It’s been a difficult month. October has brought its own health challenges, and the weather has been miserable. The winter weather persisted right through to the end of the month. It’s only in the last couple of days that things have finally warmed up.

As we’ve said before, winter seems to be taking longer to leave us, while the summer periods are getting shorter.

Today, the last day of October, we’ve seen a huge interest in Halloween. It’s quite interesting that South Africans have adopted Halloween with such enthusiasm. Some might say it’s American imperialism, but then it’s South Africa’s own fault. Through movies, the media and social media, Halloween has taken on a new life in this country.

Interestingly, Halloween goes back some 2,000 years to the Celtic pagans of Ireland and Scotland, who celebrated a similar event to ward off scary things, ghosts and spirits, and to herald the beginning of winter.

It’s certainly been a big boost for business. Everything from green grocers growing special Halloween pumpkins to masks, costumes, events and all sorts of other things.

So it’s here to stay. Nothing much you can do about it.

As long as the kids find it interesting and exciting, have a lot of fun and aren’t too scared by it all. But knowing kids, not much scares them.

Scary things happening in South Africa

Talking about scary things happening in South Africa, you’ve only got to look at the local elections.

You see the ruling party not putting up candidates on their posters, or some posters having tiny little pictures of the people they’re putting forward, while their party initials are displayed prominently.

It’s a three-letter acronym, and they’re putting that up big.

But the scariest thing of all is the voters.

The voters who voted for this party, which has destroyed the country over thirty years. Well, virtually destroyed it. It certainly destroyed big city municipalities like Johannesburg, has affected municipalities like Durban, and when it was governing Cape Town, oh my goodness, you should have seen how rapidly things declined here.

But that was some time back.

However, let’s get back to those voters.

The scariest thing of all is that those same voters will vote again for that party.

Or, and there are many of them, they will not vote for the party but will not vote for anybody else either, in some sort of protest against the party.

Anyway, as we say, it’s scary.

The subscription economy

More scary things happen in South Africa, but one of them is how many companies try to get you onto a subscription basis.

I mean, if you buy a cell phone, they all want you to buy it on a monthly basis so that they can coin it from you for the next three years.

Plus, it will cost three times as much as just buying it outright.

But you have to look around carefully for a cash buy on a cell phone, because there aren’t that many. They all want money, and that’s the same for everybody.

The insurance companies, the banks, the entertainment services, the medical insurance companies.

They all want their cut from your income or your salary every single month.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to escape the monthly subscription. Everybody wants a piece of you, and they want it on a regular basis.

Let’s hope November is less scary

Let’s certainly hope that November won’t be as scary a month as October.

But change happens quickly. Chance and opportunity occur all the time because we live in a dynamic world.

And by the end of next week, everybody will probably know the results of these local elections. It’s anybody’s guess just how scary the results could be.

---

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.

I was up in Johannesburg earlier this year, and last December, reading The Citizen and going around the city. What struck me was not just how bad things looked, but whether it would even be possible to rebuild Johannesburg as a city. It seems to me there isn’t the will, and there aren’t the qualified people anymore, to do it. The money required to rescue it is on such a gigantic scale that it seems impossible to do.

That is not being negative. It is being realistic.

Johannesburg was a mining town that grew and grew until it became the major city in the country. Countless investments were poured into it—millions upon millions—because everybody wanted to be there, especially in the centre. The CBD at one stage was amazing. My recollection of the city in the 1980s was that it was very well run by a top mayor. In those days you had your town clerk, also a top person, and then your various departments and engineers to run the city. They were not perfect. But everything was in place. And there was not a ruling political party agenda to steal money.

Now, after years of the ruling party stealing money from Johannesburg and destroying it, one begins to wonder: could Johannesburg really be saved? Where are those competent people—including a mayor—to run the city? Where is that competent town clerk? Where are all the qualified engineering people to build and supervise the infrastructure of the city?

The figures confirm what anybody who drives around Johannesburg already knows. The city’s overall infrastructure backlog is estimated at more than R220 billion. The water network alone has a renewal backlog of R26.6 billion to R32 billion; at current spending rates, replacing the city’s ageing pipes would take nearly 200 years. The electricity backlog is R44 billion, and between July and December 2025 the city recorded 54,132 power outages. Johannesburg is losing 44.7% of its water through leaks, theft and damaged infrastructure, and electricity losses have climbed to 27.1%. Financially, the city owes creditors R25.2 billion while holding only R3.9 billion in cash.

This is not a maintenance problem. It is the physical result of a system that stopped being maintained decades ago.

The Centre for Development and Enterprise calls it a “destructive feedback loop”: poor governance destroys the finances, which halts maintenance, which pushes skilled people and businesses out, which further erodes the tax base and leaves even fewer resources to fix the city. Between April 2025 and June 2026, Johannesburg lost 90,000 jobs, while Cape Town gained 57,000. Capital expenditure has collapsed to 6% of the city’s budget, and maintenance spending stands at just 0.5% of asset value—roughly one-eighteenth of the metro average.

