Last week I bought a refill gas bottle and discovered when I got home that I couldn’t open it. The screw cap was extraordinarily tight.

So, naturally, I asked Gemini.

It gave me a long list of things I could try, accompanied by warnings about gas, pressure and safety. It was all very thorough. It was also not particularly useful.

There was still enough time to go back to the gas shop, so I put the bottle in the car and drove back. The woman in charge called one of the young men out to help me. He put on a pair of gloves, took the bottle out of the car and opened the cap.

It still needed a little adjustment because it was too tight for me to open by hand. He made the adjustment and handed it back to me. Problem solved.

The sophisticated AI solution had been a long list of instructions. The human solution was a pair of work gloves, a bit of practical knowledge and some muscle.

It was a useful reminder that having access to more information does not necessarily mean having the right answer.

Which brings us back to an old computing maxim: garbage in, garbage out.

With generative AI, however, there is a slightly different problem. Sometimes the answer isn’t garbage at all. It is perfectly plausible, beautifully written and completely beside the point.

There was a time when computers came with a useful warning: garbage in, garbage out.

Generative AI has given us a new problem. Sometimes the garbage comes out looking remarkably well researched.

That is one of the peculiarities of AI. It can produce an answer in seconds, write it with complete fluency and present it with the confidence of an expert who has spent years studying the subject. And yet the answer may be incomplete, misleading or simply wrong.

That doesn’t make AI useless. Far from it. It makes it something we need to use intelligently.

The sensible use of AI is to ask it for information that helps us make a decision. The less sensible use is to ask it to make the decision for us. There is already a growing collection of cases showing what happens when humans quietly move from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat.

When the lawyer believed the machine

One of the classic examples is Mata v. Avianca, a 2023 case in a New York federal court.

A lawyer used ChatGPT to help prepare a court filing. The chatbot obligingly produced a string of impressive-looking legal precedents, complete with case names, quotations and citations.

There was one minor inconvenience: the cases did not exist.

When the court couldn’t find them, the lawyer went back to ChatGPT to check. The machine assured him that the cases were genuine and could be found in reputable legal databases.

They couldn’t.

The lawyers were sanctioned and fined $5,000, and the episode became an early exhibit in the legal profession’s education in generative AI.

The interesting part is that the lawyer wasn’t punished because he used AI. He was punished because he failed to check what AI had produced.

The machine supplied the fiction. The human supplied the signature.

When the chatbot plays doctor

The stakes become rather higher when the subject is health.

The parents of 19-year-old Sam Nelson are suing OpenAI after their son died following what they allege was dangerous advice from ChatGPT about combining drugs. According to the lawsuit, the chatbot discussed the use of Xanax and kratom without adequately recognising the danger. Nelson subsequently died after taking alcohol, Xanax and kratom.

The parents’ account is part of a lawsuit and has yet to be tested in court. But the case raises an uncomfortable question.

A chatbot can explain what a drug does. It cannot examine you.

It doesn’t know whether the pain in your chest is indigestion, anxiety or something considerably more urgent. It doesn’t see that you are pale, confused or struggling to breathe. And it cannot take responsibility for getting the diagnosis wrong.

That last bit is important.

The chatbot that took off without the airline

Air Canada provides a more entertaining example of what happens when companies put AI into customer service and then discover that it has developed an enthusiasm for improvisation.

A passenger, Jake Moffatt, used the airline’s website chatbot after his grandmother died. The chatbot told him he could buy his ticket and apply retrospectively for a bereavement fare.

Moffatt did exactly that.

Air Canada subsequently told him that the fare had to be arranged before travel. It also argued that it should not be held responsible for information supplied by the chatbot.

A Canadian tribunal was not persuaded.

It found Air Canada liable for negligent misrepresentation and ordered it to pay Moffatt about C$650 in damages, interest and fees.

The lesson for companies was rather neatly delivered: if you put the chatbot on your website, customers may reasonably assume that it speaks for you.

Air Canada had, in effect, discovered that artificial intelligence does not come with an “only joking” disclaimer.

The human still gets the bill

These examples point to a more useful way of thinking about AI.

The problem isn’t that AI makes mistakes. Humans make plenty of those without any technological assistance.

The problem is that AI can make mistakes persuasively.

It can produce a legal precedent that looks authentic, medical advice that sounds reassuring or an answer from a customer-service department that appears authoritative. The better the prose, the easier it is to forget that the machine is generating an answer rather than exercising human judgment.

That is why AI works particularly well as a research assistant, sounding board and first-draft machine.

Ask it to explain something. Ask it to find holes in an argument. Ask it what questions you should be asking. Ask it to give you several possible interpretations.

Then think.

That last step remains stubbornly resistant to automation.

The lawyer still has to check the case. The patient still needs a doctor when the circumstances demand one. The company still owns what its chatbot tells customers.

And if an investment goes spectacularly wrong because you followed an AI-generated tip, the machine will not be calling your financial adviser afterwards to explain itself.

AI can provide the map. It can even suggest a few alternative routes. But you are still driving the car.

Financial News Daily – Friday Wrap

South Africa: economic, financial and business highlights

Capitec posts strong earnings, but shares slip: Capitec reported headline earnings of R9.5 billion for the six months to 31 August, up 19% year on year. Headline earnings per share rose 18.7% to 8,262 cents. The shares fell 1.79% on Wednesday after the results, despite the strong performance.

Balwin Properties heads for delisting: The housing developer is expected to be delisted from the JSE and A2X on 20 October following the proposed buyout by Bidco. If the timetable holds, it will end Balwin’s 11-year run as a listed company.

Omnia faces R21.8 billion buyout: Solar SA Investments has made a firm intention offer for all of Omnia’s shares in an all-cash transaction valuing the chemicals and agriculture group at R21.8 billion. The proposed transaction would take Omnia private.

Transnet ports move towards separation: Cabinet has supported the separation of the Transnet National Ports Authority into a stand-alone company owned directly by the state. It also wants TNPA to investigate the feasibility of bringing in a minority equity partner from a development finance institution, while retaining strategic state ownership and control of port infrastructure.

