Thursday, April 28, 2011

Ruling forces State to pay restitution for land

Mineral rights holders, who forfeited their rights when the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) came into effect in 2004, are entitled to claim for financial loss suffered as a result of the expropriation, Agri SA said following a ruling by the High Court in Pretoria on Thursday.

The judgment handed down by Judge Ben du Plessis serves as a direction-giving ruling in terms of protecting property rights, the farming body's president Johannes Möller said.

"Agri SA's intention with this test case was to prove (the) expropriation of mineral rights... would oblige the state to pay compensation. This ruling confirms the fundamental principle in Section 25 of the constitution, namely that property cannot be expropriated without compensation."

Du Plessis found that "for the reasons stated the objects of the MPRDA could not be achieved without depriving mineral rights holders of their property and without vesting in the state similar rights. While not expressly stated, expropriation was one of the purposes of the MPRDA."

Ahead of the ruling, Agri SA had asked those who suffered financial loss to lodge claims by April 30. Agri SA had compiled a guideline for instituting claims for compensation, which was forwarded to all provincial agricultural unions affiliated with the organisation.

Source: Fin24

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

The Real Africa: Ernst & Young

The bulk of the money entering Africa, until recently, was through aid programmes. Now companies from across the globe want to tap the continent's rich resources and untapped consumer potential. The gross domestic product per household across Africa has more than doubled in the last 15 years. Ernst and Young's Adrian Macartney, leader of transactions advisory services (Africa), spoke to Divya Guha of Mint about the shift in perception.

Edited excerpts:

Why is Africa an exciting place for Indian businesses to look for acquisition targets? Are Indian multinational companies factoring Africa into their long-term growth strategies?

Africa is on the agenda of many countries, not just India. The continent is approaching one billion people in population, it has a growing middle class, growing level of wealth, greater disposable income, a growing number of cities approaching a million people.

The downside is that the geographic mass, the sheer spread of people, is far greater than in India. This will be a challenge.

What are the success rates of businesses in Africa?

It would be premature to comment at this time. However, it would be worthwhile to observe the performance of investors such as Bharti, Godrej and Essar.

What's the downside?

No different from any other — lack of ability to penetrate the market and scale up, and operating in a market that (at the moment) is too small.

What is the main reason for the rise of interest in Africa as a growth hot spot?

Africa is rich in minerals, yet has traditionally under-invested in infrastructure. Combining this with the factors mentioned earlier, Africa offers an opportunity for sustained growth over coming years compared to stagnant markets in Europe and North America. Like many developing markets, projected growth in GDP is significantly higher than mature markets.

How many of these businesses are looking at acquisitions as a means to strategic growth versus survival? How does this compare with deals to Africa from other markets (say Europe or the US)?

Most businesses are looking for growth, not necessarily survival. Africa offers the opportunity for long-term growth. Europe and the US are not growing, so in order to deliver growth to shareholders, it is important to look for growth elsewhere. International clients, whom I have worked with, whether already having a presence in Africa or entering the market for the first time, see Africa as offering growth opportunities.

In terms of comparing it to other markets, they are not very different. Africa has become a more competitive playground, capital is available and, of course, Indian companies will have to compete with them. This includes China, which competes extensively in the infrastructure and natural resources space. Opportunities abound, but competition will rise as it becomes more focused.

What challenges does Africa face in attracting business? And what might India offer the region?

One of the things Africa needs is the ability to manage a low-cost environment. Indian companies have experience of this. Africa competes with many other emerging markets for foreign direct investment. The largest challenge is a lack of knowledge of the realities of business on the continent. Indians coming in and providing a low-cost, high-quality product will capture market share. But consumers are sophisticated in today's market and will quickly see through poor quality.

Culturally, Indian companies might be a little closer to Africa. In terms of their shared colonial histories, Indian companies will have a unique cultural understanding of the market as well; they will understand the need to work with communities, perhaps better than some competitors.

To what extent are they looking at acquiring established African brands?

In the consumer products sector, local brands are particularly important as they allow a new player an entry to the market. This can then be used to leverage other products into the market. This is not quite the same for other sectors where it is possible to introduce brands directly.

To what extent is lowering costs their main motivation? Which sectors are most motivated by this?

This applies differently in different sectors. Many companies requiring resources are seeking to secure off-take agreements (an agreement between a producer and a buyer to buy or sell portions of the producer's future production) and manage their long-term business through integrating the value chain. Other companies are seeking to secure ranks to market (significant market share) for their products. These companies are seeking growth. However, the ability to cut costs is what makes Indian companies attractive to the African market.

What proportion of Indian companies do you think are just testing the waters as opposed to being serious contenders?

There are many serious contenders—some slower, some faster. Each company needs to make the assessment around whether or not Africa is the best use of their capital. Indian companies are competitive and they are seeking to secure their long-term growth. Many have the skills and abilities to go offshore and where they don't, there are sufficient skills in the market to assist them.

How will the deals be financed—retained earnings, private equity, public listings, debt or accruals?

If we look at the years 2005-08, there were many debt-financed deals. Then (after) the economic crisis, liquidity dried up, capital was scarce and the money that was available, debt, was more expensive. Now people will see more equity-financed deals. A number of funds in Africa are starting to see that they have some capital available to start investing. They will have to see exits to see more capital. South Africa is seeing a number of companies raising equity. Certainly, our expectation is that the resources sector is looking attractive for initial public offers.

I think there is probably a move towards looking for the right opportunity and finding the right structure for that, a joint venture maybe, rather than take the risk alone. There is a fair amount of debt in India, but there are many Indian companies that have a significant amount of cash and find no problem in raising finance. There's a trend towards more sharing and partnering rather than 100% ownership.