But the deeper problem is the political system designed break the city. Since 2016, Johannesburg has had nine mayors and eight coalition administrations, and no mayor has completed a full five-year term. Each new coalition brings its own priorities, its own loyalists and its own appetite for the city’s procurement budget. Political allegiance has frequently taken precedence over whether appointees have the skills for the job. That is the mechanism behind the “fronts” put up to steal money from the city. It is called cadre deployment, and it is deeply entrenched in the city’s entities and administration.

The competence deficit is measurable. None of the board members of Johannesburg Water are professionally qualified engineers, even as that utility faces a R26.6 billion renewal backlog. At least seven of the city’s 24 most senior management positions are held by acting appointees, and the city’s own reports point to persistent vacancies among engineers, finance professionals, project managers and supply-chain experts. There is a documented exodus of engineers and technicians from the broader system, with losses of up to 30% in some technical areas. People remember the town clerk and the city engineer as central, respected figures. Today the technical core of the city has been hollowed out, and the people who remain are often acting in posts they were never properly appointed to fill.

Business has said very little, and business’s input into Johannesburg is very little too. They have watched it decline, too scared to say anything because of the ruling party—because they’ll lose contracts, or just be scandalised by the ruling party even if they’re not doing business with them. Business for South Africa has now assembled over 750 subject-matter experts and pledged over R350 million in support, and more than 160 CEOs have signed a pledge to get personally involved. But Martin Kingston of B4SA admits the intervention is “11th-hour stuff” and that the existing multiplicity of initiatives is “not having the impact that is required.” Business has explicitly ruled out engaging in politics. That is precisely the scared posture of business: a sector that knows the city is failing, that has expertise to offer, but that has been unwilling to confront the political networks that make reform impossible.

So what would it take to rebuild Johannesburg—if it could be done at all?

First, a stable and honest political leadership, and a break from the coalition chaos. The CDE is blunt: Johannesburg can recover only if elections produce stable, honest political leadership. Without a minimum level of political stability, no amount of money or expertise will stick.

Second, institutional reform that gives technical units real autonomy. The city’s administration only exists in name; too much power lies with the council, and the city manager has no inherent authority to hire staff or make operational decisions. The utilities—City Power, Johannesburg Water, Pikitup—must be given real operational autonomy and shielded from patronage.

Third, massive, sustained capital investment—and the capacity to spend it. The city currently lacks the project-management and engineering capacity to deploy money effectively. That means rebuilding in-house engineering competence and large-scale technical training, including youth brigades of qualified and apprentice plumbers to repair leaks, and artisan teams to fix potholes and streetlights.

Fourth, a coalition of outside capacity: private sector, universities and civil society. Not as a substitute for a functioning state, but as a scaffold around a state that is finally willing to be rebuilt.

Fifth, confronting the criminal and patronage networks that benefit from the status quo and will resist reform. Revenue collected for utilities often fails to reach maintenance. Non-revenue water losses exceed 40%. Any serious rebuild must include enforcement against these networks, not just new infrastructure spending.

There are pockets of Johannesburg that still remain. The western CBD, once considered “written off,” is quietly becoming an “Education Town,” with philanthropists donating buildings for tech campuses and thousands of students returning to restored historic office blocks. These are exceptions that prove the rule. They show what competence can do in a small space. They do not show that the centre can be rebuilt.

The beginning of the end was decades ago, when the ruling party failed to rule the city but put up fronts to steal money from it. Johannesburg has plunged into chaos. You will get people who say you can’t be negative about Johannesburg. But there is a thing as being realistic.

Could Johannesburg really be saved? Not in its current political form. The physical rebuild is daunting, but the deeper obstacle is the absence of a political settlement that would allow competent people to run the city without being undermined or replaced. Until that political economy is broken—not just voted out, but structurally dismantled—the will and the people I remember will not return to run the city. It is going to be an interesting city to watch. But it cannot yet be saved. Time has run out. Five years is too short a mandate to fix the city.

---

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.

South Africa is becoming a loser nation compared with the rapid growth of other African countries. South Africa used to be the powerhouse of the continent, but that all changed. Now the whippersnapper countries in Africa are starting to give it a hiding. Complacency leads to decay. But South Africa isn’t only about complacency. It’s about a government hell-bent on doing things its own way, with ministers in portfolios who know nothing about those industries and the technologies. Then there’s the social engineering that mainly means passing guilt on to groups of people. Some people are sick and tired of being blamed for things that happened 60, 70, 80 years ago. These people weren’t even born in those generations, and didn’t even vote for those people. Yes, and let’s be totally honest here: some of the newer generations living today may have benefited from their forebears’ wealth under the previous governments.

