Speaker 1: And now The Money Show with Stephen Credits on seven
Speaker 1: oh two.
Speaker 2: Let's walk little.
Speaker 3: The Money Show with Stephen Curtis is brought to you
Speaker 3: by Abster Corporate and Investment Bank, proud sponsor of the
Speaker 3: African Blockchain Report twenty twenty four. Good evening, Welcome to
Speaker 3: the programs. The Money Show comes to air tonight. The
Speaker 3: Presidency issuing a statement in response to the DA's claim
Speaker 3: that BC Jonas has been denied accreditation by Washington to
Speaker 3: act as a special envoy with relation to trade from
Speaker 3: President saw rom A Pausa, I've seen many presidential statements
Speaker 3: in my time. This is, i would say, of the
Speaker 3: scathing variety. The Presidency cautioning South Africa against treating DA
Speaker 3: disinformation of matters of international relations and diplomacy as official
Speaker 3: government policy. They talk about the DA's latest effort to
Speaker 3: embarrass President from A. Paus's special envoy to North America
Speaker 3: involves claims that he's that the US has rejected as credentials.
Speaker 3: They talk about sensationalism. However, the Presidency also saying the
Speaker 3: facts around this matter include the reality that special envoys
Speaker 3: do not present diplomatic credentials to host countries in the
Speaker 3: way designated heads of mission or other diplomats are. You'll
Speaker 3: know the backstory to all of this. Of course, the
Speaker 3: Democratic Alliance releasing a statement this afternoon in the name
Speaker 3: of Emma Pal, their Foreign affairs spokesperson. She is unfortunately
Speaker 3: unable to talk to us right now. We're hoping in
Speaker 3: the next half an hour or so she'll become available.
Speaker 3: Otherwise we've been told after seven o'clock. But the claim
Speaker 3: from the DA is that Jonas has been denied permission
Speaker 3: to represent South Africa in terms of entering the United States. Jonas,
Speaker 3: as you know, made comments against a President Donald Trump
Speaker 3: long before he was appointed envoy in a way, comments
Speaker 3: quite similar to Abrahm Rossul did before he became an
Speaker 3: ambassador and was eventually, of course kicked out by the
Speaker 3: United States. There are many different moving parts to all
Speaker 3: of us. Let's start your coverage tonight with a spokesperson
Speaker 3: for the Department of NAS National Relations and Cooperation, Crispin Piri.
Speaker 3: A Crispin, good evening to you. I do appreciate the time. Firstly,
Speaker 3: did the US tell in KBC Jonas or someone else
Speaker 3: he was not welcome and would not be accepted as
Speaker 3: an envoy. All right, Crispin Perry, I don't know if
Speaker 3: you can hear me, Am not sure where actually you
Speaker 3: are in the world at the moment. Sounds like you
Speaker 3: there now, Crispin to me for the question again, did
Speaker 3: the US tell in KBC, Johnos or someone else he
Speaker 3: would not be acceptable as a nonvoy.
Speaker 2: And their message of the president, they aid the President
Speaker 2: in whatever message that the President wants to present it
Speaker 2: kind of and it is a common cause to everyone
Speaker 2: that President drum Up also has not yet sent the
Speaker 2: judicy journalists to the United States or any diplomatic mission
Speaker 2: as yet, although he has appointed him as a special
Speaker 2: and where he's not been officially given the duty to
Speaker 2: go and present any type of message to the United States.
Speaker 2: So the point of credential doesn't even arise because at
Speaker 2: no point does a special envoy present credential. And we
Speaker 2: would have thought that someone of Emma's power of stature,
Speaker 2: someone who engages in international relations on a daily basis,
Speaker 2: would know this. The only people who are required to
Speaker 2: present credentials are foreign represented in the form of an ambassador,
Speaker 2: who would then be required to present their credentials to
Speaker 2: a head of states. That's the context in which credentials
Speaker 2: get presented. So it's really a strange statement that we're
Speaker 2: seeing from the DA. But the second element, even that
Speaker 2: I quickly on to a dread, this comes at a
Speaker 2: critical time when we do have pterif against that is true.
Speaker 2: But the DTIIC is firmly engaged with that process. But
Speaker 2: also we mustn't exceptionalize what we are seeing happening to
Speaker 2: path Africa just up north from the United States. Canada
Speaker 2: has just been slapped to the thirty five percent tariff.
Speaker 2: In Europe as well, we are seeing them being slapped
Speaker 2: with thirty percent teriffs. So this idea that soth Africa
Speaker 2: is being singled out for special treatment therefore really needs
Speaker 2: to be addressed in totality.
Speaker 3: So I mean, of course I accept that, And we
Speaker 3: might have missed the first part of your answer, Chrispin,
Speaker 3: I do just need to clear this up very quickly.
Speaker 3: I accept also what you say that Inbeci Jonas has
Speaker 3: not been to the US and has not been sent there.
Speaker 3: Has anyone in Washington told government he would not be
Speaker 3: acceptable as a representative.
