This asset is key to the group’s mine-to-metals copper strategy.

After the successful expansion of Pit 2, run-of-mine deliveries to Sable refinery have recommenced. The targets move up quite quickly, from 6,000tpm in June to 10,000tpm by October 2026.

They are working on the integration of Pits 2 and 3 into a single enlarged open-pit operation. Once this is complete, they should be delivering more than 30,000tpm each quarter, an enormous jump from the previous level of 12,000tpm per quarter.

They describe their strategy in Zambia as being to mine while they explore, which means growing the production and resource base simultaneously. This means on-site ore sorting, processing capabilities and of course the Sable refinery as part of the value chain. They also describe it as a “hub-and-spoke” development model.

Ghost Bite: The share price moved slightly higher on this news, but remains 26% down year-to-date.


Results of previous poll:


Nibbles:

  • Director dealings:
    • The financial director of eMedia Holdings (JSE: EMN) bought shares worth R681k. To add to this bullish signal, a handful of other senior execs also bought shares worth around R750k in aggregate.
    • An associate of a director of Kumba Iron Ore (JSE: KIO) sold shares worth R85k.
    • It’s hardly worth mentioning, but an associate of a director of Finbond (JSE: FGL) bought shares worth R734. And no, there isn’t a “k” missing on the end.
  • Brikor (JSE: BIK) released a trading statement dealing with the results for the year ended February 2026. They’ve swung into a loss-making position, with a headline loss per share of between 1.0 cents and 1.2 cents vs. positive HEPS of 0.5 cents in the prior period.
  • Wendy Luhabe will resign as the Chairperson of the Pepkor (JSE: PPH) board, a position she has held since December 2020. Ian Kirk (the Lead Independent Director) will serve as the Chairperson until a replacement is named.
  • I’m not close to the details on this one at all, but those of you closely following Eastern Platinum (JSE: EPS) will be interested to learn that the Supreme Court of British Columbia has struck out all three claims against the company being made by a particular entity.

Ghost Stories #104: Take a byte of growth – Investec Nasdaq 100 Geared Growth

In this episode of Ghost Stories, The Finance Ghost sits down with Investec’s Brian McMillan, fresh off collecting the “Best Issuer in Africa” award in Stockholm on behalf of the Investec Structured Products team. The team’s product innovation and ability to earn a place for structured products in modern portfolios is being increasingly recognised.

The latest such product example is the Investec Nasdaq 100 Geared Growth structure. With much debate around the market valuations in this tech-heavy index, this structure is designed to appeal to investors who are finding it difficult to balance the desire to get involved against the risk of being late to the party.

Through a combination of 1.25x geared upside (with a cap) and partial downside protection (a drop of up to 40%), the Investec Nasdaq 100 Geared Growth structure creates a fascinating risk-return profile. 

Key topics covered:

  • The choice of the Nasdaq 100 index at this stage in the cycle
  • The underlying themes in this index across AI and valuations, including reference to the bull and bear cases
  • How geared upside (1.25x) with a 60% cap works
  • The downside protection mechanism
  • Rand-denominated exposure and removing USD currency risk
  • The Flexible Investment Note structure and reinvestment mechanics
  • Liquidity via the JSE listing and daily pricing
  • An understanding of the underlying credit risk
  • Fees and why returns are quoted net of costs
  • Minimum investment and access via advisors, stockbrokers and EasyEquities

You can find all the information you need on the Investec website at this link.

Disclaimer

Listen to the podcast here:

Transcript:

The Finance Ghost: Welcome to this episode of the Ghost Stories podcast. I always thoroughly enjoy recording with the Investec Structured Products team, because not only do they bring a lot of cool stuff to the show and some very clever thinking, but also just a fun team, I must say. 

Brian, we’ve had some excellent chats pre-show here about your recent trip to Europe, and I’m going to mention why you were there because it’s relevant. You were accepting an award on behalf of Investec Structured Products, from Structured Product Intelligence for the Best Issuer in Africa.

Well done. That’s all I can say, really. You guys have won a lot of awards. Are you bored of winning now, or is it still exciting?

Brian McMillan: Still exciting, especially if they have them in exotic places like Stockholm, which I’d never been to before, which was very nice. They look at volumes and they look at innovation. So, it’s not just who sells the most structured products, but it’s around the innovation and what we bring to the market.

The Finance Ghost: Absolutely. Well done. And we are here today to talk about something else that you are bringing to the market, and that is related to the Nasdaq 100. 

So, the official name is called the Investec Nasdaq 100 Geared Growth. And as always with your products, the name tells us a little bit about what’s in there, and we’ll obviously dig into that. But the elevator pitch is that it’s geared upside with a cap, as well as downside protection to a point. 

Interesting payoff profile, it does very cool things in the middle, for want of a better description, within a reasonable range of possible returns. 

You have to give up something on the extreme up and the extreme down, and then you get some interesting outcomes in the middle. That’s the wonder of structured products, right? It’s a set of trade-offs all the time, something that you guys are very used to structuring and doing.

Let’s just start with the underlying index. The clue is in the name, right? The Nasdaq 100. The Nasdaq has very much been the talk of the town.

We had the software-as-a-service, or SaaS, era about 10 years ago maybe, where those companies were suddenly just coming through. It was cloud and now it’s AI infrastructure.

Whatever’s going on in the world seems to happen in the Nasdaq 100. It is a very exciting index.

But what made you choose it now for the latest Investec structured product? Because one thing I’ve learned about you: the timing is never an accident when it comes to these things. You pick these indices at a particular time for a particular reason.

Brian McMillan: The Nasdaq has been something, and it is the first time that we’re using the Nasdaq 100 as an underlying to our structured product. It’s obviously very topical because it’s very tech heavy. About 66% of the index is in technology.

There’s been a lot of talk about AI. Is it a bubble? Is it worth investing in? Where the structured product comes in is, because it offers downside protection, it’s actually something where, if people are looking at that particular market and maybe perhaps have missed out a little bit – is that something that will allow them to go into the Nasdaq knowing that if there is a correction on the downside, they’ve got the protection, but also gives them that upside in a geared fashion to catch up? And that’s really the reason why we chose the Nasdaq. 

We’ve done so in rands. So, the thinking there, again, is that we’re quite bullish on the rand against the US dollar from that point of view. We’re happy to put out a product that is priced completely in rand and therefore only checks the percentage move of the Nasdaq. 

So, it doesn’t count the US dollar move; it counts the percentage move of the Nasdaq over that three-year, eight-month period.

The Finance Ghost: Yeah, that’s very important, Brian. Because normally when investing offshore, you obviously have to take into account the way the currency is going to move and the underlying assets. 

So, in this case you’re basically taking the currency out of it, if I understand it correctly, and you’re just testing based on how the Nasdaq itself moves. 