But the main point is this — that social engineering in South Africa, apart from passing on guilt, has not been successful. Greater levels of social engineering should have been provided so that millions upon millions, now without jobs and living in poverty, could have benefited from a new regime. Then there is the loaded area of corruption, court cases, crime, backhand dealings. One can read about all of that on the internet. Just the sheer shocking size of it is massive.

Now you also have policy and regulation, which this government must do its way, and that is strangling new investment in the country. We now see how African countries like Côte d’Ivoire, like Rwanda, like Morocco, like Egypt are rising. These are now rising stars in Africa. Rwanda, Morocco, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Mauritius and Egypt are Africa’s clearest success stories: Rwanda wins on clean, coordinated government and fast SEZ permitting; Morocco on single-authority execution at Tanger Med and stable long-horizon incentives; Côte d’Ivoire on macro stability and agro-processing; Ethiopia on low-cost manufacturing backed by long tax and customs exemptions; Mauritius on institutional stability and diversified textiles, food and services; Egypt on scale, Suez Canal zones and manufacturing depth. Their common advantage is not low wages or less bureaucracy per se, but coherent policy, predictable rules and speed from approval to operation.

If you look back over 100 years, you’ll see South Africa transition from a narrow primary exporting colony to an industrial powerhouse mid-century. During the 1960s, the country experienced rapid, unprecedented economic growth fueled by a booming global economy and expansive mining and industrial capacity. Today, however, that dynamic has shifted significantly, with the economy experiencing little to no growth amid modern structural hurdles and constraints.

Whatever field you are in, whether it’s running a government or a business or a football team, you’re going to have competition. The point is the competition in Africa is getting stronger. South Africa has been complacent, and there have been major problems in running the country. No one wants to run down the country, but it is in poor shape given its performance — and the success of these countries just goes to show how things have taken a turn for the worse.

---

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.

A lot of business people don’t get into finding out about what’s happening with search engines. It’s stuff they leave to their techies. But there are some things business people should know — especially the smaller business person, where reputation and credibility count for a lot. Especially when social media lets anybody anywhere make comments any time about their company, often negative.

Google is the de facto search engine. That sounds stupid to say out loud, but it’s true. Most of us don’t even bother with Yahoo, Bing or DuckDuckGo because Google is so dominant. But there are pros and cons to the others worth considering, which we’ll get into later. We’ve also referenced the Search Engine Land article at the bottom if you want further information.

The Big Change: AI Is Now Doing the Talking

Google isn’t just listing your business anymore. It’s summarising it, judging it, and recommending it — often before a customer ever clicks through to your website. That’s a different game.

The clearest example came from Search Engine Land, which confirmed Google now generates AI review summaries inside search ads. Google’s AI scrapes reviews from across the web and writes a positive-only summary next to your ad. You can’t edit it. You can’t opt out.

Google decides whether it appears, based on how well it thinks your ad will perform. It’s live in the US, UK, Australia and India, across most industries. The message is blunt: your online reputation is now part of your paid advertising.

Four Changes Worth Knowing

AI Overviews have taken over the first screen. AI-written answers now appear in 68% of local searches. The traditional three-business Local Pack shows up in only 39% of those same searches. Your ranking still exists — customers just see it less.

The AI Local Pack is thinner. It shows fewer businesses, roughly a third of what the old Map Pack displayed. It also often drops the “call now” button, adding friction. Impressions are falling, but calls and direction requests are holding up. Browsing is down; intent is concentrated.

Your Google Business Profile is now an AI data source. It’s no longer a page waiting to be browsed — it’s the raw data AI reads before recommending anyone. AI checks whether your name, category, website and reviews all point to the same coherent business. Contradictory signals can knock you out before distance or review count is even considered. A profile left untouched for six months looks dormant.

Search is becoming answers, not links. Google calls AI Mode its biggest rebuild in 25 years, now default in nearly 200 countries. The question is no longer “can I rank?” It’s “will the model include me in its answer?” Consistency, structured facts and being cited across the web matter more than keyword volume.

What About the Other Search Engines?

Bing is the AI-heavy alternative. Around 34% of its searches are AI-driven, versus 19% on Google. It also weights direct keyword matching and social signals more heavily than Google does. If AI visibility matters to you, Bing is worth a look.

DuckDuckGo sells privacy, and it means it. It doesn’t track your searches or build a profile on you. Uniquely, it lets you switch AI features off entirely. Adoption is climbing fast among people tired of being profiled.

Yahoo is quietly still a giant — third most popular in the US, with around 700 million users across finance, sport, news and email. Its new “Scout” AI engine is more web-forward, keeping links to news prominent. Good for internet culture and trend questions.