African Bank considers major restructuring: The bank is consulting with organised labour over a restructuring that could affect up to 1,200 employees and lead to the closure of as many as 90 branches. The process follows a R624 million loss for the six months to March 2026.

Wesizwe restructures Bakubung mine: Wesizwe Platinum has completed a Section 189A consultation process at its Bakubung Platinum Mine following a decision to change its development strategy. The restructuring is intended to reduce the number of employees required under the revised operating plan.

Petra Diamonds launches strategic review: Petra Diamonds has begun a strategic review as it looks for ways to address near-term liquidity needs. The review includes the possibility of selling assets, although the company has not said that all its mines are being put up for sale.

Sibanye steps up mechanisation: Sibanye-Stillwater has ordered underground mining equipment from Epiroc for its Siphumelele shaft in Rustenburg as part of a project to mechanise the platinum operation. Delivery is expected to begin in the fourth quarter.

Airports face a major investment programme: Airports Company South Africa has allocated R21.7 billion to infrastructure projects across its airport network over the next five years, including capacity expansion and refurbishment.

Gautrain concession includes major Alstom investment: Alstom’s role in the new Gautrain concession has a cumulative contract value of €800 million over 15 years, covering rail-system modernisation and refurbishment as well as related engineering and construction work.

Economic backdrop

Rand: The rand was trading at about R16.68 to the US dollar on Friday morning.

Inflation: Headline consumer inflation rose to 4.4% in August from 4.3% in July.

Interest rates: The Reserve Bank raised the repo rate by 25 basis points to 7.25%, effective from 25 September. The prime lending rate is now 10.75%.

Fuel: Rising international oil prices and a weaker rand have pushed October fuel-price estimates sharply higher, with mid-September calculations indicating that inland 95 petrol could exceed R29 a litre if the under-recovery continued.

Manufacturing: The Absa Purchasing Managers’ Index rose 4.9 points to 50.7 in September, moving back above the 50-point level that separates expansion from contraction.

Unemployment: South Africa’s official unemployment rate rose from 32.7% in the first quarter to 33.6% in the second quarter, with the number of unemployed people reaching about 8.5 million.

International news in brief

Bond yields surge: Global bond markets came under renewed pressure this week. The US 10-year Treasury yield climbed above 5.3%, while the 30-year yield moved above 5.67%, levels not seen for more than two decades. Investors have been concerned about inflation, government borrowing and higher oil prices.

Anthropic secures up to $42 billion in Broadcom financing: AI company Anthropic has agreed to financing of up to $42 billion from Broadcom to support the leasing of its chips. The arrangement forms part of Anthropic’s huge planned expansion of computing capacity.

Birthdays

Musicians

Don McLean (1945) — American singer-songwriter, best known for American Pie.

Mike Rutherford (1950) — Co-founder, bassist and guitarist of Genesis and Mike + The Mechanics.

Sting (1951) — Former frontman of The Police and solo artist behind Every Breath You Take and Fragile.

Jim Root (1971) — Guitarist for Slipknot.

Authors

Wallace Stevens (1879–1955) — Pulitzer Prize-winning American modernist poet, best known for Harmonium.

Graham Greene (1904–1991) — English novelist whose works include The End of the Affair and The Quiet American.

Light jokes

I’m afraid for the calendar. Its days are numbered.

I only know 25 letters of the alphabet. I don’t know y.

I’m on a seafood diet. I see food and I eat it.

Weird and wonderful facts

Cockroach milk: Research into the nutrient-rich protein crystals produced by the Pacific beetle cockroach Diploptera punctata has won the 2026 Ig Nobel Prize for Chemistry. The crystals contain more than three times the energy of an equivalent mass of dairy milk.

Pigeons have a surprising navigation aid: Research published in Science suggests that iron-rich immune cells in pigeons’ livers may help them sense the Earth’s magnetic field, particularly when the sun is obscured.

Taylor Swift becomes a genus: Four newly described Australian plant-feeding insect species have been named after Taylor Swift and her music. They belong to a new genus called Swiftiephylus.

Quiz question

In Dolly Parton’s Jolene, what colour are Jolene’s locks of hair?

Answer: Auburn.

Editorial Disclosure & Disclaimer

Financial News Daily is an independent business news syndicate and a wholly owned subsidiary of Idea Accelerator. We publish financial, environmental and corporate commentary for digital platforms, media outlets and organisations. Nothing published here constitutes investment, legal or financial advice. All opinions are editorial commentary on matters of public and economic interest.

Beware traps that people set for you. There are many traps that individuals and businesses can fall into quite easily if they are not aware of them.

Recently, I was in a household warehouse store when I called the attention of a young cashier and quietly said, “Psst.” The woman next to me became angry and said that was no way to speak to somebody. She said I was whistling and that you don’t whistle at people, you only whistle at a dog.

She had got the wrong end of the stick because I had simply said “psst”. The result was that I blew my top and gave her a piece of my mind, which was unpleasant for me. I know I could have handled it far better. Afterwards, I thought all I needed to do was keep quiet and say nothing. But then there is the counter-argument: why should you keep quiet?

There are, however, far more serious traps that people can set for you.

I know of two instances where managers set traps for business owners and ended up claiming ownership of the businesses. One has never been resolved. The other is still going through a legal process, with both cases resulting in substantial legal costs.

In one case, the owner had been living in another province and had left a manager in charge of a small manufacturing business. When he returned, the manager claimed that he owned the business.

In the other, the owner had given a manager partial ownership. After a year or two, the manager told the original owner: “You no longer own this business. I own the business.”

Legally, such claims do not simply become valid because someone has been running a business or because an owner has been absent. But unscrupulous people can exploit weak governance, informal agreements and poor documentation, leaving owners with expensive legal battles.

This raises a broader question: what other traps should individuals and small business owners watch out for, and how can they avoid them?