Brian McMillan: Yes.

The Finance Ghost: Maybe just talking a little bit more about that index and where it is at the moment, I suppose, versus historical norms. 

There’s a lot of chatter in the market about the valuations of these things. We’ve got the SpaceX IPO coming now. There’s some interesting commentary on that as well. 

It feels like a time where just taking, in my opinion, just going and buying the Nasdaq 100 without any protection, genuinely does feel like quite a risky play. I had to figure out what to do with my tax-free savings recently. 

It’s hard to justify ploughing it into something like the Nasdaq 100 at the current level without any protection, honestly. So, I guess that’s part of what’s informing this, right? You’re probably getting that kind of feedback from your clients as well.

Brian McMillan: They want to be involved, but they are scared: “Are we late to the party?”

Interestingly, those tech P/E multiples have actually experienced one of their largest corrections over the last decade. So, the software stocks, you saw them come down. 

And then on a forward basis, it’s actually not that expensive. It’s slightly above its average. The forward P/E is around 27 times. And that is because of this expected earnings growth coming through. 

So the semiconductor stocks, all of those in there, have this really high expected earnings growth. That’s why we’re looking at the PEG ratio, which is the P/E over expected earnings growth. And those are actually at historical lows. 

So, there is upside potential in these. They’re not massively overvalued.

And if we can offer upside on that – geared format, admittedly to a cap – it’s 1.25 times geared to a cap of 60%. So, we’ve given it space to run on the upside, and if it does go 60% over the next three years and eight months, you’ll get a 75% return.

But then we’ve also been a little bit more circumspect around the downside, where we are offering protection. 

The index at the end of the three years and eight months would have to fall by more than 40% before you actually have a loss, giving it more downside protection and then giving it the ability to run on the upside as well.

The Finance Ghost: It is super interesting, Brian. And I know from the brochure on this particular product (and because I could just go do the math, but it’s easy to read it from the brochure), if you do get the maximum return of 75%, then your guys’ calculations are telling us that that is a compound annual growth rate of 16.6% per annum. 

So that’s effectively the maximum that someone can get from this product, as I understand it.

And one thing I would say there, Brian, is that expecting more than 16.6% per annum from where the Nasdaq is right now – even taking into account what you’re saying about valuations and whatever – feels spicy. 16.6% – someone would probably take that right now, over the next three years, eight months. That would be my view at least. Obviously each person must form their own view, but that’s a pretty strong return, assuming that people get it. 

Again, I just want to be clear, that is the maximum upside. It is by no means the guaranteed return or that you will get that. It is the maximum you can get from this product.

Brian McMillan: That’s correct. That’s double what you would get in interest rate markets. So, from that point of view, we’re giving you the opportunity to earn up to double what interest rates would be around about now. 

To take part in this growth potential of the Nasdaq – you’re getting in there, you’re getting the software, you’re getting the hardware, the chip manufacturers, and then of course the AI. And nobody knows where that’s going to come out.

We’ve seen releases over the last year or two. Every time one of the major AI providers brings out a new model, it’s very exciting. The market runs ahead, there’s definitely potential there. We don’t know where it’s going to go. 

It’s also, as I say, it’s not too expensive. And one of the things I would say, we don’t think that this is a bubble in the traditional sense of the word, in that none of these companies that are building these AI models are actually borrowing to do so.

All that capex is being funded out of earnings at the moment, so nobody’s borrowing to pay those. So, while a lot of people seem to think just because the index has gone up so much that it could be in bubble territory, we’re not seeing that in terms of use of debt, which is traditionally where a bubble comes from.

The Finance Ghost: You certainly raised one of the bull cases there. They are funding it through – often advertising revenue, actually, if you look at the hyperscalers – or corporates paying them subscriptions, and that kind of thing, depending which hyperscaler you look at.

The bears will argue that a lot of this capex spend is being funded by investment from the providers of the product, creating this kind of circular reference inside the Nasdaq. It’s what’s making this so interesting, right, is that there are good bullish arguments, good bearish arguments as well?

My personal view is that AI is a complete change to the way we work. I don’t think this is just a hype story. I’m using AI more and more all the time. There are things that it’s really bad at, but there are things that it absolutely changes your life on.

And if you figure out those life-changing pieces and you use it to supercharge your work, then it makes a pretty serious difference.

I keep writing in Ghost Mail and elsewhere that you really need to be playing around with AI if you’re not doing it already. It is very, very important to do so. What that means from an investment perspective, time will tell.

The other bear case is that a lot of these cyclical stocks are now behaving like structural stocks. If you look at the memory stocks and those kind of things, they look cheap. But is it really the case that there isn’t just going to be another cyclical story? 

I don’t know. You don’t know. No one knows. And that’s the point, right? That’s why these structured products exist. Because the Nasdaq is an exciting place, but no one can be quite sure.

Brian McMillan: We looked at the Nasdaq over the last 25 years, actually a little bit longer, 26, 27 years ago, from the last dot-com bust. What’s interesting about that is there definitely was a bubble in 2000. Thereafter, the index did fall. 

But interestingly, when we compare it against some of the other indices in 2008, it didn’t have losses of more than 30%, where a lot of the other indexes, in fact most of the other indices that we use, did.

So, we took a view to give a little bit more downside protection. And what that means is that the index would have to fall by more than 40% from current levels, in three years and eight months’ time before you actually have a loss.

We think that we’ve built in sufficient downside protection. We understand that when the market actually did have that dot-com bust, the maximum loss was significant. And over a three-year and eight-month period you could have lost up to 72%.

But I think it’s very different from pets.com and anything with a dot-com at the end of it was being listed. There was no revenue behind it. I think this current market that we’re in is very different from that dot-com bubble. 

And just because it’s had a very strong run over the last couple of years doesn’t mean that it’s not on the back of real innovation and, as you said, real change to the way people work.


The Finance Ghost: Yeah, it’s a large part. I agree with that, honestly. It does feel like it’s not a silly thing. There’s a lot of interest in the space. I know a lot of business owners and corporates that are spending proper money on AI tokens.

It’s real; quite scary at times for the job market, but it’s real. And there’s going to be some things that happen, who knows, but it’s not going to go away. Of that I am pretty confident.

Brian McMillan: I urge people to go and get a paid version of one of these just to find out how easy it is to actually make use of the tools. I’m no spring chicken, but I’ve played around with it, and it’s very different from just asking ChatGPT what the best restaurant in town is. 

It’s really got valuable tools that you can use and it’s very easy to use. You’re seeing the companies now piling into these models, making use of them and spending real money on it. I think there is some upside in that side.