Why This Matters to a Small Business

Search is still where customers find you. 68% of all online activity starts with a search engine. 82% of smartphone users rely on search to find local businesses.

SEO is cheaper than ads, and it compounds. You don’t pay per click, and you can compete with much bigger brands on a small budget. Ranking well also signals credibility — before anyone reads a word on your site.

Search is also fracturing. One results page can now show video, AI answers, social posts and directory listings. You can’t optimise for one channel and hope. You need to be findable wherever your customers look.

Google is absorbing the moment where customers compare and judge you. Your visibility no longer depends on appearing in a list. It depends on being picked — as one of the one or two answers AI is willing to show.

That makes reviews, consistent information and an active profile preconditions, not bonuses. Get the basics right across every platform, not just Google. And don’t leave it all to the techies.

---

Reference: Google confirms AI-generated review summaries in Search ads — Search Engine Land
https://searchengineland.com/google-confirms-ai-generated-review-summaries-in-search-ads-498977

---

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.

I was speaking to a landscape architect yesterday who was very excited about using artificial intelligence to help her prepare quotes and costings for customers.

She was enthusiastic about the possibilities, and I could understand why. Preparing quotes can be a time-consuming business. You have to calculate materials, estimate labour, work out costs and arrive at a price that will make the job profitable.

For a small business owner, this is often the sort of work that gets done after hours, when the day’s business is over.

Now AI is helping to take some of that burden away.

I’ve been urging small business people to start using AI for various functions, and this conversation reinforced my view that we are witnessing a significant change in the way small businesses operate.

There is a lot of negative publicity about AI. Writers are concerned that it will produce inferior work, while the news is full of warnings about AI destroying jobs.

But while these debates continue, small business owners are quietly discovering something rather different.

AI is becoming their virtual assistant.

The assistant who doesn’t need a salary

Think about the typical small business owner.

You might be running a landscaping business, a coffee shop, a plumbing operation or a small professional practice.

You have to deal with customers, prepare quotations, manage your accounts, organise staff, schedule appointments, order supplies and follow up on outstanding business.

You might be very good at your trade, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you enjoy the administrative work that comes with running a business.

Hiring somebody to take care of these functions can be expensive. And employing people brings its own complications.

You have to pay salaries, manage performance and deal with the inevitable problems that arise when people don’t turn up for work, arrive late or fail to do what they are supposed to do.

There are also risks. A dishonest employee can steal from the business or abuse the trust placed in them.

For a small business operating on tight margins, employing an additional person to handle administrative work may simply not be financially viable.

This is where AI starts to make a real difference.

From information to action

The internet has already transformed small business.

Google gave business owners access to information that was previously difficult to obtain. Facebook and other social media platforms provided relatively inexpensive ways to promote their businesses and reach customers.

But AI is different.

It is moving beyond providing information and helping people write things. Increasingly, it can perform tasks.

A landscape architect can use AI to prepare an initial quotation. A business owner can use it to draft customer correspondence, organise appointments and follow up on enquiries.

AI can help prepare schedules, analyse costs, forecast demand and identify opportunities to improve profitability.

Some systems can even answer telephone calls, check availability and book appointments.

The important point is that AI is becoming capable of doing work that previously required somebody sitting behind a desk.

And that changes the economics of running a small business.

The landscape architect and the coffee shop

Consider the landscape architect I spoke to.

Instead of spending hours preparing quotations, she can use AI to help produce an initial estimate based on the work required, materials and labour.

She still needs to check the figures, apply her professional judgement and ensure that the quotation is accurate.

But AI can take care of much of the routine work involved in putting the quote together.

That means she can spend more time designing gardens, meeting customers and actually doing the work she enjoys.

Now consider a coffee shop owner.

The morning rush can be hectic. Customers arrive, orders have to be taken, coffee has to be made, and staff have to keep everything moving.

Meanwhile, the owner has to think about stock, staff schedules, supplier prices and the next day’s business.

AI can help forecast how much stock will be needed, identify when more staff are required and assist with ordering supplies.

It can also answer customer enquiries and, in some cases, take telephone orders.

The coffee shop owner may not need another person to perform all these administrative functions.

Instead, AI can help with some of the work, leaving the owner and staff to concentrate on serving customers.

The risks and the opportunities

Of course, AI is not infallible.

It can make mistakes, produce incorrect figures and misunderstand instructions.

A business owner who blindly accepts an AI-generated quotation could find that a job has been underpriced and that the business is losing money.

The same applies to costings, stock orders and financial forecasts.

Human judgement remains essential. The business owner is responsible for the decisions made and the work delivered to customers.

But these are reasons to use AI carefully, not reasons to dismiss it.

Small business owners have always had to adapt to new technology. The difference now is that AI is becoming accessible to people who don’t have the resources to employ specialist staff or invest in expensive systems.