Speaker 2: Not that I'm aware of, Steven. That's where for something
Speaker 2: that I'm and and there it would arise in the
Speaker 2: context of US having to send him there, that is
Speaker 2: where that that engagement would arise. But outside the engagements,
Speaker 2: don't see how that would that would arise at all.
Speaker 3: Okay, why has the President made him a special envoy
Speaker 3: to North America and not sent him to North America.
Speaker 2: Well, actually he did go to North America. He was
Speaker 2: part of the Gen three seven dedication to Canada, and
Speaker 2: we didn't have several engagements with our Canadian counterparts with
Speaker 2: the mister Bilgy Jonas as well, So he has been
Speaker 2: changed to North America quite quite frankly. And as I
Speaker 2: understand it from the presidency point of view is that
Speaker 2: we are seeing a situation where how the US administration
Speaker 2: is engaging with its own neighbors and partners is of
Speaker 2: interest to us so that we can further understand how
Speaker 2: to engage the US. So that is why mister Jonas
Speaker 2: has been designated as a special invote to North America.
Speaker 2: And I think there's good American.
Speaker 3: Right, Okay, And I'm sorry to come back to this,
Speaker 3: but I feel I must is Jonas avoiding going to
Speaker 3: the United States and is the President avoiding sending him
Speaker 3: to the United States because you worried that he might
Speaker 3: be kicked out in the same way that Abraham Rousseaul
Speaker 3: was for saying sort of the same thing.
Speaker 2: Let's sequence this propublic even. You may recall that at
Speaker 2: the time at which mister Jonas was appointed, especially an
Speaker 2: invot for the United States, was when we had to
Speaker 2: fall out with the ambassador. Subsequent to that, the President
Speaker 2: himself went to the United States and presented the country,
Speaker 2: and that engagement is now possible at a head of
Speaker 2: state level, So they one can argue that that's why
Speaker 2: the president has broad and the mandate for North America,
Speaker 2: because he has the ability to engage directly with the
Speaker 2: United States. At the time, it was we need engagement
Speaker 2: through a special envoy to de escalate what was becoming,
Speaker 2: you know, a protracted a discussion between US and the
Speaker 2: United States. But we now have that direct line to
Speaker 2: the Head of States and before our Foreign Services Department,
Speaker 2: so that engagement is possible. So the mandate of mister
Speaker 2: Jonas has then since been widened, so the urgent need
Speaker 2: to send mister Jonahs to the United States has doesn't
Speaker 2: arise anymore. And that is why Minister packs Out, for example,
Speaker 2: is firmly engaged with the issues around the terrace, and
Speaker 2: we will continue with the President and Foreign Affairs around
Speaker 2: the political issues as they arise. If there's a need
Speaker 2: for mister Johnas to go to the United States, that
Speaker 2: matter would then be looked at as well.
Speaker 3: Kristin Terry, I really appreciate you taking the time Johnson
Speaker 3: the questions tonight. Thank you spokesperson for the Department of
Speaker 3: International Relations and Cooperation on the Money show this evening.
Speaker 3: Listening to that the political and governance and the Santilla
Speaker 3: Swana Sandilla, it seems there's nothing that our coalition partners
Speaker 3: won't argue about, including trade and relationships with the US.
Speaker 3: How do you read all of this?
Speaker 4: Thank you so much. Given the situation here is that
Speaker 4: South Africa needs something quite concrete which is in agreement
Speaker 4: with the US on specific tariffs, for instance on citrus
Speaker 4: which affects the Western Cape and the Northern Cape, that
Speaker 4: they must be a deal. And I've just been reading
Speaker 4: the comments from the Industry Association specifically on the STRUS
Speaker 4: and they do have a strategy and there's ongoing deliberations.
Speaker 4: So the people who are in charge of those trade
Speaker 4: negotiations which affect the bread and patter of South Africans
Speaker 4: are actually at well doing the job. Pastow and John STM.
Speaker 4: Sasen are actually in charge of that. The world speculations
Speaker 4: around this, which also is just joining the last paragraph
Speaker 4: of the statement from the Citrus Association whatever they call themselves,
Speaker 4: is that there is a problem with the ic J
Speaker 4: Israel type thing, and they are South Africans were involved
Speaker 4: in that, Lady, that we should maybe join the if
Speaker 4: you want to put it that way, they make America
Speaker 4: great movement. Then I output Powell in that category because
Speaker 4: in terms of the actual strictly tariff negotiations, South Africans
Speaker 4: are in the same boat as many other major nations,
Speaker 4: and we have in certain categories very good bargaining points
Speaker 4: and those bargaining points must not be just dropped, and
Speaker 4: if not, we should bargain. And there is an extension
Speaker 4: on the negotiations. So I think that DA is trying
Speaker 4: to win the South African right wing to its side,
Speaker 4: sometimes in irresponsible ways.
Speaker 2: I'll put it that it thank you.
Speaker 3: The other point is does it matter. I don't know
Speaker 3: if there's any South African who could represent the current
Speaker 3: South African government as it is constituted, representing primarily.
Speaker 4: The A and C.