The Finance Ghost: And I just want to confirm with you the downside test, the upside test, it’s a point test, right? It’s three years and eight months from now. We’re looking once, we’re looking at what the index did, and bam, there’s an outcome. It’s not tested throughout, right?

Brian McMillan: So, for all of our products over the last 15 years, when we do that, we don’t have what you call this continuous barrier, where a Covid-like event could knock you out and then three months later the index is back again.

We only look at whether you made a loss over the entire term. So only on the last day.

We do have some averaging. Averaging makes it a little bit safer in terms of: we don’t have one day where you have to check it on. We use the last three months so that we have a little bit of a spread. We use the average over those last three months as whether the index is down more than 40% or, in that case, at more than 60%.

The Finance Ghost: That makes a lot of sense. Let’s talk about the flexible investment note structure that this sits inside. So that note actually has a term of 20 years, but it’s not because this is a 20-year investment. This is three years and eight months. 

My understanding is that there’s a way to then roll your exposure. At the end of this term, there’ll be a new structure that sits inside the investment note. And as an investor in the space, you could elect at that point to either participate in whatever that note is or to say, thank you very much, I want my money back. Is that an accurate understanding?


Brian McMillan: Yes, it is. That’s something that we’ve done for the last two years now. We issue a 20-year note. And the reasons around that are numerous. But what we have is that, thankfully, our issuances nowadays are very big.

We find that with using the flexible note, we don’t have the issue of having to expire a note, pay everyone their money back, and now the next one comes, can we get the money back from you again? From that point of view, it makes a lot of sense.

It allows people to remain invested if they wish to. So, we always make sure that everyone gets a chance to elect to remain invested for the next one. We make sure that they know what the risks are of the new one when this one expires.

And it doesn’t stop anyone from exiting should they want to. So there are a couple of advantages to it from that point of view.


The Finance Ghost: Yeah, it is a very interesting structure, and it certainly works really well based on your experience and actually some of the stuff I’ve heard in the market. 

You guys do have a good reputation in the market, for what it’s worth. They seem to be popular with investors. So, to your point, some pretty big flows these days. You’ve had to adjust structures accordingly, right?

Brian McMillan: We’ve been lucky. I think it speaks to structured products themselves. There was a lot of skepticism initially in structured products. And when I say initially, I’m talking about over the last 20 years. 

Things about would they pay off when they expire, how do they work, are there too many fees in them, are they quite opaque? And I think over the years we’ve dispelled a lot of those. People now know that when you invest in one of these, they do what they say up front. 

If the index is geared 1.25 times, the index goes up 10%, you get a 12.5% return. If it goes up 20%, you get a 25% return. And people like that sort of thing.

And then it plays into people’s natural fear and greed side of investing. It takes away some of that fear because we have that downside protection. And then it allows the upside, and it allows people to remain invested longer as well. 

A lot of people nowadays, they invest in something, it goes up 20%, they sell it, and it runs another 20, and they go, “I should have stayed in that. I shouldn’t be trading these things”. 

We keep people invested in the market where, over the last 15, 16 years, it’s been the place to be. 

The Finance Ghost: Speaking of staying invested: liquidity is something we always talk about on these. But let’s do it again if there’s any new listeners who aren’t familiar. 

Life does happen: to what extent is there a liquidity option before the end of the three years and eight months? And how does that work?

Brian McMillan: That was one of the first things that we had to address because structured products were this point-to-point, you bought it, three years and eight months later, you could sell it.

Nowadays we list all of our structures on the JSE or in Dublin. This particular one’s listed on the JSE. And when we do that we provide a daily price for these. The daily price means that we will buy back any of the structured products that we’ve got out in the market at fair market value with a 1% bid-to-mid spread.

We have that in there, and it’s available on a daily basis. So they become very much like shares. You can sell them should you need to. 

I think the only thing to note is obviously that the capital protection is only available at the end of the term. So, if we found, for example, that the index was down 20% after one year, that’s not to say that you could sell out and you would get back your full capital. It’s only at the end of the term. 

But similarly, if the index is up 20%, you would see a gain, but you wouldn’t necessarily see the geared upside because we make use of options in these, and those options only bring the full value of the gearing in towards the end of the period. But you can trade them quite freely from that point of view.


The Finance Ghost: Let’s also just talk about underlying credit risk. I know that’s one of the other things with structured products that people quite correctly ask about. 

Because at the end of the day there are a lot of underlying derivatives and other structures in place to make this thing pay off the way it does. So what is the underlying credit risk that an investor would be taking in this product?

Brian McMillan: The investor takes credit risk to Investec Bank Limited, and we are the issuer. That’s an important thing. 

You wouldn’t buy a structured product issued by Brian McMillan because you don’t know he’s going to be around in three years and eight months to give you the money back. So the issuer is the most important credit risk. And as you mentioned, Investec Bank in South Africa has a very good name. So that’s the first credit risk you take.

We then add a credit risk of Barclays PLC onto this. And the reason is, we actually get quite a big pickup in being able to give more gearing by adding this extra credit risk of Barclays. 

But when we look at Barclays as credit risk, and this is senior unsecured Barclays risk, that’s one of the G-SIB banks in the world, which is basically the globally important banks around the world. So they’re seen as almost too big to fail. They have to hold extra capital. 

So, we can offer more gearing by adding Barclays, and we don’t think it adds a lot more risk from that point of view. Who is going to pay you back and when is what you should be asking when you’re buying a structured product. And we believe Investec and Barclays are decent names that you can rely on from that point of view.


The Finance Ghost: And so, in terms of actually practically investing in this thing, Brian, can you just take us through minimum investment amount and how investors actually go about getting access to this product? 

And if I could maybe ask you to just confirm from an EasyEquities perspective (because a lot of listeners are obviously on that platform), is it possible as well? Because I know historically a lot of the Investec products have been available through EasyEquities. It is something that people can do?

Brian McMillan: Yes.So from that point of view you can speak to your advisor, your IFA or your stockbroker. Most advisors and stockbrokers we know in the market, we go and market to them directly.

The closing date is the 10th of July, and we will trade this on the 15th of July. You have to have a stockbroking account, which you fund. You put the money in. It’s R100,000 minimum investment. Although people like EasyEquities will allow you to invest in lower amounts. 

We ask that EasyEquities, for example, give us a minimum of R100,000 and they can split it up however they wish. It is available on that platform, and we have had some talks with them recently to make sure that all the products are on that platform.

But as I said, any stockbroker in South Africa should be able to advise you on this, as will most independent financial advisors out there in the market.

The Finance Ghost: So, Brian, we’ve dealt with what this investment actually is, the sort of risks that investors would be taking, credit risk, liquidity and the minimums and all of that kind of thing.

Last question is of course an important one. People are always quite correctly focused on fees. So, in terms of this product, I know historically from conversations, typically the returns that you’re giving here are net of fees. Same story here, or how should investors be thinking about the fees in this?