That small incident in the store was a trap of a different kind. It was not a legal trap or financial scam. It was a social and emotional trap. I reacted before I thought. The woman misunderstood me, I felt accused, and I lost my temper.

The trap was not necessarily deliberately set by her. It was created by miscommunication and my own reaction.

That is worth remembering: not every trap is carefully planned by a villain. Some result from emotion, pride and failing to pause.

But there are more dangerous traps, aimed at individuals and business owners alike.

Personal traps

When we are not wearing our business-owner hat, we are still targets. Many personal traps exploit trust, loneliness, fear, affection or simple everyday habits.

Emotional manipulation

Someone may use guilt, fear, obligation or affection to influence your behaviour. Relationship experts sometimes refer to this combination as FOG: fear, obligation and guilt.

It can sound like:

• “After everything I’ve done for you, you owe me this.”

• “If you really loved me, you would do this.”

• “You’re the only person who can help me.”

The defence is simple but not always easy: boundaries. You are allowed to say no. You are allowed to take time to think. Pressure to make an immediate decision is a warning sign.

Romance and friendship scams

Online scammers can spend weeks or months building a relationship before asking for money. They may invent a medical emergency, customs bill or investment opportunity.

One sophisticated version is known as “pig butchering”. The scammer builds trust before encouraging the victim to invest through a fraudulent platform. Small apparent returns or withdrawals may initially be allowed to build confidence. When larger amounts are invested, the money disappears.

The rule is straightforward: never send money or investment funds to someone you have only met online. Do not share banking credentials, and discuss significant financial decisions with someone you trust.

Imposter scams

Criminals impersonate banks, government departments, police, technology companies or relatives. Phishing emails, fraudulent phone calls, SMS messages and SIM swaps can be used to obtain passwords, banking details and one-time PINs.

The tactic is usually urgency: “Your account has been compromised” or “A warrant has been issued.”

Pause and verify independently. Do not use the telephone number or link supplied by the caller or message. Contact the organisation through an official channel.

Your bank will not ask for your password or OTP.

Employment scams

Fake job advertisements promise attractive salaries, overseas placements or remote work, but require applicants to pay for training, visas or equipment.

Legitimate employers do not charge people to obtain employment. Verify the company and its registration, and be particularly cautious about offers made without proper interviews.

Consumer and subscription traps

“Dark patterns” are design tricks that encourage consumers to make decisions they might otherwise avoid. Examples include free trials that automatically become paid subscriptions, hidden charges at checkout and deliberately confusing cancellation processes.

Slow down, read the terms and keep records of subscriptions and cancellation dates.

Identity theft

Stolen identity documents, ID numbers and banking information can be used to open accounts or obtain credit in your name.

Protect personal documents, share information only with verified organisations and check your credit profile regularly. Report suspected identity theft promptly to the South African Fraud Prevention Service and the police.

The social trap

My “psst” incident illustrates another kind of trap: allowing someone else’s reaction to control your own.

Walking away or responding calmly is not necessarily accepting unfair treatment. Sometimes it is simply refusing to let a misunderstanding turn into an argument.

Business traps

For business owners, the consequences can be much greater. Many problems arise because informal trust replaces proper governance and written agreements.

The manager-ownership trap

A manager who runs a business for years can become its de facto operator. That does not, by itself, make the manager an owner.

Problems arise when an absent owner fails to maintain proper records, banking mandates and oversight. In extreme cases, an unscrupulous manager may attempt to alter company records, redirect funds or establish a competing entity.

Ownership should be protected through clear shareholder agreements, current CIPC records, proper banking mandates and regular financial oversight.

The quasi-partnership trap

Small companies sometimes operate informally as partnerships, with everything based on personal trust.

That arrangement can collapse when relationships deteriorate. A shareholder may be locked out of accounts, remuneration may be disputed or company assets may be put at risk.

A properly drafted Shareholders’ Agreement should cover voting rights, remuneration, dividends, disputes, deadlocks and exit arrangements.

Section 163 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 provides a remedy in certain cases involving oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct, but going to court can be costly and time-consuming.

Internal fraud

Employee fraud can involve fictitious suppliers, payroll manipulation, stock theft or diverted revenue.

The most effective protection is not suspicion but controls. Separate payment authorisation, payment processing and reconciliation. Conduct regular financial and stock checks, and require employees with significant financial responsibilities to take their annual leave.

External business scams

Businesses are also targeted by fake invoices, fraudulent supplier details, bogus awards and business-email-compromise scams.

Never accept a change of banking details simply because an email appears to come from a supplier. Verify the change using an established telephone number or another independent channel.

Partnership and succession traps

Business partners also need to plan for death, disability or retirement. Without an agreement, the remaining owners can find themselves dealing with heirs or a departing partner who wants to sell.

A properly structured Buy-and-Sell Agreement, supported by appropriate life and disability insurance, can provide the funds needed to transfer ownership without putting the business under financial strain.

Avoiding the traps

For individuals:

• Pause before responding to pressure.

• Verify requests independently.

• Never disclose passwords or OTPs.

• Protect identity documents and personal information.

• Check your credit profile regularly.

• Seek a second opinion before making significant financial commitments.

• Walk away from unnecessary confrontations.

For business owners:

• Put ownership arrangements in writing.

• Keep CIPC records, share registers and bank mandates current.

• Have a properly drafted Shareholders’ Agreement and Memorandum of Incorporation.

• Separate financial duties.

• Review accounts and bank reconciliations regularly.

• Consider appropriate insurance against fraud and other business risks.

• Get professional legal advice when ownership or governance is challenged.

The real defence

Traps take many forms, from an innocent misunderstanding to sophisticated financial fraud or a bitter business dispute.

The common thread is vulnerability created by haste, misplaced trust, emotional reactions or inadequate documentation.

You do not have to live in constant suspicion. But it pays to pause, verify, keep proper records and think before reacting.

Sometimes the best way to avoid a trap is simply to stop for a moment and ask: What is really happening here?

This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial or professional advice. Readers facing legal disputes or financial fraud should consult an appropriately qualified professional.