Which are the relatively more mature countries in Africa? Do they get their fair share of attention from investors?

People know a fair bit about South Africa and Nigeria, but then it tails off. People use broad brushstrokes to paint Africa. They are worried about political risks and these issues are based on a lack of understanding and are often out of date. Go out and find out the latest details rather than base your views on reports from two years ago. Your experience in Egypt will be completely different from Tanzania. Rwanda is a country that has completely transformed itself in a very short space of time.

Current, up-to-date and reliable information is what is required. This is best summed up by the chief executive of a large listed company who insisted on taking his entire executive team on Linka walk through the city streets of a target to taste, smell, see and hear the sounds of consumers in that city. That seemed a sensible approach to me.

Source: WSJ

Monday, April 25, 2011

The Chinese are coming to Africa...

The increasing importance of Chinese investment in sub-Saharan Africa

Many of its people are not happy about it, as our briefing reports, but business is booming in Africa thanks mostly to the Chinese. Trade between the two surpassed $120 billion in 2010, and in the past two years China has given more loans to poor, mainly African countries than the World Bank. The Heritage Foundation, an American think-tank, estimates that between 2005 and 2010 about 14% of China’s investment abroad found its way to sub-Saharan Africa. This has brought increased employment and prosperity to the region, but also allegations of damage to local businesses, corruption and the hoarding of natural resources.

Source: The Economist

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Speaking Notes by Deputy President of South Africa Kgalema Motlanthe at the New York Stock Exchange. 28 March, 2011

Leader of the New York Stock Exchange;
Members of the Stock Exchange;
Leaders of New York City;
Colleagues and friends:

I am pleased to visit the New York Stock Exchange – the heart of the global financial system.

Only four years ago, you hosted our then President, Thabo Mbeki. These visits underscore the importance of the relationship between our country, as the largest economy in Africa, and your institution, the largest equities market in the world.

You will know that the African continent is teeming with economic opportunities. Indeed, Africa is now one of the fastest growing economic regions in the world. For the past ten years, growth in sub-Saharan Africa averaged 4, 4%, compared to an average of 2, 7% for the global economy as a whole.

The IMF expects this rate to continue for the coming five years. Africa’s GDP per person has more than doubled since 2000.

With a billion people, the continent represents a growing market as well as a major exporter of commodities, ranging from rich minerals to fruits and vegetables and of course petroleum. That leaves us well positioned to profit from the current commodity boom, which in turn is driven by rapid growth, especially in Asia.

Our continent still has a number of countries that, like South Africa, struggle with the deep-seated legacies of colonialism; especially inadequate investment in infrastructure, deep inequalities, and poor social services.

Of course, some of these challenges can be attributed to the post-colonial mistakes, which, I am optimistic, subsequent generations have and will continue to learn from.

Still, we can be proud of our great progress in the past few years, which is reflected in solid economic terms. For instance, Africa’s external debt fell from two thirds of the GDP in 2000 to just over a fifth in 2010. That is a tremendous achievement, and it places our continent on a much stronger basis for future growth and development.

Indeed, the Africa from which we come today is very different from the usual stereotypes. Yes, there are areas such as political conflicts, about which we are very concerned. However we are proud that South Africa now plays a leading role in mediating conflict and trying to strengthen democratic systems across the continent.

But most of our continent has come very far in the past ten years. Consider three countries in our region: Angola, Zambia and Mozambique. All three grew faster than 5% a year in the past decade, with Angola getting above 10% growth a year.

Zambia’s GDP climbed by almost two thirds in the ‘00s, while the economies of Angola and Mozambique doubled in size.

These are still low-income countries, but they are on the path to major expansions of the size of their economies.

Colleagues and friends,
South Africa is an important gateway to Africa. We are still the most advanced economy in the continent, accounting for a quarter of the GDP of sub-Saharan Africa although only about 5% of the population. As you know, through our Johannesburg Stock Exchange we can provide easy access for foreign investors.

Our economic strengths start with mining, which is of course still a mainstay of our economy. The past 20 years have however seen a diversification of the sector from gold to platinum and other metals.

In addition, exports of auto industry products, of wines and citrus, construction services and tourism, amongst others, have boomed.

Last year, South Africa was chosen to be one of only four countries to produce the new Mercedes Benz C Class.

We are a leading producer of the BMW 3-series and of a number of other vehicles. While we focus on exports to Africa, Asia and Australia, some of our cars will also come to the United States – indeed, some people in the room here may already be driving our products.

We are proud, too, of the South African companies that have become leading multinationals: SAB-Miller, Naspers, some financial companies, as well as some key mining firms. Half a dozen of our companies are listed on the NYSE, with assets of close to a hundred billion dollars.

The biggest challenge for South Africa remains the deep inequalities left by apartheid. Despite the strength of our economy, it is still one of the most inequitable in the world.

A particular challenge remains high structural unemployment as well as the deep disparities in access to infrastructure and market institutions left by apartheid.
This kind of inequality and division is not sustainable.

No society can prosper for long in the face of major economic divisions between its people. Overcoming deep inequalities has therefore been central to our social and economic policies since the transition to democracy 16 years ago.

In the past year, we adopted a strategy we call the New Growth Path because it aims to set our economy on the path to more inclusive, equitable and dynamic growth. The New Growth Path targets the creation of five million new employment opportunities by 2020 off the back of stronger and more inclusive economic growth.