Brian McMillan: Same again. And as you mentioned earlier, structured products have changed over the years. One of the things that initially people were sceptical about was hidden fees within it. All the fees and costs have been worked into the product. So, we pay the advisor the fee. 

But your return that we’ve been talking about, the 1.25 geared to a cap of 60%, that would be net of any fees. So, if you buy it at R100,000 and it goes up and you make a 25% return, you’ll get R125,000 back, net of all fees in that.

The Finance Ghost: Perfect, Brian. Thank you so much. We’ll make sure that the show notes have got the link to the right place on the Investec website for potential investors and those who are curious to just go and find out more. 

I can’t stress this enough, please speak to your financial advisor. Do not treat this podcast as me saying, “Oh, this is a great idea” or giving it any kind of green tick. You need to go and obviously look at this for yourself. 

This is really just to help you with your research process. And you can go and listen to some of the previous Ghost Stories featuring members of the Investec Structured Products team if you want to just hear some consistency in how they do things. 

A lot of those products would have closed now, obviously, but you can still go learn some more about how this stuff works. 

Brian, good luck with this raise. Thanks, as always, for bringing it to the Ghost Mail audience. I think it’s as interesting as it always is. Wishing you all the best with a successful raise on this one.

Brian McMillan: Thanks, Ghost. 

This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not constitute advice. You must speak to your independent financial advisor before investing in any product, and especially this one. Investec Corporate and Institutional Banking is a division of Investec Bank Ltd, an authorised financial services provider, a registered credit provider, an authorised over the counter derivatives provider and a member of the JSE. Ts and Cs apply to this product and you should refer to the Investec website for full details.

Ghost Stories #103: How Shari’ah-compliant investing can outperform (with Maahir Jakoet)

Listen to the show using this podcast player:

In this episode of the Ghost Stories podcast, we welcome Old Mutual Investment Group to the platform for the first time. The Finance Ghost sits down with Maahir Jakoet, lead manager of the Old Mutual Global Islamic Equity Fund, to look back on a decade of top quartile performance.

As part of Old Mutual Investment Group’s Championing the Unseen campaign, this podcast lifts the lid on how Shari’ah-compliant investing can deliver unexpected outperformance vs. traditional funds. A constrained investment universe with tight rules can create a powerful framework for risk management and long-term returns. The result? A portfolio that has historically delivered lower drawdowns, faster recoveries and a compelling growth tilt, all while staying firmly within clearly defined guardrails.

In this episode:

  • What Shari’ah compliance really means in practice and how the rules are applied
  • The positive impact on portfolio risk and drawdowns of excluding highly leveraged businesses
  • How the fund performed through the GFC, COVID and rate shocks
  • The structural tilt towards tech, healthcare and capital-light businesses – and away from banks
  • Sources of outperformance over the past decade
  • When the strategy is likely to underperform (and why that’s okay)
  • How a rules-based, systematic process helps remove emotional decision-making
  • The role of Sortino ratios, factor scoring and portfolio construction discipline
  • What differentiates this fund from passive Shari’ah ETFs

Transcript:

The Finance Ghost: Welcome to this episode of the Ghost Stories podcast. It’s the first in a partnership with Old Mutual Investment Group, something I’m very much looking forward to. There is a lot to learn from the smart people who run these funds and who participate in the markets at an institutional and professional level. 

And to do that with us here today, we have Maahir Jakoet. He is the lead manager of the Old Mutual Global Islamic Equity Fund, which is now celebrating its 10-year anniversary. So very cool; that’s a nice track record. And that’s obviously going to give us some fantastic data to look at.

Old Mutual Investment Group is championing the unseen at the moment. It’s a campaign that they are running. It’s more than just a cute tagline. They really do want to try to lift the lid on some of the more unusual elements of the markets. 

Something that I would agree is unseen is the appeal of these Shari’ah-compliant funds, not just to an audience who needs them for obvious reasons (those who need to follow this mandate) but actually to anyone who might be interested in the way these funds actually work.

And that’s because of the way they operate, because of the underlying nature of the portfolios, what Shari’ah compliance means in practice. We’re going to dig into all of that today.

So, Maahir, thank you so much for being on the show, and I firmly look forward to learning from you.

Maahir Jakoet: Awesome, man. Great to be here.

The Finance Ghost: Let’s start then with what makes a Shari’ah mandate different. I think we must absolutely cover the basics here, because there are specific rules that you have to follow, right?

What does that mean, practically? And what are you not allowed to own in the fund?

Maahir Jakoet: I think that’s a great place to start.

Often, people want to look at the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) angle, but it’s actually very different. There are definitely overlaps, but Shari’ah is rules based (instead of being score-based, where there are some inconsistencies).

There are two vital steps that investors need to understand.

The one is the core business activity screen. Core is what you’re making your revenue from, broadly speaking. We cannot own companies where the bulk of the revenue comes from alcohol, tobacco, gambling, conventional financial services such as banks and insurers, weapons manufacturing, adult entertainment, etc. So that really covers that list. 

Just to note, banks are a big one, because if you look at the MSCI World Index and you look at financials, whether it’s in that index or a different index, it’s roughly between 18% to 22%.

At a starting point, when you’re removing financials, it upweights something else. Keep that in mind. 

And then there’s the second test, which is actually a mathematical test. It’s a quantitative financial ratio screening test. There are four, but the important one is the debt ratio, and that is 33% debt to asset value, or market capitalisation.

Now, if you think about that, again, besides the conventional banks, when you take that out, you delever your universe by that rule. And that’s really the big one. So there are other rules, but that is definitely the most important one.

The Finance Ghost: Yeah, fascinating. And you’ve talked there about “core” business, so I just want to maybe confirm something there. And the “bulk” of revenue. 

So, for example, if a company is making, I don’t know, 5% of its money from something that is impermissible, that would technically be okay from a screening perspective, provided it also meets the quantitative debt screen, right? 

Just to be clear, it’s quite a practical test. It’s where do you make “most” of your money, right?

Maahir Jakoet: Yes. Well picked up – that’s what we call non-permissible income. And that essentially would have to be removed. And that’s a ratio, perhaps, that I didn’t mention that is in the quantitative screen as well. That’s a max of 5% of what we call non-permissible income. So it shouldn’t breach that, correct.

The Finance Ghost: Okay, interesting. It really is a fascinating world. I personally do actually find it very interesting. But more than that, I find it particularly interesting to see how this affects the underlying shape of the portfolio. And you’ve already made some great points there.

Stuff like banks are a big part of the indices, and this fund would be extremely underweight banks, if any at all actually – probably basically none – versus your traditional indices, which would have lots of banks. 