Editorial Disclosure & Disclaimer

Financial News Daily is an independent business news syndicate and a wholly owned subsidiary of Idea Accelerator. We publish financial, environmental and corporate commentary for digital platforms, media outlets and organisations. Nothing published here constitutes investment, legal or financial advice. All opinions are editorial commentary on matters of public and economic interest.

In 2020, I ran a Better Business Writing course based on a book I had written on the subject. The course was designed to help people communicate more effectively with colleagues, customers and other businesses.

Six years later, business writing has changed considerably.

Artificial intelligence can now produce a polished email, rewrite a report, summarise a document or turn a few rough notes into something that looks remarkably professional. What once required considerable writing skill can now be produced in seconds.

So does better business writing still matter?

I think it matters more than ever.

The difference is that business people now need to understand not only how to write, but also how to use AI without handing over their judgement, their responsibility or their human voice.

Start with the purpose

The most important question in business writing has always been remarkably simple:

What are you trying to achieve?

Before writing an email, memo, report or letter, ask what you want the reader to know, understand, decide or do.

Perhaps you want somebody to take action. Perhaps you need to provide information. You might want to raise morale, explain a difficult decision, resolve a problem or persuade somebody to consider your proposal.

Sometimes the purpose is more human.

A colleague’s partner has died. Someone in the company has become seriously ill. A member of staff is retiring after many years. The appropriate communication may be sympathetic rather than commercial, and getting the tone right matters enormously.

Or perhaps you are writing to a potential customer to persuade them to attend a meeting where you can present your proposal.

The writing will be very different in each case.

That is why good business writing isn’t simply about grammar and spelling. It starts with understanding the purpose of the communication and the result you want from it.

There isn’t one style of business writing

Business writing takes many forms.

An email may need to be short and direct because the reader simply needs to know what has happened and what action is required.

An internal memo may need a more formal structure because it communicates a decision or instruction to employees.

A report requires a different discipline. It may contain evidence, analysis, findings and recommendations, and the reader needs to be able to follow the argument.

A company newsletter can be more relaxed and interesting. Its purpose may be to inform employees while also creating a sense of connection within the organisation.

A letter to a customer requires clarity and courtesy, particularly when dealing with a complaint or a difficult commercial issue.

A proposal has to do more than provide information. It has to make a convincing case.

Instructions and procedures have another requirement: ambiguity can be costly, so they need to be exceptionally clear.

And then there are more advanced forms of business writing, particularly copywriting, where the objective is often to sell a product, service or idea. That introduces another set of skills involving headlines, benefits, persuasion, audience psychology and calls to action.

The underlying principles remain the same, but the writer needs to understand the particular job the piece of writing has to do.

Clear writing comes first

Whatever the form, business writing should be clear.

That doesn’t mean every sentence must be short or that every piece of writing should sound like a set of instructions. It means the reader should not have to struggle to discover what you mean.

Good business writing respects the reader’s time.

It avoids unnecessary jargon and corporate language. It puts important information where the reader can find it. It uses paragraphs and headings sensibly. It distinguishes facts from opinions and makes the writer’s argument easy to follow.

And clarity doesn’t mean dullness.

You can be clear and interesting. You can be persuasive without becoming pushy. You can be professional without sounding like a robot.

The reader matters

One of the basic principles I taught was to consider the person who would actually read what you had written.

A senior executive may need the conclusion and the implications before the supporting detail.

A customer may need to understand what is in it for them.

An employee may need a clear explanation of why management has made a particular decision.

A colleague may simply need to know what you want them to do and by when.

The writer knows the background. The reader often doesn’t.

That distinction is responsible for a great deal of poor business writing.

Then along came AI

This is where the subject becomes particularly interesting in 2026.

AI is an extraordinarily useful business-writing tool. There is no reason to reject it simply because it can produce prose.

Used properly, it can help a writer organise rough notes, suggest a structure, identify repetition, improve clarity, shorten an overlong email, check grammar, suggest alternative wording or help turn a first draft into something more coherent.

It can also act as a useful critic.

You might give AI your draft and ask:

Where is this unclear?

What questions might the reader still have?

Have I repeated myself?

Does the argument follow logically?

Is the tone appropriate for the audience?

Those can be more useful questions than simply asking AI to “write this for me”.

Don’t outsource your judgement

The danger comes when the writer hands over the thinking as well as the writing.

AI can produce a beautifully constructed paragraph that isn’t what you meant.

It can make an unsupported assertion sound authoritative. It can introduce information that wasn’t in your original notes. It can make an ordinary email sound like a corporate announcement.

And it can produce something that is grammatically impeccable but says very little.

That is why business people still need to understand the basics of writing. You need enough knowledge to judge what AI has produced.

AI can help you write. It cannot take responsibility for what you are saying.

The person whose name appears at the bottom of the email, memo or report remains responsible for it.

Keep your human voice

There is another danger: everything starts to sound the same.

If every employee asks AI to turn their rough thoughts into “a professional email”, businesses could end up with hundreds of communications written in the same bland corporate voice.

Good business communication doesn’t require everybody to sound identical.

A finance director, salesperson, engineer, human-resources manager and chief executive may all have different voices. Professionalism does not mean eliminating personality.

Sometimes the best use of AI is therefore not:

“Write this for me.”

It is:

“Here are my notes. Help me organise them, but retain my direct style.”

Or:

“I’ve written this email. Tell me where it is unclear, but don’t rewrite it.”

Or:

“Check this report for repetition and gaps in the argument.”

That keeps the human being in charge of the communication.

The old problems haven’t disappeared

When I wrote about business writing in 2020, I argued that poor writing could damage relationships and lead to costly mistakes.

That hasn’t changed.

An ambiguous instruction can still result in an expensive error.

A badly worded email can still offend a customer.

A poorly structured report can still obscure an important issue.

An insensitive message about a bereavement can still cause unnecessary hurt.

And now there is an additional problem: an AI-generated message can look professional enough to escape scrutiny even when the underlying thinking is poor or the facts are wrong.