To achieve this aim, we are particularly encouraging investments that can expand output and employment in the mining and agricultural value chains, manufacturing, tourism and high-level services, the green economy, and through improved integration with the African region
.
These are ambitious targets. But we can’t afford to set ourselves targets that reveal a poverty of ambition. Other countries, and South Africa itself at key moments of our history, have stretched to achieve the big goals demanded by their historic circumstances.

In his famous 1963 speech, Dr Martin Luther King told an American audience, “This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilising drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.” These words are particularly apt for South Africa today.

Programme director,

Like other emerging economies, we need international investment to support productive activities that increase the overall competitiveness of our economy.

We are of course most interested in direct investment that brings with it skills, cutting-edge technologies, and access to global markets.

Our New Growth Path seeks to facilitate foreign investment especially in sectors that promise sustainable growth in the long run in the context of large-scale employment creation.

In particular, we plan to invest over a hundred billion dollars in infrastructure in the next three years, mostly to generate electricity and upgrade our rail and road networks. Some of these investments will be financed by foreign loans to our utilities.

In addition, we expect to create more favourable conditions in mining, in order to take advantage of the current commodity boom, as well as supporting growth in manufacturing, tourism and agro-processing.

Finally, we will seek to support infrastructure and productive investments across Africa, especially to build logistics infrastructure linking southern and central Africa.

We look forward to strengthening our international partnerships in this context. Our meeting today will hopefully lay the basis for continued collaboration to develop our country and our continent into the future.

I thank you

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Kraft Foods Highlights South African market, makes $150m investment

South Africa is now a priority market for Kraft Foods, says Sanjay Khosla, President, Developing Markets, Kraft Foods, during a recent visit from the company’s US-based global headquarters. The combination with Cadbury in 2010 gives the company a much larger footprint in South Africa, adding the market to the roster of 10 priority developing markets that will receive disproportionate investment.

Khosla announced that the company is pouring $150 million into local manufacturing in Africa over the next three years for brands including Stimorol chewing gum and Cadbury Dairy Milk chocolate, of the $150m, R750m will be spent on its PE plant.

During his visit, Khosla also outlined his Winning through Focus strategy for the company’s $13-billion developing markets business … the company’s growth engine. This strategy tripled the company’s developing markets net revenues from 2006 to 2010 and is centred around three pillars: focus, glocal and people.

Focus is a big part of winning in a business with more than 100 brands in more than 60 countries. “We focus on just five categories, 10 power brands and 10 priority markets. South Africa is a priority market for us, where we focus on power brands like Cadbury chocolate,” said Khosla. Together, these 10 markets make up the majority of the growth in the company’s developing markets business.

Khosla’s second strategic pillar, “glocal,” combines the best of global and the best of local. “We encourage independent thinking and entrepreneurship among local leaders who understand the local market, while taking full advantage of our worldwide strengths in areas like technology, sales and marketing,” said Khosla.

People is the third pillar of Khosla’s strategy. Khosla expressed that he’s investing in the development of diverse talent and future leaders, who have the opportunity to gain experience not only in South Africa, but around the world. “South Africa is a great source of global talent. Regional and international mobility is a phenomenal development opportunity for our people,” said Khosla. With female leaders making up 50 percent of the local management team, three of whom are equity candidates, Khosla said, “South Africa’s diversity is a major competitive advantage.”

Source: Moneyweb

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

South Africa targets $17bn investment bonanza

South Africa expects 115 billion rand ($17 billion) worth of investments flowing into Africa's biggest economy over the next three years, the trade and industry minister said on Tuesday.

Rob Davies told parliament the figure was a “realistic target” and the deals would come from the emerging market BRICS powers as well as Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and countries in the Middle East.

“We anticipate that this work programme will translate over the next three years into an investment pipeline of projects valued at R115 billion,” he said.

The past year saw investments worth 28 billion rand flow into South Africa, creating approximately 13,000 jobs.

Foreign investors have been cautious about sending capital because of growing concerns over corruption and the country's rigid labour market, which makes producing goods more expensive when compared to other emerging economies.

Turning to international trade, Davies said the stalled Doha Round of talks could collapse. “Renewed efforts to conclude the Doha Developmental Round this year appear to have come up against major, and perhaps fatal, obstacles,” he said.

Major stumbling blocks include bigger economies wanting greater access to developing countries in the areas of industrial tariffs and services, while emerging states are wary of acceding to this demand without reciprocity.

South Africa recently joined the BRICS grouping that also includes Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Source: Reuters

Monday, April 18, 2011

Mo Ibrahim: The Promise of Africa

As the chairman of the $200 million investment fund Satya Capital, Mo Ibrahim is making aggressive investments in broadband, retail and other industries in Africa.

Mo Ibrahim founded Celtel, one of Africa's first mobile networks, in 1998. Now he is making aggressive investments in broadband, retail and other industries in Africa as chairman of Satya Capital. He talks with WSJ's Neanda Salvaterra.

Mr. Ibrahim, who founded one of Africa's first mobile networks, claims the continent offers one of the world's best returns on investment: Africa was the top performing region over the past 10 years in terms of equity investments, with a 31% return compared with 25% globally, according to the International Finance Corporation, the corporate investment arm of the World Bank.

Mr. Ibrahim struggled to build Celtel in 1998, when few Africans were using cellphones. Mobile-phone use in the region has since skyrocketed, with 547.6 million mobile connections at the end of 2010, up from 9.8 million in 2000, according to Wireless Intelligence, a market database for industry association GSMA. Mr. Ibrahim sold Celtel for $3.4 billion in 2005.