And it really does take out both sides of the coin, right? Because you take out the stuff that has high amounts of leverage as well. You mentioned the 33% debt-to-asset value or market cap test there.

Now, in a crisis period, that’s interesting, right? Because it means that when things are bad, number one, you’re not sitting with exposure to banks, I guess, which would normally suffer a lot of credit losses. And number two, you’re not sitting with exposure to companies that have a lot of debt on the balance sheet and might be at risk of handing the keys over to the bank.

What does this mean from a crisis perspective, a risk management perspective? Does this fund tend to be more resilient in a downturn?

Maahir Jakoet: I think I want to talk about that to the numbers. I’ve given you the rules, and now it’s very easy to implement and say, “Okay, well, let’s put that to the test”.

So, what are we observing?

Largely, we’re observing lower volatility because of interest rates that can fluctuate, shallower drawdowns, and faster recoveries. Now, when I say fast recovery, you’ll say, “Well, is that recovery back to zero, or is it peak to trough?” And we can talk about that.

But then let’s look at the actual crisis period. So the one we all know, and I’m sure your investors are a sophisticated audience, so they would have lived through the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), which is the 2008–2009 crisis.

You mentioned credit. So let’s see what happened at that time. Is it a credit event, is it a liquidity event? Because that can be very different.

The MSCI World fell through that time roughly about 54% peak to trough, right? Islamic indices didn’t fall as much. So why is that?

There’s a credit event happening. There’s higher leverage obviously, and you’ve taken the financials out. Okay, so that universe then does much better.

But what happened then in COVID? There was a sharp drawdown, but that was actually a liquidity event, not a credit event. 

But again, if we just look at that crisis period, Islamic indices again fell less, right? Slower to zero, but faster to the peak. Now you need to say, “Okay, well, now we’re also talking about recovery”, but that recovery is not to zero, it’s actually to the COVID peak.

And why was that? And that essentially was because when you take out financials, I mentioned that some other sector is going to be upweighted. Given the debt ratio, you have asset-light businesses, right? And then tech was soaring, and because of that upweighting in tech, you found that it recovered a lot better.

And then in 2022, there was the rate shock. Again, rates, there – you’re linking that to interest rates. There’s a credit event, so mildly better in terms of a drawdown. And when I say drawdown, we’re losing less.

And then also, if we look at the 2026 Middle East conflict, of course, there are high-quality, de-levered energy exposures which would have benefited.

But overall, I’ve mentioned four crises. We were really better in all of them.

It’s a higher rates play, but it has a meaningful benefit. So when rates are higher, or there are significant drawdowns, the fact that your opportunity set to choose from has been de-levered is definitely a meaningful benefit.

The Finance Ghost: Super interesting, right? Maybe just one point to understand a little bit more on that.

So when you say they did better, are we talking 5%? Is it 10%? Is it 25%? Not necessarily the numbers offhand for each crisis, but just the factor by which you are protected, I guess, by being in one of these funds from a typical crisis, as we’ve seen over almost 20 years now, shockingly! The GFC was almost 20 years ago. I feel very old now.

But what sort of outperformance are we seeing by this fund in those periods?

Maahir Jakoet: You’re looking at about – in the GFC, I mentioned the 54%, and then like-for-like, comparing apples to apples, you would have seen the MSCI World Islamic at 42%.

So both draw down, but 54% versus 42%. It can be meaningful because then after that, especially when I spoke about recoveries, you compound off a higher base, right? So that can be really meaningful.

The Finance Ghost: Yeah, it makes sense. You’re never going to have complete protection here because, at the end of the day, you’re still owning broad market stocks. But that is a pretty meaningful buffer. It kind of shows you how much trouble companies get themselves into when they have too much debt.

And it’s interesting, because it also feels like what people might not expect, right? I think a lot of investors who don’t need to follow Shari’ah principles would go with the conventional wisdom of, “Oh, the sin stocks are very defensive, and you want to own tobacco and alcohol in a time of need, in a time when the market is really tough”, etc. 

And maybe there’s some truth to that, although I have my own views on that, particularly where we are now with how much health focus the world has.

But it feels like, and it sounds like, all the other things you’re owning instead, and you’re upweighting instead, more than make up for the fact that maybe you’re losing out on one or two defensive stocks. Because you’ve got high-quality balance sheets in there and, like you say, capital-light businesses. I think that’s a really important point, right?

Maahir Jakoet: Absolutely.

The Finance Ghost: Let’s maybe have a look then at global equity performance, because I’m aware that there’s been some pretty strong outcomes by this fund, versus what I would call your traditional funds or your non-Shari’ah-compliant funds.

Let’s maybe talk a little bit about not just your global performance here, but also just performance attribution in terms of sectors.

You’ve already given us a clue in that you’ve held a lot of capital-light, techie kind of things. But where is that outperformance coming from?

Maahir Jakoet: If we can just focus first on the fund performance relative to the conventional. We’ve compared apples with apples in terms of index to index; same provider, same Shari’ah board. You’re just using the rules.

How does that look in a drawdown? How does that then recover?

Let’s focus on the fund. And if you look at our fund relative to that same MSCI World conventional benchmark, then you can see that, over three years, over five years, over 10 years, we’ve outperformed that benchmark.

And then just in terms of understanding the drivers, of course, yes, you said I mentioned the tech angle, but essentially the last decade has been a structural overweight to information technology.

That was definitely the largest contributor, but also, that would have been upweighted in your opportunity set.

The other interesting one was healthcare. One of the biggest contributors after tech, in absolute terms, came from Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly.

You’ve got this quality company that’s making bucket loads of money, and it’s come off – GLP-1 drugs, competition is coming in, and that’s always going to happen. And the big lesson there is that nothing lasts forever.

But we had a phenomenal run with holding Novo. And just a little bit about Novo Nordisk: they control diabetes and weight-loss medication together with Eli Lilly. 

And if we just think about that growth theme. If I asked you, Ghost, is diabetes going to go away? Trends of convenience and what we’re eating and what we’re putting in our bodies, just that alone should make you think “Wow, there’s a theme there”.

The Finance Ghost: And it actually captures the other side of the sin stocks, right? It’s actually the health trend – you’re on the right side of it.

Maahir Jakoet: Exactly.

The Finance Ghost: As opposed to on the wrong side of it.

Maahir Jakoet: Yeah, so from a quality point of view, and you and I perhaps define quality differently. Just from a profitability point of view, a debt point of view, where the metrics on return on equity (ROE), return on invested capital sit: these are quality businesses. 

And then value, well, we can question what is expensive and what is cheap, but there’s also a good growth theme. And that’s really how we make money for investors, by looking at those components. Interestingly, after tech, it was definitely healthcare. 