The technology has changed. The responsibility hasn’t.

Better business writing is about thinking

Perhaps this is the biggest change in my thinking since I ran that course six years ago.

Business writing isn’t primarily a language exercise.

It is a thinking exercise.

Before you put your fingers on the keyboard, you need to know what you are trying to achieve, who you are addressing, what they need to know and what you want them to do as a result.

Then you choose the appropriate form, tone and level of detail.

AI can help with much of what comes afterwards.

But it cannot replace the need to think. That is why better business writing still matters.

It is difficult to find a single, reliable figure for the combined profits reported by all JSE-listed companies in 2026. It would be even more difficult to calculate the aggregate profits earned by all unlisted private companies operating in South Africa during the same period.

Yet examining corporate dividend distributions provides a useful indication of the scale of capital being returned by listed companies to investors. It also highlights the substantial sums distributed through the corporate economy.

Why does this matter? The scale of corporate earnings and distributions provides one indication of private-sector resilience. It shows how businesses are performing despite weak economic growth, infrastructure constraints, policy uncertainty and the many practical difficulties involved in operating in South Africa.

Commercial wealth is primarily created through productive activity by businesses, entrepreneurs, workers and investors. Government’s important role is to provide the stable institutions, infrastructure, skills, regulation and public services that allow that activity to flourish.

The profit question: are companies charging too much?

As an ordinary consumer, it is easy to look at corporate financial results and ask: If I am paying so much for goods and services while companies report billions in profit, are they overcharging?

The answer depends on the company, industry and competitive environment. A reported profit is not automatically evidence of excessive pricing. It may reflect high sales volumes, efficient operations, substantial capital investment, exposure to international markets or the risks taken by shareholders and lenders.

The underlying mechanism is straightforward: investors generally commit capital because they expect a return. That return may come through dividends, share-price growth or the expansion of the business. Without the prospect of a return, less capital is likely to flow into productive enterprise.

However, profit and dividends are not the same thing. Profits may be retained to fund expansion, reduce debt or strengthen a company’s balance sheet. Conversely, a dividend may be paid from earnings accumulated over several years rather than from profits generated during the specific quarter or year in which it is distributed.

What the 2025 dividend figures show

Because a comparable aggregate profit figure for the first three quarters of 2026 is not readily available, the 2025 dividend data provides a completed-year benchmark. The available 2026 dividend figures provide a more current indication of the scale of distributions.

Looking at 2025 provides a full 12-month period against which the Computershare dividend data can be examined. Dividend policies vary considerably by sector and company. Not every enterprise declares a dividend: many retain earnings to finance expansion, reduce debt, strengthen their balance sheets or build cash reserves.

According to Computershare’s DivInsight report, dividends paid in its defined South African universe amounted to R514 billion in 2025:

• Q1 2025: R82 billion

• Q2 2025: R160 billion

• Q3 2025: R134 billion

• Q4 2025: R138 billion

• Total: R514 billion

Computershare’s definition of “South Africa” in the report excludes multinational corporations where South African investors hold less than 10% of the total issued shares. The R514 billion figure should therefore not be interpreted as the total dividends paid by every company operating in South Africa. It represents the dividend distributions covered by Computershare’s defined dataset.

It is also not a measure of corporate profits. Dividends can be paid from accumulated earnings, while profitable companies may retain their earnings rather than distribute them.

Even with those qualifications, R514 billion represents a considerable flow of capital to equity holders.

The quarterly pattern is also notable. Q2 was the largest quarter at R160 billion, followed by Q4 at R138 billion and Q3 at R134 billion. Q1 was the smallest at R82 billion. Dividend payments vary between quarters according to company-specific distribution policies, the timing of results and dividend declarations, sector cycles and special dividends.

The sector figures show where much of the money came from. Tobacco was the largest contributor in 2025 at R122.9 billion, followed by banks at R84.1 billion and metals and mining at R79.6 billion. Together, those three sectors accounted for more than half of the R514 billion total.

The broader economic reality

Corporate dividends should not be confused with the total value created by the private sector. Companies also reinvest in factories, technology, logistics, wages, inventories, research, acquisitions and new capacity. Many profitable businesses do not pay dividends at all.

Even so, distributions exceeding R500 billion in a single year provide a tangible indication of the scale of South Africa’s listed corporate economy. They show that substantial amounts of capital continue to be allocated through private enterprise, despite ongoing operational and infrastructure challenges.

Dividends also connect listed companies with the wider investment economy. Institutional investors, retirement funds, collective investment schemes and individual shareholders all participate in listed equity markets. Dividends distributed by companies can therefore ultimately contribute to investment and retirement savings.

The figures do not reveal the total profits of South African companies, nor do they measure the full economic contribution of the private sector. They do, however, provide a measurable record of one important part of that economy: the capital distributed by listed companies to the investors who provide the capital on which those businesses operate and grow.

Source: Computershare, ZA DivInsight Report Q4 2025. Computershare’s “South Africa” definition in the report excludes multinational corporations where South African investors hold less than 10% of total issued shares.

Monday Morning Reckoning: Q4 Performance Focus

South African companies are entering the fourth quarter of 2026 under pressure to deliver on their annual performance targets. The focus will be on sales, margins and profit, with management teams looking closely at costs as they try to protect the bottom line.

Labour is one of the costs that will come under scrutiny. Businesses that have had a difficult year may look at staff reductions and other measures before they begin 2027. For companies under particular pressure, retrenchments could become part of the year-end cost-cutting exercise.

For many South African companies, Q4 2026 targets will be less about big top-line surprises and more about hitting operational goals: revenue run-rate, gross margin, EBITDA, cash conversion and guidance credibility. Where consumer demand exists, results will depend increasingly on pricing, execution and stock management.

Companies are entering Q4 trying to extract profit from a weak-growth environment rather than relying on broad economic momentum.