Speaker 3: Yes, the DA, but also the PAC and the other
Speaker 3: parties of the coalition who would be acceptable to the
Speaker 3: Trump administration. I mean, you can go all the way
Speaker 3: back to Nelson Mandela's appearance on the Ted Copple Show
Speaker 3: in nineteen ninety when he specifically said very clearly, we
Speaker 3: will never abandon the Palestinian people. You're speaking for the
Speaker 3: A and C when he said that. I mean, that's
Speaker 3: a fundamental fact of history that is not going to change.
Speaker 3: I mean, does it matter that we don't have a
Speaker 3: special envoy there at all?
Speaker 4: No, it doesn't, not at all, because fortunately you'll know
Speaker 4: the officials and the ministers like Minister of Trade, Minister
Speaker 4: of Agriculture actually doing the job. So the envoy is
Speaker 4: in essence, and I agree with Christian period here that
Speaker 4: the envoy specifically targeting the US is superpulous. We have
Speaker 4: specific political problems around the Palestinian question with the USA,
Speaker 4: and those have and there are people who have chosen sides.
Speaker 4: I mean, like now we're creating a card inside South Africa.
Speaker 4: By the way, by doing all of these things that
Speaker 4: we're doing, people in Canada and some of the states
Speaker 4: in Canada on the throat of the USA. I mean,
Speaker 4: the fight is heavy between the Canadians and the in
Speaker 4: the Americans. But most of us have always looked at
Speaker 4: at Canada as a very cordial country. But Trump has
Speaker 4: gone for them. So I don't I agree with you
Speaker 4: that even just even if we're Canadians. I think it
Speaker 4: is not an easy thing to do business with Trump.
Speaker 4: I don't think it's easy. And if you're going to
Speaker 4: argue long standing political questions and long political philosophies with Trump,
Speaker 4: you're not going to get anywhere. And that is where
Speaker 4: we are. And but on the other side, I mean
Speaker 4: I read some of our arguments straight from industry, not
Speaker 4: from politicians. Some of our arguments are actually quite good,
Speaker 4: good arguments. As an example, our season for fruits a
Speaker 4: side trust food is different from there. Therefore we don't
Speaker 4: even compete. Seventy seven percent of our woods the Americans
Speaker 4: can buy without any TIFFs, et cetera. So Trump is
Speaker 4: burgeoning things that you know into a certain degree of problematic.
Speaker 4: And the DA is specifically power. I don't think DNA
Speaker 4: is and is busy with this, but power is busy
Speaker 4: with this. I don't know, but DNA isn't. It's focused
Speaker 4: on this issue that I'm talking about, and then and
Speaker 4: then there are quotations that Lettle from Knas and about.
Speaker 3: Strategic sandeleez One. I really appreciate the time tonight. Thank
Speaker 3: you the political analysts, a voice in my ear telling
Speaker 3: me a moment ago that we do have confirmation. Emma Paler,
Speaker 3: the person who started all of this with her statement
Speaker 3: on behalf of the DA will be on your radio
Speaker 3: in twenty minutes time at around a twenty to seven Stephen,
Speaker 3: that's on the Money Show six to eight pm. Well,
Speaker 3: you'll recall the statement yesterday from arsenal Mittel that they
Speaker 3: can and will continue to trade until the end of September,
Speaker 3: but current conditions me and they can't trade after that.
Speaker 3: They've already been given money by government to pay salaries,
Speaker 3: arsenal Mattel pointing out again yesterday this electricity costs are
Speaker 3: too high. Government policy is helping minimals that create steel
Speaker 3: from scrap metal in competition, and transit has provided very
Speaker 3: bad services. Doctor Saul Levine is the executive director of
Speaker 3: Trade and Industrial Policy Strategy STEPS. It's all good evening
Speaker 3: if what arsenal Mittel says is true, and it surely
Speaker 3: must be then it's probably impossible for anyone to function
Speaker 3: under those conditions.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean there's a couple of things that are
Speaker 5: hitting a lot of energy intensive industries and transport intensive industries.
Speaker 5: So the electricity press has hit several industries. So we
Speaker 5: look at also the ferochrome producers. They've been struggling with
Speaker 5: electricity press and reliability and the high costs of transport.
Speaker 5: So those issues have affected several industries, and even smaller
Speaker 5: players are feeling that electricity press is too high and
Speaker 5: has grown exponentially over the last couple of years. There
Speaker 5: are other issues though at Play. The company hasn't been
Speaker 5: doing well for over a decade that they've run it
Speaker 5: losses almost every year, theft for three over the last
Speaker 5: twelve years, so they they haven't been that They've hit
Speaker 5: a lot of stumbling blocks, and this is just you know,
Speaker 5: the latest in the series of crises, and it particularly
Speaker 5: affects the Newcastle operation, which does break things down a
Speaker 5: lot for them with with that particular plant finding it
Speaker 5: very difficult to compete with the smaller players in the market.
Speaker 3: So I think what arsenal Mettel, it seemed to me,
Speaker 3: was trying to do was sort of put the ball
Speaker 3: in government's court to say, you know, there needs to
Speaker 3: be actioned from government, and what action can government really take?
Speaker 3: I mean even government can't pay all of Escomb's bills.