A competitive advantage for small business

The implications are significant.

A small business owner who uses AI effectively can potentially operate with lower administrative costs, respond to customers more quickly and spend more time on the activities that generate revenue.

They may be able to do things that previously required employing another person.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that AI will replace all those jobs. It may mean that a small business can grow without having to increase its administrative staff at the same rate.

And for someone starting a business, the ability to handle more of the administrative work without immediately employing additional people could make the difference between getting started and remaining an employee.

There is plenty of debate about whether AI will destroy jobs. But there is another side to the story that deserves attention.

AI is giving small business owners access to capabilities that were previously available mainly to larger businesses with bigger budgets.

For the landscape architect, it means getting quotations and costings done more efficiently.

For the coffee shop owner, it means managing the business more effectively.

And for thousands of other small business owners, it could mean having a virtual assistant that helps them get through the day.

The real opportunity for small business is not that AI can write a clever paragraph. It’s that AI can help get the work done.

---

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.

With local government elections approaching, it is worth considering where voters are getting their political information. The days when newspapers, radio and television were the principal sources of news are long gone. We now have a multitude of digital platforms, each competing for our attention, and some are becoming more influential than others.

I read an interesting article in The Citizen about podcasts, arguing that competition among podcasters is encouraging sensationalism and potentially irresponsible reporting. It raises a broader question about the quality of information reaching the public, particularly when political parties are trying to persuade voters to support them.

Podcasts are increasingly part of the mix. They allow people to explore issues at length, hear different opinions and listen to commentators who might not have a platform in traditional broadcasting. But the same freedom allows people to make claims without necessarily subjecting them to the scrutiny expected of professional journalists.

Then there is social media, which has become an important source of news and political commentary. Facebook remains a significant player, while TikTok reaches audiences through short videos and increasingly sophisticated political messaging. X is a forum for political argument, although some of the contributions are little more than people shouting at one another.

WhatsApp is particularly interesting. Political parties can communicate directly with supporters through messages and groups, but ordinary community groups are also important. Residents discuss water shortages, potholes, refuse collection, electricity failures and crime. These might not begin as political conversations, but they soon become political when people start asking who is responsible and what their elected representatives are doing about it.

This is where local government elections differ from national politics. Residents can argue about political ideologies and party manifestos, but they also have to live with the consequences of municipal decisions. Johannesburg’s water crisis is a grim example of what happens when basic services fail. When people are worried about contaminated water and becoming ill, the issue is no longer an abstract political debate.

The question is how much influence the various information channels have on the way people vote. A party’s carefully crafted campaign message may be less persuasive than a neighbour’s account of an unresolved problem. Equally, a WhatsApp message containing inaccurate information can circulate through a community before anyone has checked whether it is true.

Where do blogs fit into this changing landscape?

I have a particular interest in this question because I run my own blog. I don’t spend much time commenting directly on political parties or their campaigns, but I do write about business, the economy, social issues and matters affecting our everyday lives. These subjects frequently have a political dimension, whether we acknowledge it or not.

Blogs are unlikely to rival the reach of Facebook, TikTok or WhatsApp. Nor do they have the resources of established news organisations. But they offer something that can be missing from the relentless flow of online content: an individual perspective, considered commentary and the opportunity to develop an argument beyond the immediate headline.

Independent bloggers do not need to compete with professional journalists in reporting every development. We can select the issues that interest us, examine their implications and offer readers a different way of looking at them. A blog can also provide a platform for subjects that receive relatively little attention elsewhere.

There is a qualification, of course. Publishing a blog does not automatically give its author influence. Readers have to find it, decide that it is worth their time and, ideally, share it with others. Social media is often the means by which an independent writer reaches a wider audience.

That makes the relationship between blogs and social media an interesting one. A blog provides the space for an argument; social media can help distribute it. One does not necessarily replace the other.

The same applies to political information generally. A newspaper report might prompt a podcast discussion, which is then shared in a WhatsApp group and debated on Facebook. By the time the conversation reaches an individual voter, the original reporting may have been supplemented by opinion, speculation and claims of varying reliability.

The difficulty for voters is deciding what to believe. The difficulty for political parties is reaching people across an increasingly fragmented media landscape. And the opportunity for independent writers is to provide something more useful than another contribution to the noise.

Ultimately, the medium matters less than the quality of the information it carries. Voters need to know what their prospective councillors intend to do, whether their promises are credible and how their municipalities are performing.

A podcast, a newspaper, a Facebook discussion or a blog can all contribute to that understanding. But when the water supply fails, the rubbish piles up or the roads deteriorate, residents have evidence of their own.

No political campaign can entirely talk its way around that.

---

JSE companies: results to watch this week

Five listed companies are scheduled to release results during the week beginning Monday, 26 October 2026.