South Africa Economic, Business & Corporate Outlook — Week of 28 September 2026

• SARB rate decision impact: The South African Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee raised the policy rate by 25 basis points to 7.25% at its September meeting, with the increase effective from 25 September. The decision reflects renewed inflation risks from higher fuel prices, elevated services inflation and global supply disruptions linked to the Middle East conflict. The SARB expects the policy rate to remain broadly stable through the remainder of 2026.

• Macro trends: Annual consumer inflation rose to 4.4% in August from 4.3% in July. Transport was one of the main contributors, while food and non-alcoholic beverage inflation remained low at 1.1%. The SARB says food inflation is at its lowest level since 2010. It has cut its 2026 growth forecast to 1.2%, following a contraction in the second quarter, although it expects a rebound in the second half of the year.

Upcoming JSE Company Results — News Briefs

• MC Mining Ltd — 28 September 2026: Releasing final financial results for the full year.

• Visual International Holdings Ltd — 29 September 2026: Announcing interim financial results.

• Capitec Bank Holdings Ltd — 30 September 2026: Reporting interim results for the six months ended August 2026.

• Grand Parade Investments Ltd — 30 September 2026: Releasing final annual financial results.

• Gemfields Group Ltd — 30 September 2026: Reporting interim results for the six months ended June 2026.

• York Timber Holdings Ltd — 30 September 2026: Releasing final annual results.

• Heriot REIT Ltd — 28 September 2026: Releasing annual results.

• Trustco Group Holdings Ltd — 1 October 2026: Announcing interim and final financial results.

Global Headlines

• The Wall Street Journal — 28 September 2026: US Treasury Yields Hit 2007 Highs as Global Bond Selloff Resumes

• The Financial Times — 28 September 2026: Burnham to Fight Election on Tax Rises

• The Economist — 25 September 2026 edition: The Trump-Xi Summit Ends Without Major Breakthroughs

Quotation of the Week

“Swartland has become an unexpected but obvious choice for a Formula 1 circuit. It has the space and service capacity required, together with a local government committed to helping potential developers and attracting investment.”

— Neal Froneman, Chairman of Blue Mountain Racing, commenting on the proposed Formula 1 racing circuit for Cape Town

Remember Michelle Shocked? Last week I was trawling around a CD stand in an open-air market on a Saturday morning, and I found the Michelle Shocked CD I’ve been looking for for many years. The album is Short Sharp Shocked. Now this was a groundbreaking CD for her, but she’s produced many others. She doesn’t get airtime. Oh, by the way, I’ve been able to collect about four of her CDs over the past five years. They are very scarce. I’ve never actually seen a Michelle Shocked record in South Africa. Perhaps not all of her CDs were brought to South Africa because, as I say, I’ve only been able to collect four.

Certainly her music’s not for everyone, but there are some great songs to add to your country rock collection. One of the songs that I like is “If Love Was a Train”, and that’s from her Short Sharp Shocked album. Then in a recent show by the veteran rock music aficionado Chris Prior —”The Rock Professor”—he played “Hold Me Back” from her Arkansas Traveler album—a great, lively song.
She doesn’t get airtime play in South Africa and in many other places in the world because she’s had issues with music rights. So her music isn’t that much available. For example, you won’t find it on Spotify. You won’t find it on YouTube. It’s very difficult to find. That’s the reason for collecting these CDs.

I think most people will remember her by the song “Anchorage”, which is a haunting song of friendship and longing and being far away from home and different lives—the one in Alaska and the other in New York City.

The Story Behind the Music

Born Karen Michelle Johnston in Dallas, Texas, in 1962, Michelle Shocked grew up moving between military bases before being exposed to deep Texas blues, swing, and traditional country music by her father. She spent much of her early adulthood living an itinerant, activist lifestyle across California and Europe. Her music career began almost by accident in 1986 when British producer Pete Lawrence recorded her singing around a campfire at the Kerrville Folk Festival using a Sony Walkman. Released without her prior knowledge as The Texas Campfire Tapes, the bootleg-quality album unexpectedly topped the UK Independent Charts and launched her into international prominence.
That surprise success led to a major deal with Mercury Records, where she released a celebrated trilogy of albums exploring distinct corners of American music: the folk-rock masterpiece Short Sharp Shocked (1988), the big-band revival Captain Swing (1989), and the traditional roots-rock project Arkansas Traveler (1992).

Why Her Music Disappeared

The reason her albums are near-impossible to find on streaming platforms or radio broadcasts—especially in places like South Africa—comes down to a landmark battle for artistic control.
In the mid-1990s, Shocked fought a fierce legal war against Mercury Records to win ownership of her master recordings. In an unprecedented move, she invoked the 13th Amendment (prohibiting involuntary servitude) to break her contract, ultimately securing the complete rights to her early catalog. Following that victory, she released her subsequent work under her independent label, Mighty Sound.

Later, as digital streaming reshaped the industry, Shocked pulled her entire catalog from Spotify, Apple Music, iTunes, and YouTube in protest of streaming payout rates and copyright laws. Her hardline stance on artist compensation means that unless you own a physical copy, her music is practically locked away from the modern internet. Finding a physical CD on an open-air market stall today feels like discovering buried treasure.

Collaborations and Success

Despite her exit from mainstream distribution, Shocked achieved major critical and commercial success at her peak:

• Chart Success: Short Sharp Shocked broke into the Billboard 200, and “Anchorage” peaked at No. 66 on the Billboard Hot 100 while reaching the top 20 on the US Modern Rock chart. She was widely celebrated alongside peers like Tracy Chapman and Suzanne Vega as a central voice of the late-1980s alternative folk movement.
• World-Class Bandmates: On Arkansas Traveler and other projects, she assembled an extraordinary backup band of roots and rock legends, including Levon Helm and Garth Hudson (of The Band), Alison Krauss, Doc Watson, Taj Mahal, Pops Staples, Clarence “Gatemouth” Brown, and even Jeff Tweedy with Uncle Tupelo.
  While she stepped back from traditional studio album cycles after 2009’s Soul of My Soul, she has continued to perform, playing bass for NYC punk outfit Spike Polite & Sewage and developing experimental performance projects like Shocking Red and Musical Chairs: A Comparsa for Artists’ Rights.