Speaker 5: I mean it's the government to give them, you know
Speaker 5: that that credit facility or that facility. I'm not sure
Speaker 5: it will be credit and if they aren't able to
Speaker 5: repay it because they're running it a loss. But the
Speaker 5: situation means, i mean the government, as we well know,
Speaker 5: is you know, being asked to bail out lots of
Speaker 5: different players across the economy, and you know, there's only
Speaker 5: so much they would be able to contribute towards bailing
Speaker 5: art answer again, and if things haven't been able to
Speaker 5: be turned around over the six month period, and it
Speaker 5: seems not, then it does look very bleak for that
Speaker 5: new class or operation.
Speaker 3: Has government policy made the situation worse? I'm not talking
Speaker 3: about electricity prices or trans net that sort of wasn't
Speaker 3: policy kind of, but I'm talking about minimals which are
Speaker 3: competing with arsenal metal. Is that a major problem?
Speaker 5: Yeah, so, I mean it's it's complicated because it's given
Speaker 5: new players and entry into the market. It's the minimals
Speaker 5: have lower cost structures. So part of the advantage of
Speaker 5: being a minimal is you have smaller operations, you use
Speaker 5: different technology, and you less energy intensive because you using
Speaker 5: a lot of scrap metal which has a lower melting point.
Speaker 5: So you have advicetages in being able to use scrap
Speaker 5: metal and the price advantage on reducing the scrap metal
Speaker 5: priss and keeping it in the country as approached many
Speaker 5: countries have taken because scrap metal is it's expensive to
Speaker 5: make metal and to use the waste or to export
Speaker 5: it to other countries is not the best environmental option
Speaker 5: and as you know, you're wasting your electricity that you've
Speaker 5: you've given in. So those minimals have a lower cost
Speaker 5: structure and they are able to out compete Answer on
Speaker 5: particular approach that we're talking specifically on long steel that
Speaker 5: they're able to out compete Answer. But there are certain
Speaker 5: things because of their production process and because of their
Speaker 5: input materials, they haven't been able to get into what
Speaker 5: we call speciality steels, and this is where some of
Speaker 5: the country challenges come in that certain industries require those
Speaker 5: speciality steels. The minimals could, but answers already producing that
Speaker 5: in that space. If Newcastle were to go into liquidation
Speaker 5: or close down that plant, then there would be a gap.
Speaker 5: It could be replaced by imports, could be replaced by
Speaker 5: minimals upgrading their operations to become more sophisticated. But the
Speaker 5: net result is on the back of lower demand for steel,
Speaker 5: that there is too much steel available in the country
Speaker 5: plus is imports. So, by by way of example, don't
Speaker 5: some analysis on steel intensity. We at the level of
Speaker 5: steel intensity as we were in South Africa in the
Speaker 5: nineteen seventies, were using other products. Steel is used less
Speaker 5: for a whole lot of things.
Speaker 3: If Arsenal Metal were to close now, obviously there would
Speaker 3: be an awful economic impact in Newcastle. People and their
Speaker 3: families would lose income. Would it matter to the overall
Speaker 3: economy as a whole.
Speaker 5: I mean it's if if we can so. So there's
Speaker 5: there's trade offs. If you know, in any industry, if
Speaker 5: one player closes, those that survive will do better. So
Speaker 5: I mean it's it's it's never nice to see a big,
Speaker 5: major South African operation that's had a long history in
Speaker 5: this country, as it was in eSchool, closed down, and
Speaker 5: it will be devastating for those families, but I don't
Speaker 5: I mean there there there are other players who will
Speaker 5: step into that that place. It would be a disaster
Speaker 5: if we had to import a lot more of our
Speaker 5: still or we just couldn't make the products in the
Speaker 5: country anymore and had to import finished products. That would
Speaker 5: have a bigger knock on impact. But there's a trade off.
Speaker 5: The country just can't afford to keep, you know, playing
Speaker 5: one point five billion every six months to keep that
Speaker 5: that Newcastle plant open. But if there were resources to
Speaker 5: put into you know, the workers getting opportunities to maybe
Speaker 5: start smaller businesses or go into other operations or other
Speaker 5: industries being attracted to Newcastle, it could and should be
Speaker 5: done to try and mitigate some of the worst outcomes
Speaker 5: for individuals.
Speaker 3: Doctor Slivin really appreciate the thoughts. Thank you, Executive Director
Speaker 3: of Trade and Industrial Policy Strategies, Tips the money show
Speaker 3: the market, Queennam and locals from Equity Research Sales at
Speaker 3: absas CYRB Quina. Good evening, Thanks so much for coming
Speaker 3: in tonight. Lots on the boil. Not all of it
Speaker 3: related to markets, of course, in Vidia saying last night
Speaker 3: that it was allowed to sell some AI trips to
Speaker 3: China the American government had tried to regulate that quite closely.
Speaker 3: It's had quite an impact on in VideA today.