As a philanthropist, through the Ibrahim Foundation, Mr. Ibrahim aims to tackle corruption in Africa and create democratic societies. He points to the use of cellphones in the demonstrations that have overthrown leaders in Tunisia and Egypt and continue to challenge regimes in North Africa. "Mobile technology enabled civil society to connect," he says.

Mr. Ibrahim also wants multinational corporations to take responsibility for some of the region's corruption. "African politicians don't corrupt themselves. It's like an adulterous relationship; it takes two," he says. Mr. Ibrahim points to figures from Global Financial Integrity, a nonprofit Washington research institution, that show manipulation of export and import data by companies wanting to send money out of the continent to repatriate profits—so called trade mispricing—reached $35.2 billion 2008.

Mr. Ibrahim, 65 years old, spoke recently with The Wall Street Journal about the early struggles of Celtel, Africa's growth potential and the benefits of making money honestly. Edited excerpts:

WSJ: Why did you think you could successfully operate a cellphone network in Africa?

Mr. Ibrahim: Africa had very few phones: 950 million people and only two million phones. So the market was there.

Secondly, Africa had a bad reputation in business circles. Of course some African countries have issues but the vast numbers of countries are actually okay. So the perception of Africa is much worse than the reality. And whenever there is gap between perception and reality there's a fantastic business opportunity.

WSJ: What were the challenges with getting funding for Celtel?

Mr. Ibrahim: It was extremely difficult because the banks wouldn't lend us money. Again banks were ruled by the same misconceptions about Africa. We had to fund the company through equity. It is a very strange way to fund a telecom company. That hindered a lot of progress. In seven years of operation we had to have eight to nine rounds of financing and each time we put our own money on the line. When we sold the company, the company was debt free.

WSJ: What did you learn from managing Celtel?

Mr. Ibrahim: Governance pays. Because we ran a well-governed company with no skeletons in the cupboard or under-the-table envelopes, we commanded a high premium when the time came to sell.

WSJ: You also back a private-equity firm called Satya Capital—what are the returns like?

Mr. Ibrahim: It's a $200 million fund. It was started about three years ago and so far we've probably doubled our investment—nowhere in the world you can have that return of investment as in Africa.

WSJ: Where are you putting your money?

Mr. Ibrahim: We have invested in a telecommunications satellite company called O3B focusing on the other three billion people without broadband [primarily] in Africa and we think it's going to be a great success.

We have [also] invested in retail, financial institutions, private health, mining food, and production. This is an emerging market with a huge growth potential. It's a place to go and make money but you need to make it honestly.

WSJ: Why do you believe that fighting corruption starts in U.S and European boardrooms?

Mr. Ibrahim: Business is the obvious partner in corruption—we always focus on the officials but they are not corrupting themselves. For every corrupt official, there are several business partners; it's time for board members to take their fiduciary duties seriously.

WSJ: Do you think the U.S. has made progress with the Dodd Frank Act?

Mr. Ibrahim: Absolutely. It is wonderful that once again the U.S. is taking a leading role in fighting global corruption. For 10 years corruption was legal in Europe and tax deductible, we hope that Europe will follow [the U.S.] this year as they have promised to do.

WSJ: Are you worried about China in Africa?

Mr. Ibrahim: We just think of them as a trading partner. For decades [raw materials and commodity] prices there didn't move. Then China comes and prices move up, so we are happy. All that we demand from them is transparency.

Full article in the WSJ here.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Investing in Africa

Do your homework and reap the exceptional rewards.

The story of how Africa has changed dramatically for the better has been told many times in recent months but — it seems — most of us in SA still consider it a somewhat implausible piece of wishful thinking. In the middle of last year, McKinsey Global Institute released its Lions on the Move report, an analysis of how African countries’ gross domestic product (GDP ) had grown 5% a year from 2000 to 2008 after decades of, at best, simply limping along. Given the depth of material presented, the upbeat findings of the analysis and the reputation of the consultancy putting its name to it, the report continues to receive widespread coverage alongside increasing interest in the investment opportunities in Africa.

Recently, we at Sphere Holdings thought the time was right to revisit the themes and opportunities contained in the Lions on the Move report, so we invited Acha Leke, head of McKinsey’s Lagos operation, to run through the research with an audience of about 40 people in Johannesburg. Those attending represented companies in which Sphere is invested, partners and associates, most with operations north of our borders, all with a real interest in the rest of Africa.

According to Leke, the sustained growth Africa experienced up until 2008 was not simply driven by the resources boom (resources directly accounted for only 24% of the growth). Of equal importance were fundamental macroeconomic and political changes that ended conflicts and brought a measure of stability to the continent undreamt of in the 1980s.

Then there was a raft of business-friendly reforms and urbanisation. In emerging economies, the simple act of moving to the city can raise a worker’s productivity fivefold. In Tanzania, Kenya and Mozambique, Leke explained, urbanisation accounted for between 30% and 50% of the growth these economies experienced. At the same time, there has been a "seismic demographic shift" — by 2020, more than half of all households will have discretionary spending.

By 2020, according to McKinsey, four sectors in Africa — consumer-facing industries, infrastructure, resources, and agriculture — will be worth $2,6-trillion a year.

Leke went on to recall that foreign direct investment in Africa had spiked in about 2005-0 6. Not only had the reforms he spoke of encouraged outside investors, Africa almost overnight began to offer the best returns of any developing region.

Shortly before Leke’s presentation in Sandton, I travelled to northern Mozambique with Ian Victor, MD of Pandrol, a company in which Sphere is invested and which is the world’s leader in rail-fastening systems.