For those who manage to dig up her physical releases, Michelle Shocked remains one of the most compelling, fiercely independent figures in modern American roots music—even if you have to hunt through crate after crate to hear her.

At Kalk Bay harbour on Heritage Day I was sitting and taking in the view when one of the young men working for the fish dealer came over and asked: “Don’t you want to buy some smoked snoek?”

“No thanks,” I said.

But he was not giving up that easily.

“No, this is very special smoked snoek,” he said. On his days off, he explained, they take a big blue tarpaulin – “that one over there” – and go to a sheltered spot on the harbour. They all light up their dagga pipes, make sure the fish is properly covered, and that, apparently, is how they make smoked snoek.

“It’s very delicious,” he assured me. “And organic.”

It was a joke, of course, but it also said something about the harbour. A young man like that is mostly idle because there is not much fish coming through the harbour anymore. On that day, only two boats went out fishing.

I asked about the snoek being sold there and was told it came from Yzerfontein, many kilometres away. They were also selling snoek roe, and that too came from snoek landed elsewhere. That is the point. What we see at the harbour is not always what the harbour itself produces.

The same pattern applies in fishing and farming. The fisherman often gets the worst of the deal, receiving a low price for his catch. So does the farmer, who may nurse a crop for months only to sell it at a basic average price, provided the season has not been ruined by drought, frost or some other disaster. The real value is often created later in the chain — in processing, packaging, cooking and retailing.

In economic terms, that is called beneficiation, or upstream value adding. It simply means adding value after the raw product has been produced. So the fisherman gets very little, while the fish shop, the restaurant, or the food manufacturer may do much better.

That was certainly visible at Kalk Bay on Heritage Day, where the queues outside the restaurants were long. The harbour remains a tourist attraction, but the restaurants are not necessarily dependent on the catch coming in from the local boats. They can source fish from the larger fishing companies, from ski-boat operators elsewhere, and from other supply channels entirely. Calamari is a good example. Very little, if any, is actually landed at the harbour itself. It often comes from elsewhere, including imported supply chains. It comes mainly from China and Patagonia.

In farming there is a similar situation where the farmer raises a crop over several months and then sells it to a cooperative or buyer at an ordinary price. The big food companies then use those crops as ingredients in manufactured products. The farmer carries the weather risk, the pest risk and the price risk, while the processor and retailer often capture more of the final value.

That does not mean the middle of the chain is risk-free. Restaurant owners, fish shop owners and food manufacturers all risk capital. They buy equipment, lease premises, pay wages and carry overheads. Those costs have to be covered, and the capital outlay has to be rewarded. But the imbalance remains: the people closest to the raw product are often the least rewarded.

The joke about dagga-smoked snoek may have been tongue-in-cheek, but it also reflected something harder. Fishing is a tough life, and for many it has become a meagre one. In the old days there were women who fished those boats too. Nowadays, the work is harsher, the returns are thinner, and some crew members live in damp boat hulls through winter. For a few, marijuana may be a salve against hardship — much as others turn to whisky or brandy. But no amount of humour changes the underlying fact: the fisherman and the farmer feed everyone, yet too often keep the least.

South Africa has been manufacturing products from food to locomotives (several manufacturers but killed off because of policy) and, as is well known, motor vehicles. Its range of manufacturing is tremendous, and partly what explains that is it’s better to manufacture locally than import, because of the huge distances that South Africa has to major European and other markets.

Some manufactured goods in South Africa are world-class, and I read a report recently where a kiln manufacturer in Alrode, near Johannesburg, had most of its products exported to Australia. Then a few years ago I was at a function where a manufacturer from Potchefstroom explained how 90% of his production was exported.

Let’s look at the manufacturing index in South Africa, then look at some of the challenges, including the well-known ones, but ones like, for example, inside the factory, which includes the rising costs within the factory, the undercapacity and underutilization, the need to renew manufacturing machinery and infrastructure in the plant. We’ll look at the Internet of Things and touch on not just preventive maintenance, but rather predictive maintenance and how AI can help with predictive maintenance.

South Africa’s manufacturing sector is still under pressure, but the latest data shows a modest improvement, with the manufacturing production index up 1.1% year on year in July 2026 after earlier declines.

Sectors doing well

The strongest support came from food and beverages, which rose 4.1%, and from petroleum, chemical products, rubber and plastic products, which increased 3.2% and made one of the biggest positive contributions to overall manufacturing output. Stats SA also noted that the petroleum, chemical products, rubber and plastic products division was a positive contributor in the second quarter, alongside motor vehicles, parts and accessories and other transport equipment.

The broader manufacturing PMI still suggests weakness in factory conditions, with the index at 45.8 in August, below the neutral 50 mark.

Manufacturing’s recent performance in South Africa has been a study in contrasts: pockets of excellence and export success sit alongside a broadly sluggish index. Output growth, where it exists, is modest and uneven across sectors. Capacity utilisation remains stubbornly below historical norms, and the capital stock is ageing. Those macro numbers mask a layered problem that runs from ports and power grids down to the grease on the factory floor.

The usual culprits — energy insecurity, logistics bottlenecks, and policy uncertainty — deserve every airing. They raise costs, shave margins and make long-term investment decisions fraught. But equally important and often overlooked are the pressures originating inside plants. Rising input and labour costs are amplified by inefficiencies rooted in ageing machines, patchy maintenance regimes and production lines designed for a different competitive era. Underutilised equipment and ad hoc repairs are expensive: they nudge firms toward extra inventory, firefighting, and sometimes lost export contracts when delivery windows are missed.

Renewal of plant and machinery is costly and discretionary. Many firms postpone capex because of uncertain demand and tight balance sheets. The result is a vicious cycle — older machines break more often, maintenance becomes reactive and downtime rises, which suppresses output and cash flow, further delaying investment.