Speaker 6: That's right, Stephen. I mean when this happened, it was
Speaker 6: in the middle of sort of the US China trade
Speaker 6: negotiations and that melt down, So that news overnight was
Speaker 6: quite positive for the entire sort of tech space. You'll
Speaker 6: see on our side naspaus Process up just off of
Speaker 6: ten Cent being up three percent. And the reason that
Speaker 6: is is that, firstly, even though if you look through
Speaker 6: all the results, you've seen this momentum building in their
Speaker 6: operations in terms of productivity gains from the AI that
Speaker 6: they're developing, but they're using the old chips as well.
Speaker 6: So investors now looking ahead and saying, well, there's a
Speaker 6: potential now for continued operational momentum intensent that should definitely
Speaker 6: flow through into nas and Process. But I think a
Speaker 6: more global take on that would be that potentially, at
Speaker 6: least in the short term, the US China relations are
Speaker 6: probably in a slightly better place than they were in
Speaker 6: the beginning of the year.
Speaker 3: Well, that would be good news for China. I mean,
Speaker 3: they had second quarter GDP figures out today, their growth
Speaker 3: was not as slow as was expected, and this takes
Speaker 3: us straight to resilience around tariff exactly.
Speaker 6: The export numbers in particular were stronger than what one
Speaker 6: would have expected, but there was the narrative out there
Speaker 6: that China will find a place to place its exports,
Speaker 6: at least in the short term. But I think globally,
Speaker 6: this wasn't a result that would make you substantially upgrade
Speaker 6: your expectations for China GDP for the rest of the year.
Speaker 6: So the concerns around global growth, especially emerging market growth
Speaker 6: from China, still remained. This was just a temporary relief,
Speaker 6: I think. But what you'll see is none of their
Speaker 6: emerging market currencies jumped quite a bit.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 6: Everything is still very dependent on what Donald Trump has
Speaker 6: to say about tariffs and now the go live date
Speaker 6: is the first of August, So until then, I think
Speaker 6: most of your headlines will drive your returns, especially in
Speaker 6: the FX.
Speaker 3: I don't know what it is about that guy on
Speaker 3: Fridays seems to like to make news there. So Okay,
Speaker 3: we've got earning season starting next week that will probably
Speaker 3: drive US markets and ours to an extent, But Tariff's
Speaker 3: is still the kind of story even though we have
Speaker 3: absolutely no clue what's going to happen. And I keep
Speaker 3: making this point that yes we got our tariff letter,
Speaker 3: it made no mention of our political views or stances
Speaker 3: at all, and didn't with other countries either except for
Speaker 3: Brazil of course.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's right. I mean even within the US earning season,
Speaker 6: people have kept their earning the expectations high. But the
Speaker 6: question is always going to be on the outlook, right,
Speaker 6: what is going to happen. A thing that the US
Speaker 6: companies did is they stockpiled all their products, but they're
Speaker 6: running through those stock wells, so you have to now
Speaker 6: order in at the higher tariffs for US, I mean,
Speaker 6: it's just about the uncertainty going forward. I mean our
Speaker 6: earning season kicks off with the miners as well. That's
Speaker 6: another big sector that's impacted by tariffs. And again the
Speaker 6: outlooks of the companies become much more important, which could
Speaker 6: then add a little bit to volativity, especially inequities.
Speaker 3: Greennam Melocal thanks so much for coming in equity research
Speaker 3: sales from at Abscess CIB you with The Money Show
Speaker 3: just on six thirty The Money Show on seven o two.
Speaker 2: Monday till Friday, six to eight PM.
Speaker 3: Well, seventeen minutes now to seven the time, good to
Speaker 3: year from you tonight A no double one double A
Speaker 3: three oh seven oh two two one four four six
Speaker 3: o five six seven invoice this evening on seven two
Speaker 3: seven oh two one seven oh two. Well, as you
Speaker 3: heard around forty minutes ago, as we came to air
Speaker 3: that strongly worded statement from the presidency tonight accusing the
Speaker 3: DA of disinformation for claiming in a statement this afternoon
Speaker 3: that the President's Special Envoy to the US or now
Speaker 3: to North America and Klebsi Jonas, had been denied permission
Speaker 3: by Washington to represent South Africa there. The DA says
Speaker 3: he was denied accreditation the presidents. He says, that's not true.
Speaker 3: You heard the International Relations spokesperson Chrispin Piary half an
Speaker 3: hour ago saying on the record, it is not true
Speaker 3: that Jonas has been denied accreditation and that he had
Speaker 3: not been able to present in the accreditation to the
Speaker 3: US because he or any credential, because he hasn't been
Speaker 3: there yet. Johnna's also previously making statements critical of the
Speaker 3: US President Donald Trump. Statements sort of quite similar in
Speaker 3: a way to what our previous ambassador Abrahim Russeaul had
Speaker 3: said before he was also expelled, or before he was expelled. Rather,
Speaker 3: Emma palell is the DA spokesperson on international Relations and cooperation.
Speaker 3: It was her statement this afternoon that started all of this. Emma,
Speaker 3: good evening to you. What information do you base your
Speaker 3: claim on?