Brazilian miner Vale is investing as much as $3b n in its 11-million-ton Moatize coal project in the Tete basin and the project is moving swiftly towards production. Vale has announced it is putting $1,6b n into Moatize but we experienced for ourselves the company’s determination to put even more into ensuring that, when it comes on stream, the mine is able to move coal to its customers. The existing Sena railway line to Beira is being upgraded but it is unlikely it will ever be able to satisfy the volumes Vale has in mind for Moatize.

So the Brazilians are already planning another, higher-capacity, line to Nacala, one that will have the potential to ship much more coal than Beira will be able to manage.

As Victor put it, until not that long ago people would wait for the World Bank to fund something such as a railway line. Of course, World Bank funding came with strings attached, took time and couldn’t benefit a private project directly. Nowadays, investors aren’t waiting for the likes of the World Bank; they are so encouraged by what has been happening in Africa that they’re making things happen themselves, investing directly in infrastructure. As I travelled in northern Mozambique I couldn’t help but think that what was happening there reflected how we South Africans had been caught asleep at the wheel. Here is a shallow deposit that will be able to support mining for a century or more, yet we somehow missed the boat. We seem to think that, because Mozambique is our neighbour, we will get first right of refusal over any developments in that country. Clearly the Brazilians didn’t see things that way.

Another business represented at Leke’s presentation wa s Savcio, which is the largest privately owned provider of maintenance and repair services for electromechanical equipment and transformers in Africa.

The company is the established market leader in SA, and Africa is the natural outlet for its expansionary ambitions. Savcio has been operating across Africa for some time, delivering services on site or, when the equipment cannot be serviced locally, shipping it to SA to be worked on, and then shipping it back. This adds significantly to the cost.

Savcio, through its strategic objective of geographic expansion in Africa, recently acquired an engineering firm in the Zambian Copper Belt, from which it will service Zambian business as well as clients in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and surrounding countries. Now, according to director Mervyn Naidoo, Savcio is looking to establish a permanent West African presence by entering into a joint-venture partnership there.

Studies and reports such as those by McKinsey are invaluable in telling the new African story, but for those seeking investment opportunities they will always only tell part of the story.

As those attending Leke’s seminar were at pains to point out from personal experience, there are challenges of infrastructure, political and economic stability, language barriers and, still, questionable business practices. Also, as Naidoo pointed out, each African market is unique and each needs its own research.

For smaller businesses, this is a particular challenge: there is only so much management resource available to invest all the time and effort required to find out how things work in particular countries. For all but the biggest corporations, South African companies looking north need to concentrate their energies on a select number of countries.

But for all these difficulties and challenges, businesses such as Savcio and Pandrol are going into Africa, having a look for themselves and exploiting the kinds of opportunities identified on a macro scale by the McKinsey report.

And, as Leke highlighted, the rewards can be significant. Based in Nigeria and having consulted widely in the telecommunications sector (one of the "consumer-facing" sectors the report highlighted and which added 316- million subscribers across the continent in under a decade) he knows just how challenging operations can be.

Nigeria has a population almost three times that of SA’s but its electricity supply is minuscule in comparison; with a capacity of 4800MW — Eskom’s Medupi power station will feed more electricity into the grid than all of Nigeria’s generating sources could supply if they were combined.

In Nigeria, such is the patchiness of electricity supply that cellphone base stations all need generators, which need fuel, which needs to be delivered by a fleet of trucks on exceptionally busy roads.

Yet, Leke noted, MTN had recently reported margins from its Nigerian operations that were 29% higher than those in SA. The messages are clear: do your homework, be targeted and prepared to invest for the long haul, and Africa can offer your business exceptional returns.

By Itumelend Kgaboesele, Business Day

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Joining BRICs: What does it mean for SA?

SA’s ascent to the mighty Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China and SA) grouping — which is meeting for the first time as a quintet this week — is at once a great achievement and a bewildering curiosity.

Its presence complicates an already odd mix of countries, which evidently don’t quite know what to do with this new entity, yet have a sense there is some kind of logic to their quasi-partnership.

Even before SA’s inclusion, the group constituted an eclectic mix, riven with old tensions and new trade disputes. China’s economic rise has taken place much faster than India’s, setting off a new economic rivalry between the neighbours, but also helping to fuel a fundamental economic reassessment within India. Still, China’s economy is now larger than the three others put together, never mind the pipsqueak newcomer.

Russia and China’s rivalry goes back much further but it has the feel of a competitiveness belonging to a previous generation. Yet the fundamental differences remain: China is a reformed communist state; Russia is a revolutionised communist state. Within that distinction sit myriad subtle differences.

Way on the other side of the world lies Brazil, with geography, history and traditions so different from the other three that it seems like the odd man out — except that they are all odd men out in some way. The whole grouping seems like something akin to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: the more you look for something, the less it’s there.

The conceptualisation of the group began in an economics paper published way back in 2001 by the economists of international banking group Goldman Sachs, titled Building Better Global Economic Brics. The group was headed by Jim O’Neill, now head of Goldman Sachs’s asset management division.

In it, the group predicted that by the end of the decade, the Brics economies would make up more than 10% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP).

They were more correct than even their wildest expectations. By 2007 the Brics countries made up 15% of the global economy. By last year, China had overtaken not only Germany, as predicted, but also Japan. In a revision in 2007, the group brought forward the time when the Brics countries would overtake the Group of Seven countries from 2040 to 2032. With the recessions in the developed world, that number is now closer still.