• Monday, 26 October — Pick n Pay Stores: Interim financial results for the 26 weeks ended 30 August 2026.

• Tuesday, 27 October — Santova: Interim results for the six months ended 31 August 2026.

• Thursday, 29 October — Datatec: Interim results.

• Friday, 30 October — Dis-Chem Pharmacies: Interim results.

• Friday, 30 October — Adcorp Holdings: Interim results.

The week’s announcements cover food retail, logistics, technology, pharmaceuticals and staffing services, offering a small cross-section of the South African corporate economy.

---

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.

Yesterday I went to the annual Cape Town International Kite Festival, organised by Cape Mental Health at Youngsfield Military Base in Ottery. What a fantastic time I had. I was in my element.

I’ve always loved flying kites, ever since I was a child. I remember making my own kites and flying them on Clovelly Beach in Cape Town. Later, when I was living in Randburg, I always had a kite ready for the windy months of August, when I enjoyed many hours flying it. Years ago, I also bought a beautiful kite for my son and daughter, which we used to fly together. I bought it in Kalk Bay while we were still living in Randburg.

I don’t know exactly what it is about kites that appeals to me so much. Perhaps it’s the colour against the blue sky, the interesting shapes or the sheer delight of watching a kite ride the wind and climb into the thermals. Once it’s airborne, it almost seems to develop a personality of its own, responding to the wind as you control it with a long string.

Whatever the attraction, I was in my element yesterday.

A carnival of colour and humanity

The festival was a wonderful spectacle. There were food stalls, craft and gift stalls, children’s rides and all the activity you’d expect at a carnival.

Coca-Cola had a large truck, with a woman standing on a stage throwing sweets to the children, many of whom arrived in droves. You could see the joy and enthusiasm on their faces. For many of these youngsters, it was clearly a very special outing, and one that would probably remain in their memories for a long time.

There were some scary-looking rides, too. Little cars went round and round, while the Mexican Hat spun its passengers about. Another contraption swirled and turned in a way that made my stomach churn just watching it. Count me out of that sort of entertainment!

Thank goodness the wind eventually picked up. This is Cape Town, after all, and a kite festival without wind would be a rather frustrating affair. The wind had eased overnight, and I imagine there were a few anxious participants wondering whether it would return. Fortunately, it did.

Even better, we had glorious sunshine. Cape Town has endured weeks of cold, wintry weather, so it was a pleasure to be outdoors in the warmth, surrounded by people enjoying themselves.

The food was part of the attraction. Parents were buying packets of chips, hamburgers, those amusing spiral-cut potatoes served on sticks, calamari, fish and all sorts of sweets and treats, including koeksisters. There was plenty to keep everyone happy, and the parents seemed to be enjoying the occasion almost as much as their children.

And everywhere you looked, children were flying kites. There were inexpensive kites available to buy, and the sky was filled with a colourful frenzy of them. It was a delight to see so many youngsters discovering the simple pleasure of getting a kite airborne.

International kite-flyers

Away from the carnival atmosphere was a more specialised area where international participants and members of the Western Cape Kite Flying Association gathered to fly their kites.

It was a much more relaxed scene. Some people sat in their camping chairs, sipping cold beers or cool drinks, while others concentrated on their kites. I noticed French children who had come with their parents, flying smaller kites that were beautiful in their own right.

I spoke to a man involved in Cape Mental Health’s transport arrangements for the festival, including the international visitors. He told me that participants had come from Germany, France and Austria, among other countries.

He also mentioned the price of some of the more elaborate kites. One, he said, cost around €7,000. Imagine spending that sort of money on a kite!

It gave me a glimpse of the serious side of what might otherwise appear to be a simple childhood pastime. For some people, kite-flying is an art form, a technical challenge and a passion that takes them around the world.

An event that brings people together

The man also told me about the festival’s previous venues. It had been held around Lakeside and Muizenberg in the past, but security concerns had contributed to the move to Youngsfield.

It would be wonderful to see an event like this held on a beach again. Muizenberg’s Surfers Corner might eventually be an option, once the redevelopment work has settled down. Long Beach at Kommetjie is another possibility, although there are practical considerations to take into account.

Youngsfield, however, is an excellent venue. It is centrally situated and draws people from neighbouring communities, including many who might not otherwise have the opportunity to attend an event of this kind.

The organisation was impeccable. It was as good as anything you’d expect at a major corporate function. There was ample parking, the admission charges were reasonable, and security personnel were on hand around the perimeter and near the parked cars. Everything seemed well managed, and I saw no unpleasant incidents.

What I enjoyed most, though, was the atmosphere.

There is something special about going to a festival where people mill about, queue for rides, buy food, chat to one another and watch kites filling the sky. Young and old, people from different backgrounds and communities, all gathered in one place to enjoy themselves.