Speaker 7: Hi, thanks for having me so. Yesterday marked ninety days
Speaker 7: since Sebisi Jonas was appointed as Ramapausa's Special envoy to
Speaker 7: the United States, and we asked what he had achieved,
Speaker 7: and we said that we were going to an absence
Speaker 7: of information from the Presidency be submitting a Promotion for
Speaker 7: Access to Information Act request compelling the Presidency to provide
Speaker 7: details of all engagements, achievements, outcomes and travel to the
Speaker 7: United States. Now. In response to that statement, this morning,
Speaker 7: I received information directly from senior sources in the US
Speaker 7: Administration in Washington in response to that statement, noting that
Speaker 7: in May, the US Administration had in fact denied in
Speaker 7: subci Jonas a diplomatic visa, they had also formally rejected
Speaker 7: his request for credentialing, and that they had informed on
Speaker 7: multiple occasions our government, the Presidency various ANC officials that
Speaker 7: the US would not recognize Jonas as South Africa's interficial
Speaker 7: or official interlocutor, and that the administration had explicitly advised
Speaker 7: that Jonas was not acceptable to Washington and South Africa
Speaker 7: and the President had been urged to appoint an alternative envoy. Now,
Speaker 7: the question is, if mister BC Jonas is indeed our
Speaker 7: Head of States special envoy, then he would require diplomatic
Speaker 7: visas and certain state level credentials in order to enter
Speaker 7: into official negotiations and talks. What we know is that
Speaker 7: he has been denied these, and so I find it
Speaker 7: disingenuous that the Presidency has issued such a strongly worded
Speaker 7: statement when they are still to date unable to take
Speaker 7: the nation into their confidence and tell us what mister
Speaker 7: Jonas has achieved for South Africa in regards to resolving
Speaker 7: some of the tariff the looming Liberation Day tariff issues,
Speaker 7: as well as the non tariff barriers, which would of
Speaker 7: course be the issues that have been raised by the
Speaker 7: Trump administration since February this year.
Speaker 3: I'm going to come back to the trade stuff in
Speaker 3: just a moment. So you're saying your information is based
Speaker 3: from a senior source in the Trump administration.
Speaker 7: More than one source yes.
Speaker 3: Okay, why would they tell you this?
Speaker 7: Well, as you know, the US has grown increasingly frustrated
Speaker 7: that they do not have a credible, official and acceptable
Speaker 7: state level interlacky too with which to enter into negotiations.
Speaker 7: We know that Ambassador Ussaul was unceremoniously demashed and expelled,
Speaker 7: and since then the President appointed this special Envoy to
Speaker 7: the United States, But by the Presidency's own admission, special
Speaker 7: Envoy has not in fact traveled or entered into any
Speaker 7: formal state to state level negotiations. The DA keeps its
Speaker 7: communication channels with Washington d C open. We've invested significantly
Speaker 7: over the last eighteen months in building relationships at the
Speaker 7: White fust National Security Council and at Congress, so we talk.
Speaker 7: The ultimate objective is, of course, not to harm the
Speaker 7: bilateral relationship, but rather to find a pathway to repair
Speaker 7: the trust that's been broken into decreased tensions. Now, it
Speaker 7: seems to me that if the President was serious about
Speaker 7: avoiding the looming liberation date tariffs and striking a deal,
Speaker 7: he would be very clear on the specific mandate of
Speaker 7: a special envoy who works on behalf of his government
Speaker 7: and bring the nation into his confidence in terms of
Speaker 7: what the negotiating parameters are and what the outcome of
Speaker 7: those negotiations are as we head into this very difficult
Speaker 7: first of August period. The point is is that the
Speaker 7: Presidency has continued to maintain including in a tweet from
Speaker 7: the presidency spokesperson Vincent mcgreenia last night in response to
Speaker 7: my statement asking for that information, that by even asking
Speaker 7: these questions, the DA is and I quote encroaching on
Speaker 7: the President's mandate and amber and the President does not
Speaker 7: owe anybody answers.
Speaker 3: Okay, be that as it may, isn't I mean, one
Speaker 3: of the consistent points that comes out from the DERKO
Speaker 3: spokesperson Crispin Piri from the presidency statement is that how
Speaker 3: do I put this politely, that it's not really the
Speaker 3: business of the DA to do this. In fact, they
Speaker 3: go further and suggest that you're sort of, you know,
Speaker 3: working against South Africa's interests by maintaining these communication links. Now,
Speaker 3: I don't think anyone can say to you you can't
Speaker 3: talk to people. Of course you can. Is it really
Speaker 3: in the national interest for an opposition party to do that?
Speaker 3: I mean, if you were the leading party and government
Speaker 3: to us, say opposition party, you're in a difficult coalition.
Speaker 3: But if you were the political party that had both
Speaker 3: the president and the Turko Minister, wouldn't you be irritated
Speaker 3: if the ANC was meeting people in the Trump administration.