The Finance Ghost: And bringing up return on equity is interesting, because that’s obviously one of the metrics that CFOs love to juice up, by putting more debt on the balance sheet, right? The more financial leverage you use, technically, the better your ROE will be in the good times. Not in the bad times – it’ll go the other way very quickly.

But to your point, you can own businesses that have a very strong ROE even without debt, because the underlying business is that quality, kind of growth metric. It’s like extracting that final bit of juice from that lemon that you’ve squeezed over your fish. That’s value investing, right? It’s how much juice is still left in that lemon.

Whereas with higher-quality stocks, it’s not like that. It’s the whole plate. They have a big growth story ahead of them. And so would it be fair to say that, because of the rules in this fund, it has a little bit of a growth slant more than a value slant? Would that be a fair statement?

Maahir Jakoet: Absolutely. But then, if you have that advantage of growth, then look for the underappreciated quality within that opportunity set. And actually, then you get a trifecta in terms of what you’re trying to do.

We were talking about performance and comparison against peers or benchmarks. It’s not that the fund was a one-hit wonder, and I think that’s very important, because sometimes in a year you can have exceptional outperformance.

Yes, while our mandate is a developed market mandate, if you look over a one-year period where emerging markets (EM) actually did very well, you would have seen funds or benchmarks that have EM in them, actually did slightly better.

But over the very long term, if we’re looking three years, five years, and of course, you mentioned our 10-year anniversary, then we stack up incredibly well.

So it’s not that in one year we shot the lights out, and now that’s coming through. That’s very important to understand. It’s rules-based. The way we make money in terms of portfolio construction as well: we’re going to put certain constraints that are more rules-based than narratives-based, if that makes sense.

The Finance Ghost: The rules-based stuff also does sometimes help with managing human emotion, right? When you’re managing the fund, you can’t break the rule.

Maahir Jakoet: Absolutely.

The Finance Ghost: You can’t be tempted to say, “Oh, I like this fund or this company – it has a lot of debt, or it does something that is, let me use the word, a little bit “naughty” from a Shari’ah perspective, something impermissible”.

You can’t do it because you have to operate within the guardrails. 

And that’s not a bad thing. It’s almost like a hybrid approach of a little bit of how ETFs work and then how active management works. And we’ll get to just now what differentiates this fund within the Shari’ah umbrella. 

But just before we get to that, something I do want to understand as well: where is the bulk of the equity exposure sitting in this fund?

Maahir Jakoet: In terms of domestic equity, we’ve got no South African equities in this fund. This is a pure global fund. And it’s also global developed markets.

From a sector point of view, predominantly US. And then you have Europe, a big part of it is Europe as well.

Interestingly, depending on if you’re a benchmark-cognisant manager, Korea is actually different if you’ve chosen MSCI as a provider or S&P as a provider. S&P believe that Korea is actually a developed market, whereas MSCI actually buckets that into emerging markets.

So that’s the one play that is on the edge. Is it a classification thing? Maybe. But actually, if you do bucket that as EM, then that’s where we’re getting a little bit of EM exposure. The companies and Korea have done exceptionally well over the one-year period.

The Finance Ghost: Yeah, that’s very interesting. And what does it look like in terms of US versus Europe versus some of the benchmarks? I’m guessing that the US stocks, which are very cash-flush, are probably going to get on the correct side of your debt screen more easily than some of the European names that haven’t necessarily had a few years of rapid growth. I mean, there are exceptions, obviously. Novo Nordisk is a perfect example.

But generally speaking, is there quite a US upweight here?

Maahir Jakoet: Absolutely. So in the fund itself, we are underweight the US, but that’s a diversification and risk management story.

The absolute amount within the opportunity set? You’re looking at about 68% US, so let’s call it 70% to round that up, and then the balance would be Europe and other developed markets.

The Finance Ghost: We’ll dig in a little bit more just now on some of the other differentiating points here.

But I do want to touch on one last question around Shari’ah funds more generically. Maybe you can speak about this one as well: the concept, the stream that people would be choosing to swim in here. 

We’ve heard about the protection on the way down in a crisis. There’s a good argument to be made that you’ll get a more buffered approach here, and you’ll be compounding off a better level going forward. Fair enough. 

You’ve got solid upside from the tech sector, so when that’s doing well, you do very well, and that makes sense.

When other sectors with low financial leverage are performing, that also helps, obviously.

So there will be times where this fund does underperform, though, obviously. Otherwise, it would be the perfect solution to invest in, right? Which nothing is.

Under what conditions would you expect to underperform traditional equity funds, if you are following a Shari’ah rules-based approach?

Maahir Jakoet: Definitely, in a bull market, this fund would have a bit of a headwind, and specifically in financial-led rallies. So absolutely. When you see a decline in interest rates, and inflation isn’t there, and then suddenly there’s free money on the table, and you’ve got this sharp uptick, right?

And while you mentioned the growth part of it, I don’t think there’s enough growth there, and then we tend to lag. 

But Ghost, I can tell you one thing from my experience in managing money – if somebody else is giving you 22% and I’m giving you 20%, I won’t even hear from you. The phones don’t ring in the office. Everyone’s happy.

It’s really on the downside, when something happens, that people start asking: “How much exposure do you have to this?” That is when people start panicking. 

2020 – even though it was a liquidity sell-off – what happens is that the market tends to look for more safe haven, more quality, and that’s why you get the high-leverage companies selling also.

So I think that was a bit of a nuance, because everything else I mentioned was really linked to credit and to interest rates.

I cannot sit here and say that this is, what do they say, “a fund for all seasons”. 

The Finance Ghost: Yes [Laughs]. 

Maahir Jakoet: I absolutely want to partake on the upside on an absolute level, but definitely on the downside, I think that’s the protection you want.

And the perfect investment is giving somebody great returns with zero risk. But that really isn’t out there, I would say, or definitely not out there in some equity product.

That’s exactly what we’re trying to do – give the clients the best return, but rules-based. Not just from how we make money for investors, but also at the outset with the Shari’ah-compliant rules.

The Finance Ghost: Yeah, it makes sense. It’s really looking to give people the best possible reward-to-risk ratio at the end of the day. There are lots of clever metrics that you guys use in your fund management careers to measure that stuff. And that really is the fundamental point of investing, and there’s a lot of portfolio management theory around that stuff.

So maybe for some of our listeners who are more familiar with some of this thinking, what ratio do you focus on in this regard, and how do you go about achieving that efficient relationship between risk and reward for your investors?

Maahir Jakoet: Very good question. And that’s more on the portfolio construction side. We manage the fund systematically, but it’s an actively managed fund. It’s not an index fund.

And our process is that, when constructing a portfolio, what we’ve learned is that actually we want to cap the downside risk. We’ve spoken a lot about that. We want to give the best return, but at a given level of risk. 