It was a celebration of colour and humanity, and yesterday the weather added the finishing touch.

More than just a kite festival

There is also a deeper purpose behind the event.

The Cape Town International Kite Festival began in 1994 and has become established as Africa’s oldest kite festival. Organised by Cape Mental Health, it uses the uplifting spectacle of kites in the sky to raise awareness of mental health and challenge the stigma surrounding mental illness.

The festival also raises funds for the organisation’s work supporting people with mental health challenges, including children and adults in under-resourced communities. It combines entertainment with a worthwhile social purpose, bringing people together while helping to sustain essential community services.

That makes the occasion all the more meaningful.

For me, however, yesterday was also a reminder of the simple pleasures that can stay with us throughout our lives. I may have grown older, but put me in a field filled with colourful kites, a decent breeze and people enjoying themselves, and I’m as happy as a child.

Hats off to Cape Mental Health and everyone involved in organising such a superb event. I look forward to going again.

Articles are surfacing about renewed interest among American scientists in the threat of asteroids hitting Earth. It reminds me of the film Space Cowboys, starring Tommy Lee Jones, about a group of ageing astronauts called out of retirement to deal with a space emergency.

If you look at the history of large asteroids and other objects hitting Earth, the potential consequences are frightening. The 1908 Tunguska event in Siberia caused enormous damage, flattening thousands of square kilometres of forest. It was a relatively small object by asteroid standards.

The threat of a much larger asteroid striking Earth is considered a low-probability but high-consequence risk. It is unlikely to happen in our lifetime, but if it did, the devastation could be catastrophic. So why are scientists taking such an interest in the subject now?

An asteroid roughly three kilometres across could cause global devastation, although impacts of this magnitude are estimated to occur only once every several million years. Smaller objects capable of causing widespread regional destruction are more frequent, but remain extremely rare on human timescales.

The good news is that authorities say there are no known serious asteroid threats to Earth over at least the next 100 years. That doesn’t mean the risk is zero, however, and scientists are working on ways to protect the planet should a dangerous object be detected.

NASA has already made progress. In 2022, its Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission deliberately crashed a spacecraft into Dimorphos, a small asteroid moon, successfully changing its orbit around its parent asteroid. The experiment demonstrated that a spacecraft could alter an asteroid’s trajectory. Given sufficient warning, such a small nudge could potentially prevent a future collision.

Scientists are also investigating other deflection methods, including nuclear devices, while international teams participate in exercises designed to test how they would respond to a potential impact.

The question is whether we are adequately prepared for an event that could have devastating consequences. The chances of a major impact are remote, but the consequences are sufficiently serious to justify research and preparation.

Hollywood has long been fascinated by the prospect. Armageddon, the 1998 blockbuster starring Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck, imagined a Texas-sized asteroid hurtling towards Earth. Space Cowboys, released in 2000, featured Tommy Lee Jones and a team of ageing former astronauts confronting a different space-related crisis.

The films are entertaining, if not particularly scientific. But the underlying question is a serious one: if we discovered a large asteroid heading towards Earth, could we stop it?

Scientists are working towards an answer. And perhaps that is why the subject deserves more attention than it usually receives.

Further reading: Zero Hedge examines the renewed concern about asteroid impacts and the efforts being made to prepare for one.

Why Are Scientists Suddenly So Concerned About an Asteroid Hitting Earth? — Zero Hedge

---

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.

For this Friday business news wrap, we look at a few items that crossed our path this week.

The first was my reading of King Rat by James Clavell. At the end of the book, and I don’t want to give away any spoilers, the whole system collapses and people who once had power no longer have it. The ideas that supported the system, although wrong and sometimes barbaric, collapse with it. Their usefulness has come to an end.

It’s strange, but this got me thinking about the demise of CNA, the stationer and newsagent. I’m still thinking about it a lot. The need for stationery and similar items hasn’t disappeared, as PNA has demonstrated by picking up some of the market CNA left behind. I’d love to know what happened within CNA. It seems to me that the world changed around the company, while those in power continued operating within the old system. They no longer had the fresh ideas needed to save it.

Some retailers, meanwhile, have been capturing their markets for decades. Clicks released sound results this week, while Boxer, the wholesale and discount retailer, also performed well. These are companies that understand their customers and cater to their needs. They aren’t trying to reinvent demand; they’re meeting it. And they’re proving that the formula works.

Afrimat, the construction group, released satisfactory results this week, as did Famous Brands, the food franchise operation.

Speaking of Famous Brands, I sometimes crave a good old-fashioned Wimpy burger. But the classic burger now costs R100. It’s interesting to compare prices. When I was at Cape Town International Airport about three weeks ago, I had that same burger at Wimpy. Afterwards, I leafed through the menu and discovered that a mixed grill was approaching R300. The steak on the menu was also expensive — more than I would pay for a meal at a fine restaurant. In fact, I recently enjoyed a pepper fillet at a restaurant in Glencairn for less.