Speaker 7: Well, let's go back to the statement of Intent. The
Speaker 7: ANC didn't have the votes in Parliament to elect Sir
Speaker 7: Ol Ramapausa as the president. So after the signing of
Speaker 7: the Statement of Intent, it was agreed that the DA
Speaker 7: would support voting mister Ramapausa into the position of president,
Speaker 7: and that was underpinned by a Statement of Intent. One
Speaker 7: of the founding provisions of that statement was that there
Speaker 7: would be no departmentally sealed mandates and that all decisions
Speaker 7: and policy trajectories would be concluded on the basis of
Speaker 7: what they called sufficient consensus, so sixty percent of the
Speaker 7: partners and government having consensus. Now, as you know, during
Speaker 7: those negotiations where the DA was given six full ministries,
Speaker 7: you were not given any of the portfolios on what
Speaker 7: we call the security cluster, so that would be Defense, State, Security,
Speaker 7: Foreign Relations, or any of the ministries and the presidency.
Speaker 7: And the objective there was that the A and C
Speaker 7: could continue to pretend that they had an outright majority
Speaker 7: and to run South Africa's foreign policy trajectory on the
Speaker 7: basis of their liberation era return allegiances. In the absence
Speaker 7: of the A and C being able to provide any
Speaker 7: tangible outcomes of de escalation pathways or negotiations and agreements
Speaker 7: with the US, the DA stepped into that into that vacuum.
Speaker 7: It's no secret that the DA has been engaging in Washington,
Speaker 7: DC in South Africa's interests. Contrary to the Presidency's statement
Speaker 7: where he accuses US of aligning with right wing forces,
Speaker 7: we did the very opposite when Andrew and I were
Speaker 7: in Washington, DC earlier this year. In the three previous
Speaker 7: trips that I did, we waved South Africa's flag high.
Speaker 7: Durco knew about our troops, We were talking to them
Speaker 7: while we were there. In fact, I met an ambassador
Speaker 7: of Saul in the basement of Congress to update among
Speaker 7: discussions that I had been having. We certainly did not
Speaker 7: perpetuate or pedal any of the right wing narratives around
Speaker 7: certain segments of our population being under attack. We were
Speaker 7: there to find out what the US would consider it
Speaker 7: to be a pathway towards de escalation and what was
Speaker 7: required on the part of our government to mend relationships,
Speaker 7: so it's disingenuous. The point is is that instead of
Speaker 7: acting with pragmatism, the presidency is putting their pride ahead
Speaker 7: of the national interest. Now, what South African needs is
Speaker 7: we need a suitably qualified, capable and reputable interlock you
Speaker 7: to negotiate to ideally in the form of an ambassador.
Speaker 7: And in the absence of that, we need a special
Speaker 7: envoy to the US that is actually able to travel
Speaker 7: to the US, who's got official documentation, who's accepted by Washington,
Speaker 7: who's welcomed in Washington. And it seems to me that
Speaker 7: I have no Personally, I have no problem with mister Jonas,
Speaker 7: but it seems to me that his appointment would be
Speaker 7: better suited as an advisor to the presidency rather than
Speaker 7: a special envoy. The point is nothing is being done
Speaker 7: to resolve these issues.
Speaker 3: Okay, so I accept some of that, but I do
Speaker 3: need to come to a bigger point. And there are
Speaker 3: issues around in KLEBC Jonas which may need an explanation
Speaker 3: on your version from what you say, and particularly I
Speaker 3: mean if you say the presidency knew something or the
Speaker 3: president knew effect and didn't share it with the rest
Speaker 3: of us. That may be problematic. I mean, time will
Speaker 3: tell us which of these versions is correct. I do
Speaker 3: need to put another question to you, because you keep
Speaker 3: coming back to the same thing about trying to resolve
Speaker 3: the trade tension with Washington. Now completely agree that needs
Speaker 3: to be one of government's uppermost priorities at this moment.
Speaker 3: I'm not convinced that there is any South African who could.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's bizarre to me that we have to
Speaker 3: discuss the identities of South Africans who would be acceptable
Speaker 3: to the Trump administration. That's problematic. For a start, I'm
Speaker 3: not entirely convinced there's any South African outside of maybe
Speaker 3: a few who I suppose mostly look like me, perhaps
Speaker 3: on the right wing, and perhaps play better golf than
Speaker 3: I do, who would be acceptable to President Trump. I mean,
Speaker 3: we need to be plunt here. I'm also not convinced
Speaker 3: that it entirely matters, because if you look at his
Speaker 3: letter that he sent to us, which was a copy
Speaker 3: and paste with just a different percentage to most of
Speaker 3: the other countries, he didn't tie politics at all to
Speaker 3: his trade decisions. This is Trump's trade narrative. Nothing seems
Speaker 3: to change him from that, and we could be as
Speaker 3: good a negotiator or as clever a person as Mark Carney,
Speaker 3: but it's not going to change it. My point is,
Speaker 3: I'm not sure it matters whether we have a special
Speaker 3: envoy there or not.
Speaker 7: So I here your concerns around identity politics. But let
Speaker 7: me assure you that the issue of mister Jonas, as
Speaker 7: was the case with Ambassador Rousseaul, is not about identity politics.