It was a stunning insight with enormous global significance for the political and economic balance of power — except it didn’t quite work out. What the economics team was looking for was essentially the new "economic giants", a word that features prominently in the original papers. To be a "giant" apparently required three things: heft in terms of economic significance and population size; dramatic economic growth; and an existing "emerging market" status.

Hence, existing countries with significant economic heft such as Mexico and Korea were excluded because they were already too developed. Countries with significant population sizes such as Indonesia and Nigeria were excluded because their growth potential was deemed limited. And a host of other potential counties were excluded because they just weren’t big enough.

It’s worth questioning the assumption that size necessarily creates some additional economic advantage. Many small countries have per-capita GDP levels that are much higher than the aggregate levels in large countries. Many small countries are also able to grow faster than large countries. As a result, some of the fastest-growing countries escaped the attention of all the studies, notably Angola, the country that grew the fastest of all in the first decade of the new millennium, albeit from a tiny base.

On the other hand, while the growth record of the Brics nations collectively in the 2000- 10 period was fabulous, Brazil’s contribution was modest. Its average growth rate was 2,3% in 2000- 06 and it has not been much better since.

It’s interesting to read these old documents now just to see how weird the results of extrapolation can be: one document has the UK bigger than Germany in 2050; that seems very unlikely now. It also has Mexico larger than Russia by the same year, which makes you wonder why Mexico rather than Russia wasn’t an original Brics.

It’s also really surprising how the economic statistic that truly matters from a developmental point of view, per-capita GDP calculated on a purchasing-power parity basis, barely appears in the documents.

This was clearly an effort to identify "global leaders", the reflexive default of global investment bankers, rather than reaching inside economic verities. This was true even after the group identified the "N11" countries, the next 11, in 2005: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Turkey and Vietnam, which were considered interesting but not quite up to the Brics.

Whatever the inconsistencies and arbitrariness of how the global economic pie was cut, clearly the original four were pleased to have been singled out and with the way the concept took off. Yet, as it has taken off, so the criticism has increased, too. Some have argued Brics is just made up of the largest emerging market economies. Others say the grouping is incoherent: a petro-state with a declining population (Russia) paired with a resources boom state (Brazil) paired with a manufacturing economy (China) paired with a services economy (India).

US diplomat Henry Kissinger was typically scornful, saying the Brics nations had "no hope" of acting together as a coherent bloc in world affairs and any co-operation would be the result of forces acting on the individual nations.

Yet the grouping seems to have taken off, not as a bloc but as a club. The meeting this week will be the third formal summit and the first in which SA takes part.

SA’s participation makes this particularly interesting. By almost every criterion posed by Brics’s conceivers, SA is hopelessly short of qualifying. It was not even one of the N11.

O’Neill was unequivocal that SA should not belong to the group, and said recently SA had no realistic hope of ever joining. He was clearly inwardly apoplectic, and hinted darkly about what Nigerians might think about being usurped this way.

Well, according to Dianna Games, CE of Africa @ Work, Nigerians aren’t so negative as one might assume. "Nigeria definitely has the potential to be part of the group, but we are talking about a country which only generates about 4MW of electricity. In a sober moment, they would probably concede SA deserves to be there ahead of them."

The problem, she says, is that people outside Africa are looking for a country that can stand as a proxy for the continent. This gives SA the opportunity to put up its hand. Yet African countries themselves don’t really see SA in the same way, and SA needs to do much more to demonstrate that it is in fact a "gateway into the continent", she says.

It seems the Brics countries, as we should now call them, are motivated by two desires slightly beyond the originators’ conception: to create a new political axis and to increase trade outside of traditional patterns, sometimes called south-south trade. In both these efforts, SA fits. It has the instinctive anti- western inclinations of the others. Its influence in Africa is helpful to China, which needs resources, and compatible with Brazil, which has a comparable economy, if not in size then in make-up. In a sense, Africa is the new Brics. SA just holds the seat.

By Tim Cohen, Business Day

Joining BRICs: What does it mean for SA?

SA’s ascent to the mighty Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China and SA) grouping — which is meeting for the first time as a quintet this week — is at once a great achievement and a bewildering curiosity.

Its presence complicates an already odd mix of countries, which evidently don’t quite know what to do with this new entity, yet have a sense there is some kind of logic to their quasi-partnership.

Even before SA’s inclusion, the group constituted an eclectic mix, riven with old tensions and new trade disputes. China’s economic rise has taken place much faster than India’s, setting off a new economic rivalry between the neighbours, but also helping to fuel a fundamental economic reassessment within India. Still, China’s economy is now larger than the three others put together, never mind the pipsqueak newcomer.

Russia and China’s rivalry goes back much further but it has the feel of a competitiveness belonging to a previous generation. Yet the fundamental differences remain: China is a reformed communist state; Russia is a revolutionised communist state. Within that distinction sit myriad subtle differences.

Way on the other side of the world lies Brazil, with geography, history and traditions so different from the other three that it seems like the odd man out — except that they are all odd men out in some way. The whole grouping seems like something akin to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: the more you look for something, the less it’s there.

The conceptualisation of the group began in an economics paper published way back in 2001 by the economists of international banking group Goldman Sachs, titled Building Better Global Economic Brics. The group was headed by Jim O’Neill, now head of Goldman Sachs’s asset management division.

In it, the group predicted that by the end of the decade, the Brics economies would make up more than 10% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP).

They were more correct than even their wildest expectations. By 2007 the Brics countries made up 15% of the global economy. By last year, China had overtaken not only Germany, as predicted, but also Japan. In a revision in 2007, the group brought forward the time when the Brics countries would overtake the Group of Seven countries from 2040 to 2032. With the recessions in the developed world, that number is now closer still.