An interesting issue raised its head this week in Kalk Bay, where residents are furious with the owner of a restaurant operating on railway-leased land. New construction has effectively obliterated the children’s pool that was there.

But what really caught my eye was the residents’ call for musicians to boycott the restaurant by refusing to perform there. This seems unfair to the musicians.

I don’t know exactly who these residents are, but Kalk Bay is now one of the pricier places to live along the False Bay coastline, and many of its residents are presumably well-heeled. I found myself wondering how much skin they would put in the game themselves.

It just doesn’t seem right to ask struggling musicians to sacrifice paid performances. As we know, live music has battled in the aftermath of COVID, and musicians have always had a tough time making a living. To ask them to forgo a paying gig without offering an alternative seems unfair. It really doesn’t add up.

On the national mid-term budget, all I can say is that the levy relief, albeit small, is welcome. The finance minister is also focusing on providing capital injections and supporting capital formation so that the economy can become more productive.

As the saying goes, money makes the world go round. This is particularly true in a downbeat economy where everyone is striving to make a buck. Some have got it right and are living well. Others, and there are many, are struggling.

The more we understand where the opportunities lie, the better positioned we are to take advantage of them.

---

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.

So much advice is dished out, not only on the internet and social media, but also by people you meet, who give you all sorts of advice. Then there’s this cringe-worthy advice that radio jocks give. They’re basic homilies, sort of motherhood and apple pie stuff. I mean, really, who are they trying to impress? And they say it in the sincerest of voices, as if this is special knowledge.

Now I’m not decrying pieces of wisdom, particularly personally earned pieces of wisdom. That’s another story. But to trot out platitudes on all sorts of things, like life, health and relationships, come on, man. What gives them the right to say all this stuff?

And worst of all, on the radio yesterday was an absolute bore who gave all sorts of modern woo-woo advice with no scientific basis. He didn’t allow the presenter to get a word in edgeways, and she didn’t even challenge him on anything. She just sort of oohed and aahed, and that was it.

Luckily, you can just turn the radio down, and then you can’t hear it any more.

So what’s happening with where people get advice? And let’s not just talk about ordinary advice, like how to cook a meal or protect yourself from sunburn. Let’s talk about psychologists, especially clinical psychologists. Are they under threat from AI?

If you dig into this, you’ll find all sorts of opinions about what AI might mean for clinical psychologists.

For people in rural areas, including those in poorer countries such as South Africa and India, access to psychological services can be limited by cost and distance. AI offers an alternative. You can ask questions, describe what you’re experiencing and get a response without having to pay for a consultation.

And it’s not only people who cannot afford a psychologist who are turning to AI. Some use it to explore symptoms, wondering whether they might have depression, anxiety, ADHD or another condition.

This can be a useful starting point. AI might help people put their concerns into words and decide whether they need professional help. But an initial self-assessment is not a clinical diagnosis, however convincing the chatbot sounds.

What about more serious problems? An armed robbery, a brutal assault, abuse, a nasty divorce or a life-threatening illness can leave people struggling to cope.

Some might turn to AI for help, particularly if they cannot afford professional assistance. But this is where the limitations become more apparent. A clinical psychologist can explore a person’s background, ask probing questions and build an understanding of what is happening over time. AI can offer sympathetic responses, but sounding understanding and actually understanding someone are two different things.

Some people would say, of course, that you can solve your own problems. Just ask a friend. Somebody once said to me, “What do you need a psychologist for? Your friend can tell you if you’re an asshole or not.”

But that’s really superficial advice. A psychologist can help change your perception of something, or of yourself, which can be useful. A friend might give you an honest opinion, but that is not the same as professional psychological help.

Having said that, perhaps the over-reliance on psychologists has become too much these days. Not every unhappy experience requires a diagnosis, and not every difficult period in life calls for therapy. Sometimes we’re simply going through a rough patch and have to find our own way through it.

A useful tool, not a replacement

AI is also being used by psychologists themselves, including for administrative work and preparing educational material. So the technology may prove useful to the profession rather than simply taking business away from it.

The greater concern is that people may put too much faith in what AI tells them. A chatbot can sound authoritative while giving incorrect information, overlooking important symptoms or offering reassurance when someone needs professional help.

So are clinical psychologists really under threat from AI? Probably not in the way some might imagine. AI seems to be becoming a first port of call for some people seeking psychological advice, particularly those who cannot afford professional services. But there is a considerable difference between asking a chatbot about your problems and having a trained professional assess them.

AI might help you work out what you want to ask. It might even help you recognise that you need help. But a convincing answer isn’t necessarily a correct one. And when it comes to your mental health, that distinction matters.

---

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.