So we use a Sortino ratio within our model, and our research is really based on that over the very long term, and how that looks: the best Sortino ratio for the factors or characteristics that we’re looking for within a company. 

Characteristics in terms of the underlying: what’s in the value bucket, what’s in the quality bucket, what’s in the growth bucket, and what’s in the momentum bucket.

But essentially, we want the best Sortino ratio over the very long term, and then we weight it in a proprietary method with the short-term signals and the long-term signals. That’s partly why we’ve done better in the crisis periods, among other things.

The Finance Ghost: Yeah, I mean, you mentioned earlier, you know, your phone doesn’t ring if you slightly underperform on the way up, and there’s a lot of truth in that. People are risk-averse. They’re loss-averse. They don’t want to lose their money. They don’t mind not necessarily making quite as much in a good time, but they get very concerned when the world is on fire. That is an interesting point. 

One last point around how some of this rules-based stuff translates into what you actually buy. And I was just thinking while you were talking about energy stocks earlier. Is there some risk that you end up buying them at the top of the cycle when they are super cash-flush and they don’t have much debt and that debt ratio looks like they’ve made all their money? 

Because obviously that’s the one thing with energy stocks, is you want to be a little bit countercyclical, and sometimes that means you need to buy them when they are horrible [laughs]. And horrible can sometimes mean the debt ratio is not where you want it to be.

So, just curious there: how does that practically work in your life?

Maahir Jakoet: Again, I’m not going to sit here and say we get everything right, but I think it’s very important for you to understand: if I scored every company with a score, and it had a value score, and it had a growth score, and it had a quality score. Profitability, your return metrics, your debt levels would be in your quality score. 

Let’s say we have our scores. What happens in a scenario like that?

Let’s just actually work through that scenario. What happens to that score, that quality score? Well, the company becomes more profitable. The debt levels may be higher, so you’re getting a slight penalisation in your score from how much your debt is weighted in that score. 

But essentially, the company’s still printing a helluva lot of cash and actually is doing well, so quality? Great. But actually, in value, if you’ve got forecasted value metrics there, while this price has run, that’s a deterioration in value, right? That’s a deterioration in value. This thing’s becoming more expensive. So it either gets to its target price, or it actually goes way beyond its target price. So that’s a deterioration. 

Then, on the growth side, well, how much more can this company grow? And again, that’s where your forecast is actually very important, and the metrics and the data that you use. So maybe it’s at its peak. 

So you mentioned peak. So actually then, think we’re at the top of the cycle. There’s a deterioration in your growth score as well. That means two out of the three scores have actually deteriorated, which means that your overall score has deteriorated.

So actually, it might still be a hold, but we’re probably going to take some cream off the top.

The Finance Ghost: Maahir, exactly. That’s where you earn your active management fees at the end of the day, as you’re making those sort of calls, you’re doing those scorecards. 

And that’s actually a lovely way to start to bring this home then for my final question.

We’ve focus so much on the Shari’ah umbrella, which is the umbrella you’re standing under. It’s the one you have to stand under. 

But you can make a lot more decisions than that. You can choose what you’re wearing underneath that umbrella; that’s how you manage the fund is all those other little decisions.

So, what differentiates you and the way you manage this fund, from other Shari’ah-compliant investments? I guess at one extreme you’d have a rules-based ETF, which is just following a Shari’ah-compliant index, and then you’ve got the decisions that you can make to differentiate.

Maahir Jakoet: Because we are quantitative in nature and we’re a systematic fund, the process is always evolving. Evolving for the better. Because sometimes in this industry, you get bucketed: are you a value, or are you a growth manager? Are you a quality manager?

In a systematic style, there are new signals that have better signs, and we can track those, and we can add signals, and we can remove signals. From a process point of view, that’s really our edge. That’s on more of the bottom-up signal generation.

And then there’s the portfolio construction, where we have our constraints, we have our TE bands, we have our sector bands, we have our country limits. 

It’s more rules than narrative, and that keeps us out of the noise. And most importantly, it works, and it’s delivered over the long term.

So again, not a one-trick pony. It’s been done well for a very long time, and we’ve got the track record to prove that.

The Finance Ghost: So, Maahir, thank you so much. We’ve really dug into detail around how these rules work, what makes these funds really interesting. 

I think for anyone to consider as part of their portfolio, obviously all the usual stuff applies. Speak to your financial advisor, do the research, go and check out the Old Mutual Global Islamic Equity Fund on the Old Mutual Investment Group website. I will make sure that the links are available in the show notes and wherever you will find this podcast.

More than that, Maahir, just thank you for really lifting the lid on how this thing works. It’s championing the unseen, and I think it’s been a really cool way to see how you actually do what you do. Particularly some of that stuff around the ratios you use, the factors, the way you score things. 

Thank you very much. I hope you’ve enjoyed this as well, and all the best with managing the fund in a market that is always interesting. I always want to say “these interesting markets,” but they’re always interesting. So good luck with that.

Maahir Jakoet: Absolutely. Thanks so much. It was a pleasure.

Old Mutual Investment Group (Pty) Ltd is an authorised financial services provider, FSP 604. The contents of this podcast and, to the extent applicable, the comments by presenters do not constitute advice as defined in FAIS. Although due care has been taken in recording this podcast, Old Mutual Investment Group does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained herein and therefore does not accept any liability in respect of any loss you may suffer as a result of your reliance thereon. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future investment performance. For more information, visit www.oldmutualinvest.com/institutional

Ghost Bites (Omnia | PPC | Sygnia)

In this edition of Ghost Bites:

  • Omnia’s Agriculture business boosted group margins
  • PPC’s wonderful turnaround continues
  • Sygnia’s growth path is a reminder of how the right strategy can win

Omnia’s Agriculture business boosted group margins (JSE: OMN)

The broader continent offers exciting opportunities in this space

Omnia is an excellent example of operating leverage: the process of turning modest revenue growth into excellent growth in profits. Revenue for the year ended March 2026 was up 6%, yet EBITDA jumped by 21% and HEPS was good for a 21% increase as well.

South African businesses have become masters of operating leverage over the past decade. I sometimes catch myself imagining how well they might do if we experienced proper economic growth!

The net cash position is largely flat year-on-year, so the group is in a sound financial position. This has facilitated an 18% increase in the ordinary dividend, as well as another special dividend of 280 cents (vs. 275 cents in the previous period).

It can’t all be good news, of course. Omnia is still fighting with SARS over a tax assessment dealing with the 2014 to 2016 tax years. This is a prime example of how SARS will bring up a painful past even more effectively than your ex-lover. They are in Alternative Dispute Resolution proceedings that are at an advanced stage.