It was a stunning insight with enormous global significance for the political and economic balance of power — except it didn’t quite work out. What the economics team was looking for was essentially the new "economic giants", a word that features prominently in the original papers. To be a "giant" apparently required three things: heft in terms of economic significance and population size; dramatic economic growth; and an existing "emerging market" status.

Hence, existing countries with significant economic heft such as Mexico and Korea were excluded because they were already too developed. Countries with significant population sizes such as Indonesia and Nigeria were excluded because their growth potential was deemed limited. And a host of other potential counties were excluded because they just weren’t big enough.

It’s worth questioning the assumption that size necessarily creates some additional economic advantage. Many small countries have per-capita GDP levels that are much higher than the aggregate levels in large countries. Many small countries are also able to grow faster than large countries. As a result, some of the fastest-growing countries escaped the attention of all the studies, notably Angola, the country that grew the fastest of all in the first decade of the new millennium, albeit from a tiny base.

On the other hand, while the growth record of the Brics nations collectively in the 2000- 10 period was fabulous, Brazil’s contribution was modest. Its average growth rate was 2,3% in 2000- 06 and it has not been much better since.

It’s interesting to read these old documents now just to see how weird the results of extrapolation can be: one document has the UK bigger than Germany in 2050; that seems very unlikely now. It also has Mexico larger than Russia by the same year, which makes you wonder why Mexico rather than Russia wasn’t an original Brics.

It’s also really surprising how the economic statistic that truly matters from a developmental point of view, per-capita GDP calculated on a purchasing-power parity basis, barely appears in the documents.

This was clearly an effort to identify "global leaders", the reflexive default of global investment bankers, rather than reaching inside economic verities. This was true even after the group identified the "N11" countries, the next 11, in 2005: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Turkey and Vietnam, which were considered interesting but not quite up to the Brics.

Whatever the inconsistencies and arbitrariness of how the global economic pie was cut, clearly the original four were pleased to have been singled out and with the way the concept took off. Yet, as it has taken off, so the criticism has increased, too. Some have argued Brics is just made up of the largest emerging market economies. Others say the grouping is incoherent: a petro-state with a declining population (Russia) paired with a resources boom state (Brazil) paired with a manufacturing economy (China) paired with a services economy (India).

US diplomat Henry Kissinger was typically scornful, saying the Brics nations had "no hope" of acting together as a coherent bloc in world affairs and any co-operation would be the result of forces acting on the individual nations.

Yet the grouping seems to have taken off, not as a bloc but as a club. The meeting this week will be the third formal summit and the first in which SA takes part.

SA’s participation makes this particularly interesting. By almost every criterion posed by Brics’s conceivers, SA is hopelessly short of qualifying. It was not even one of the N11.

O’Neill was unequivocal that SA should not belong to the group, and said recently SA had no realistic hope of ever joining. He was clearly inwardly apoplectic, and hinted darkly about what Nigerians might think about being usurped this way.

Well, according to Dianna Games, CE of Africa @ Work, Nigerians aren’t so negative as one might assume. "Nigeria definitely has the potential to be part of the group, but we are talking about a country which only generates about 4MW of electricity. In a sober moment, they would probably concede SA deserves to be there ahead of them."

The problem, she says, is that people outside Africa are looking for a country that can stand as a proxy for the continent. This gives SA the opportunity to put up its hand. Yet African countries themselves don’t really see SA in the same way, and SA needs to do much more to demonstrate that it is in fact a "gateway into the continent", she says.

It seems the Brics countries, as we should now call them, are motivated by two desires slightly beyond the originators’ conception: to create a new political axis and to increase trade outside of traditional patterns, sometimes called south-south trade. In both these efforts, SA fits. It has the instinctive anti- western inclinations of the others. Its influence in Africa is helpful to China, which needs resources, and compatible with Brazil, which has a comparable economy, if not in size then in make-up. In a sense, Africa is the new Brics. SA just holds the seat.

By Tim Cohen, Business Day

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Sasol pushes LPG, "green" taxis

JOHANNESBURG — In an effort to reduce carbon emissions, the Gauteng provincial government and the South African National Taxi Association Council (Santaco) have embarked on a partnership to convert minibus taxis in the province to dually operate on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) as well as petrol.

Changing from petrol to gas and vice versa is manually done by the driver.

On the Gerotek high-speed oval, I could discern no visible power difference in performance as a passenger. Tests have shown a minimal difference in power output.

The R3m pilot project which was facilitated by one of Blue IQ’s automotive subsidiaries, the Automotive Industry Development Centre (AIDC), has converted 70 taxis operating in northern Pretoria and Tembisa.

Each conversion costs about R20000, paid for by the Gauteng provincial government. Each conversion takes about 24 hours and the driver/owner was compensated for loss of income for this period.

It was not revealed what this figure is.

Strategic relationships were established with Santaco and the South African National Energy Research Institute (Saneri).

In addition, Sasol was brought on board due to their intensive LPG programme in SA.

After a robust vehicle selection process, seventy mini-bus taxis were converted to operate dually on petrol as well as LPG over a 3 month period.

An LPG vehicle conversion specialist was appointed to conduct the conversion process, using the latest generation conversion kits, which were imported from Germany. The vehicle of choice was the Toyota Quantum. Only one type of vehicle was chosen to keep the conversions constant. It was decided to place the donut-shaped gas tank in the spare wheel well.

The project findings show an 11% reduction on the carbon dioxide (CO2) levels when switching the vehicles to LPG.

Carbon monoxide can be deadly.