Here a pragmatic lever exists: smarter maintenance powered by the Internet of Things (IoT) and artificial intelligence. Moving beyond calendar-based preventive maintenance to condition-based and predictive maintenance can materially reduce unplanned downtime. Sensors fitted to motors, bearings, temperature controls and conveyors stream continuous data. Machine-learning models ingest that data to detect subtle patterns — rising vibration, microtemperature shifts, or anomalous current draws — that foreshadow failure. Alerts trigger targeted interventions, not blanket shutdowns.

The benefits are multiple and immediate. Predictive maintenance extends asset life, reduces spare-part inventories and lowers labour cost per output unit because technicians are deployed efficiently. It also improves reliability, a simple but powerful sales argument for local manufacturers competing in export markets that prize on-time delivery. For smaller plants, cloud-based IoT solutions and pay-as-you-go analytics lower the entry bar; they don’t need to own data centres or hire teams of data scientists to get started.

Adoption is not automatic. Firms must overcome skills gaps, integrate new data streams into legacy control systems, and make modest upfront investments in sensors and connectivity. Regulators and industry bodies can help by promoting standards for interoperability and targeted incentives for digital retrofits. Banks and leasing houses could tailor finance products for incremental capex on digital upgrades rather than large-scale greenfields.

South African manufacturing faces a multi-front challenge, but the remedy need not be grand or expensive. Anchoring competitiveness in better machine health and smarter operations is a practical, high-return move. It won’t erase structural problems like power shortages or global demand shocks, but it can strengthen margins, preserve export credibility and buy time for the bigger reforms and investments that manufacturing ultimately needs.

Editorial Disclosure & Disclaimer

Financial News Daily is an independent business news syndicate and a wholly owned subsidiary of Idea Accelerator. We publish financial, environmental and corporate commentary for digital platforms, media outlets and organisations. Nothing published here constitutes investment, legal or financial advice. All opinions are editorial commentary on matters of public and economic interest.

---

The economy is weak, but money is visibly circulating. Grocery and liquor chains are expanding. Independent pharmacies are being swallowed by big chains. Informal traders are busy. Service businesses are cleaning homes, installing security fences, restyling kitchens, and building luxury pools. It looks like plenty of money is around.

But money circulating is not the same as wealth. A household can spend every day and still have nothing. That is the paradox: South Africa has a lot of money moving through it, but not enough of it stays with the people who need it most.

Where the money is visible

Look at liquor. Big grocery chains such as Shoprite, Checkers, Pick n Pay, and Spar have been expanding their liquor footprints, often by absorbing smaller independent liquor stores. If that is an indicator, there is still a lot of money to be made in booze. The same pattern appears in pharmacies. Clicks and Dis-Chem have grown aggressively, while many independent pharmacies survive only because they offer personalised service the big chains cannot easily replicate.

Then there is the informal economy. It is estimated at R900 billion to over R1 trillion a year. Township businesses are everywhere. But nearly 80% of them are unregistered, which cuts them off from formal finance, markets, and the tools that could help them grow. Many are survivalist, not entrepreneurial. A street trader might make R150 on a bad day, and that money goes straight to food, transport, airtime, and sending something home.

There is also a service economy built around the wealthy. As the super-rich have risen in opulence, they have created demand for domestic cleaning, gardening, security, home restyling, and luxury pools. That money is real. But it flows to a relatively small number of service providers, and it does not build broad-based wealth.

Who is actually spending?

It is not only the wealthy. Low-income and middle-income households spend constantly. But much of that spending is survival, not comfort. It is often debt-funded.

We need to be precise about who “the poor” are. By absolute poverty lines, roughly 37.9% of South Africans—about 23 million people—live below the lower-bound poverty line of R1,300 per person per month. Over 30 million live below the upper-bound line of R1,634. That is real destitution.

But there is also a squeezed group earning up to R30,000 a month who are not poor by those poverty lines, yet still struggle. They are not accumulating assets. They are servicing debt, paying transport, electricity, school fees, and groceries. Their complaint is not that they have no cash at all. It is that the cash does not last, and nothing builds up.

Where the money goes

The problem is structural. Money flows into the economy, but it leaks out through debt, monopolies, and the cost of survival.

Among lower-income earners, about 96% of debt is unsecured. Non-bank personal loans have a serious delinquency rate of around 41.3%, meaning nearly half of borrowers are three or more months behind. The most vulnerable consumers, earning R5,000 or less a month, use about 92% of their income for debt repayments. When 92 cents of every rand goes to debt, you are not “having money.” You are managing a crisis.

Then there are the big financial institutions—banks, insurers, medical aids—and the large retailers. They capture a huge share of household spending. Wealth remains concentrated: South Africa’s Gini coefficient for wealth is around 0.81–0.82, among the highest in the world. The top 10% of households hold more than 85% of financial assets, while the bottom 60% hold less than 5%.

So even when money is moving, it is moving upward. The poor remain a major source of income for big companies, especially liquor stores and food chains. It is a familiar pattern: the poorest pay for services they can barely afford, while the institutions providing those services record profits.

Why complaints persist

People complain because spending money is not the same as having money. A household might have cash today from a grant, a stokvel payout, or a good day’s trading. But there is no reliable income stream, no savings buffer, and no asset base. The spending you see is a flow, not a stock. It comes in and goes out.

There is also relative deprivation. As the rich get richer, the poor feel poorer. When people see political elites displaying luxury cars and expensive homes while they share a standpipe and a communal toilet, the sense of injustice is acute. It is not just that they lack money. It is that they lack money in a society that visibly has so much of it, concentrated in so few hands.

The last three months

There are only three months left in the year. This is plenty of time for those making big money—supermarket chains, liquor store chains, banks, insurers, and other businesses—to extract as much as they can. Small service businesses and community businesses will also be out to get their portion. People will still complain that they have no money, but many will also be hustling to survive.

So don’t be disheartened—but don’t be fooled either. There is plenty of money around. The real question is not whether money exists. It is who gets to keep it, who gets to accumulate it, and who is left merely spending it. Until asset ownership, debt relief, and structural inclusion change, the complaints will continue.