Digging into the segmentals, we begin with the Agriculture segment as the largest. With revenue moving through the R13 billion milestone, it’s great to see revenue up 13% and operating profit up 28%. Operating profit margin increased to 9.6%. The operations in Rest of Africa drove the performance here, with South Africa and the international business as more of a mixed bag.

In Mining, revenue was up 8% to R9.8 billion. Operating profit could only manage a 1% increase though, so margin dipped to 11.7%. With exposure to multiple commodities and countries, the performance in this segment is always a game of give-and-take.

In Chemicals, revenue increased 38% to R1.3 billion. Operating profit remains marginal at best, with profit of just R4 million at a paltry margin of 0.3%. This is a particularly difficult space.

It’s clear that it was the Agriculture segment that did the heavy lifting in this period. Thankfully, it’s also the segment with the biggest muscles, so that worked out well for shareholders.

Ghost Bite: Omnia is up 44% in the past 12 months. If you include the dividend, then the total return is 56%. The P/E multiple of 12.4x shows that local investors are feeling more comfortable about buying “real economy” stocks at double-digit P/Es.


PPC’s wonderful turnaround continues (JSE: PPC)

Soon, we can safely refer to it as a growth strategy instead

PPC’s strategy is called Awaken the Giant, which I’ve always felt is a lot juicier than the typical corporate wording you’ll see out there around “optimise” and “grow”. Putting a great tagline on a turnaround strategy is a good idea.

The giant has been slow to get out of bed on the revenue line, but much of that is outside of PPC’s control. Infrastructure investment remains fast asleep in South Africa, so PPC’s revenue growth of 3.9% in the year ended March 2026 is a decent outcome in that context.

The real value unlock is happening further down, with EBITDA up by an impressive 31% for the year. EBITDA margin has moved from 12.3% in FY24, to 16.1% in FY25, and now 20.3% in FY26.

HEPS as reported is up by 25% for the year to 50 cents. If you exclude the forex losses on the hedge for the RK3 project, HEPS would be up 45% to 58 cents.

The ordinary dividend is up by 71.6% to 30.2 cents, reflecting the combination of higher profitability and reduced financial risk on the balance sheet.

Looking at the segmentals, you’ll soon see that Zimbabwe is strongest on top line growth, but the South African business has a strong EBITDA trajectory.

In South Africa, PPC could only manage revenue growth of 1.8% thanks to volumes growth of 1.3%. EBITDA was up by 28% if you exclude the impact of the sale of a non-core property, with margin up 320 basis points to 16.9%.

In Zimbabwe, cement volumes were up significantly. An 18.2% increase in volumes was partially offset by currency translation effects into rand, so revenue as reported was up 14.3%. In USD terms, it was up 20.5%.

EBITDA margin in Zimbabwe came under pressure, with a 30 basis points decline to 26.9%. In H2, that margin was much better at 30.9%. The margin pressure means that EBITDA grew by 13%, below the rate of revenue growth but still an impressive number.

As long-standing PPC investors will know, none of this matters if you can’t translate the earnings into cash flow. Thankfully, the net cash inflow in South Africa was up 26% to R1.04 billion. In Zimbabwe, it was up by 124% to $37.6 million!

What’s next for PPC? Well, FY28 will be a big financial year, as this is the planned completion period for the new integrated plant in the Western Cape. Given the extent of development in the province, having more cement production capacity nearby makes sense. They need a solid period of execution in FY27 as they transition into this growth phase.

In a leadership update, the company previously announced that CFO Brenda Berlin will be retiring at the end of June 2026. They haven’t announced her replacement yet, but the process is described as being well advanced.

Ghost Bite: PPC is an incredible self-help story. Next time you see a management team throw their hands up in the air and blame the economy for their woes, just think about what PPC has achieved in the past few years.


Sygnia’s growth path is a reminder of how the right strategy can win (JSE: SYG)

It’s lovely to see another period of net inflows from retail investors

Sygnia is an excellent example of a company that has carved a growth path in a tricky industry. South Africa’s savings culture is infamous, yet Sygnia has found a way to grow to over R460 billion in assets under management and administration (up 13.6% in the six months to March 2026).

This underlying growth in the business has pushed revenue up by 24.3%. It’s pretty hard for things to go wrong from there, although HEPS growth of 22.0% is a reminder that there isn’t as much leverage in this business model as investors would like. The interim dividend is up by 24.5%.

As a sign of the times, the CEO’s letter in the results includes this line at the bottom: “This overview was written without assistance from ChatGPT or any other large language model.”

Respect. AI is an important assistant, but should never be a replacement for the brain. Great writing by a human still beats anything that the LLMs can do.

The irony, of course, is that AI has defined this period in the markets. Sygnia’s funds that are focused on tech have enjoyed strong popularity with retail investors. The retail business has been an important growth engine for Sygnia, with assets under management up from R78.7 billion to R91.6 billion. This included net inflows of R1.9 billion.

Ghost Bite: Increasing the market awareness and understanding of retail investors is the purpose of my work in Ghost Mail. When I see stats like these at Sygnia, I’m reminded of how important this is.


Results of previous poll:


Nibbles:

  • Director dealings:
    • A related party of a senior exec at British American Tobacco (JSE: BTI) bought shares worth around R340k.
    • The COO of Metair (JSE: MTA) bought shares worth R200k.
    • The CEO of Libstar (JSE: LBR) bought shares worth R24.5k.
  • Spear REIT (JSE: SEA) announced that holders of 48.79% of shares in issue elected the dividend reinvestment alternative. This allowed Spear to retain equity of R107.6 million. One way to think of this is as a mini-rights issue, in this case priced at just over R13.00 per share (the spot price is R13.30).
  • At Oasis Crescent Property Fund (JSE: OAS), holders of 64.3% of units in issue elected to reinvest their distribution. The fund therefore issued new units to the value of R24.5 million.
  • Tharisa (JSE: THA) has launched an ADR programme, which means they want to give US-based investors a way to invest in the company in the over-the-counter (OTC) market in the US. If the programme is successful, this can do good things for liquidity in the stock. Importantly, this doesn’t mean that any new shares have been issued. This is purely a US-based structure that provides market access to the existing base of shares.
  • Altron (JSE: AEL) announced that SARB approval for the special dividend has been received. The payment date is 22 June.
  • For those keeping track, Mustek (JSE: MST) has confirmed that Novus (JSE: NVS) has a 41.85% stake in the company.
  • Bidcorp (JSE: BID) has successfully renewed its €300 million revolving credit facility. There are a number of banks in the lending syndicate. Bidcorp is an exceptional global business, so I’m sure they had little or no trouble in these negotiations. The renewal has a tenure of 3 years, with an option to extend for a further 2 years.
Verified by MonsterInsights