Technical tests on a prototype mini-bus — sponsored by Sasol — were conducted to precisely assess the effect on carbon emissions as well as its fuel efficiency. The AIDC commissioned these tests at both the Gerotek Test Facilities in Pretoria and the SABS Laboratories in East London. The tests, the first of their kind in SA, showed that although the overall fuel consumption is higher on LPG, the lower cost of LPG balances out the effect of fuel costs for the minibus taxi driver. The cost benefits also include improved longevity of the engine and a reduction of overall maintenance costs over the lifespan of the vehicle. It is estimated that more than 100000km, which taxis can do in a 12-month period, the savings to the driver/owner would be in the region of R20 000.

Sasol erected a temporary refuelling point at Gerotek for the tests, with more permanent ones at Kruisfontein and Spartan. There is a further temporary one at Rosslyn.

The AIDC plans to roll out a second wave of 150 converted minibus taxis during the next 12 months. In light of this target, we can easily expect the sprouting of additional LPG refueling stations across Gauteng to support this growing fleet of "green" minibus taxis.

Monday, April 11, 2011

Jones Lang LaSalle enters South Africa

JOHANNESBURG, March 31 (Reuters) - Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL.N), one of the world's largest real estate services companies, is buying a South African rival for an undisclosed amount, its first step into the fast-growing continent.

The U.S. real estate group said on Thursday that the acquisition of unlisted Bradford McCormack & Associates (BMA) provided a springboard for further expansion in South Africa and the region.

"The deal opens up accelerated business growth opportunities for both firms across South Africa and its neighbouring countries," the company said in a statement.

BMA's local clients include South Africa's biggest bank, ABSA ABSJ.J, global confectionery giant Nestle (NESN.VX), the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSEJ.J) and several government departments.

Jones Lang LaSalle is the third major U.S.-based company in recent months to have shown interest in sub-Saharan Africa's fast-growing markets.

Last week, Washington D.C.-based private equity group Carlyle [CYL.UL] said it planned to open offices in Johannesburg and Lagos and start investing in capital growth ventures and buyouts in the region. [ID:nLDE72N05U]

U.S. retailer Wal-Mart Stores (WMT.N) is in the middle of buying a controlling stake in South African retailer Massmart (MSMJ.J) for $2.3 billion, though it is having problems convincing competition authorities. [ID:nLDE72R1OO]

Jones Lang LaSalle will compete in South Africa with Growthpoint Properties (GRTJ.J), the country's largest listed property firm, and Redefine Properties (RDFJ.J).

Earlier this month, a survey by property consultant DTZ (DTZ.L) found the amount of new capital available for investment in global real estate was $329 billion, up 17 percent from a mid-2010 projection. [ID:nLDE728294]

Capital earmarked for direct investment in the Americas rose 14 percent to $111 billion, while in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA) the pot was up just 2 percent to $114 billion.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

SA stifles cash heists with hi-tech foam

Through a series of triggers polyurethane foam can be dispensed in less than a minute that then hardens within another minute

Published: 2011/04/05 06:37:07 AM

HOMEGROWN technology, which among other things gave the world razor wire and security gates, is being adapted to combat another crime — ATM bombing.

The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has developed a polyurethane foam-dispensing unit which it has dubbed Pudu.

The Pudu technology is also housed in the back of cash-in-transit vehicles, where the money is kept. Through a series of triggers and mechanisms, polyurethane foam can be dispensed in less than a minute. Within another minute, the foam hardens.

It has been partially responsible for the decline in cash-in- transit heists in SA and is now being marketed internationally.

The CSIR does research and development for socioeconomic growth in SA. Crime is a big deterrent to doing business in SA, and technology has a huge role in staying a step ahead of criminals.

"The technology has spinoffs," CSIR research and development outcomes manager Delon Mudaly says. "(For) ATM robberies … and cross-pavement carriers, we have developed a Pudu solution." Some of these products will be on the market within the next year, Mr Mudaly says.

"Around 1999-2000, SBV (a cash-in-transit company owned by SA’s four big banks) approached the CSIR for a solution regarding cash-in-transit heists, so the CSIR developed technology to solve the problem," he says.

"SBV is (now) the lowest-risk cash-in-transit company in the world, and this is partially due to our technology."

It takes about two days to cut the money out of the concrete-like substance, immobilising the area and ensuring that the valuables can be retrieved. "It also saves the lives of guards," Mr Mudaly says.

"Cash-in-transit heists are about intelligence and inside information. Robbers find out that vehicles are protected by technology (that) cannot be attacked, so there has been a drop in (cash-in- transit heist) events.

"They don’t understand the technology, but they know they can’t undo it."

The technology is exclusively owned by the CSIR, which has appointed the security equipment company QD Group as manufacturer and marketer of Pudu.

"There is one user in SA at the moment, SBV — they use it extensively," Graeme King, CEO of Midrand-based QD Group, said yesterday.

"At the moment, we’re manufacturing about 150 units a year. We’re marketing it to other companies in SA and elsewhere in the world, and we’ve had quite a bit of interest from the cash-in-transit industry worldwide."

There were other applications for the technology, Mr King said, which could be of interest to "anyone who has a safe or a vault". He said: "We’ve spoken to a few of the banks and there is some interest in the banking world in SA."

The interest in Pudu is not confined to SA.

"It is now marketed internationally," Mr Mudaly said.

He cited interest from European and Latin American countries. "And it’s been demonstrated in the UK and Brazil."

A unit can cost tens of thousands of rand but when millions are at stake, it is an investment many companies are willing to make to keep a step ahead of determined criminals.