Speaker 7: It's about previous remarks that have been made that have
Speaker 7: been deeply insulting, in which accusations have been made about
Speaker 7: President Donald Trump. Regardless of what one subjective opinion on
Speaker 7: those statements is, they have indeed offended the President of
Speaker 7: the United States. Secondly, there's a bigger problem at play
Speaker 7: here in regards to mister Jonas. And this is not
Speaker 7: to cast any aspersions because these matters are being litigated
Speaker 7: before the courts. But mister Jonas is currently the chairperson
Speaker 7: of the MTN Group. Now, the MTN Group is currently
Speaker 7: defending numerous sets of litigation in the United States that
Speaker 7: allege that MTN violated US anti terrorism laws by engaging
Speaker 7: in a number of different sets of business transactions. One
Speaker 7: of them relates to Afghanistan in the Taliban, and another
Speaker 7: one of those relates to be a run salt Turk
Speaker 7: cell deal and sanctioned entities that were involved, as well
Speaker 7: as bribes and corruption that have been alleged at the time.
Speaker 7: So we have not been informed by the individuals that
Speaker 7: have provided us with this information from the US Administration
Speaker 7: in DC as to whether or not it was previous
Speaker 7: remarks or a conflict of interests. They haven't given us
Speaker 7: the reason that the diplomatic visa was declined, or that
Speaker 7: the credentials were declined, or that they've told the presidency
Speaker 7: that they will not officially accept engagements with mister Jonas.
Speaker 7: But I don't believe that it comes down to identity,
Speaker 7: politics or one's ability to play golf. To your second point,
Speaker 7: we have seen very successfully that a number of countries
Speaker 7: who've been hit with these liberation dead tariffs have hit
Speaker 7: the ground running. They've taken it seriously, they've entered into negotiations,
Speaker 7: and they've now been able to strike deals. It's not impossible.
Speaker 7: We know that it just requires urgency, pragmatism, and offering
Speaker 7: the US a good deal. What the US have been
Speaker 7: very clear with South Africa is about that they want
Speaker 7: competitive deals, equally competitive deals to the deals that we
Speaker 7: get from countries, and they've specifically stated the European Union
Speaker 7: and countries such as China, and there are a number
Speaker 7: of trade arritants that the US need result. So whilst
Speaker 7: I hear and I accept your paying devil's advocate in
Speaker 7: terms of you know, is this about identity? This specific
Speaker 7: issue is not about identity. The bottom line is that
Speaker 7: South Africa's and middle power, we have got everything to
Speaker 7: play for in everything to lose. We could potentially see
Speaker 7: the collapse of our automotive sector if the twenty five
Speaker 7: percent tariffs come into effect. We're already seeing serious concerning
Speaker 7: signals coming out of the Eastern Cape from certain car
Speaker 7: manufacturers that I won't mention. And then in the Western
Speaker 7: Cape where the DA governs, of course, agricultures on the line.
Speaker 7: Are citrus exports, are wine exports, and we need skilled
Speaker 7: negotiators who are acceptable to the United States. So you know,
Speaker 7: I act in South Africa's best interests. But unfortunately, two
Speaker 7: weeks out from the first of all, the presidency is
Speaker 7: refusing to provide any details of updates. We're unable to
Speaker 7: get updates from DT I see, and the fact of
Speaker 7: the matter is that I don't think that anything of tangible,
Speaker 7: the significant impact is being done in the background to
Speaker 7: stave off this, this looming economic catastrophe.
Speaker 3: Emma Pal thank you. The DA spokesperson International Relations and Cooperation. Right, Well,
Speaker 3: you've heard her version of events. Quite a lot there
Speaker 3: to look at. She says that this information came to
Speaker 3: her from sources within the Trump administration. Won't give us
Speaker 3: more than that you heard earlier from Crispin Pirie, the
Speaker 3: spokesperson for the International Development, International Relations and Cooperation, saying
Speaker 3: that it is not true. Very clear, he says that
Speaker 3: this is not true. You'll view on this. So double one,
Speaker 3: double A three seven two two one four four six
Speaker 3: o five sixty seven.
Speaker 1: The Money Show, which Stephen Krudez is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Absolute Corporate and Investment Bank Drought, sponsor of the
Speaker 1: African Blockchain Report twenty two more.
Speaker 3: Well, of course, a lot of our first hour, pretty
Speaker 3: much all of it been taken up by that conversation
Speaker 3: around the United States, around Uncle BC join US. I
Speaker 3: suspect it's going to be a little while before we
Speaker 3: really know where the truth lies. It's not often you
Speaker 3: get one person in politics saying in a specifically XYZ
Speaker 3: and the other saying categorically XYZ is not true. I
Speaker 3: mean usually people sort of play around with words in
Speaker 3: these moments, but in this case it does seem that
Speaker 3: is the case. Two very different versions sort of being
Speaker 3: put to us this evening. I think there will be
Speaker 3: more conversations and more public debate to come. There are
Speaker 3: legitimate questions to ask about a party that is not
Speaker 3: the holder of the position of international relations and corporation
Speaker 3: sort of speaking to other countries. But how can you
Speaker 3: say to a South African you can't go and talk
Speaker 3: to politicians somewhere else? Will be nonsensical to say that.
Speaker 3: So there are lots of different ways in which you
Speaker 3: can understand this. I keep coming back to the point though,
Speaker 3: can anyone change the mind of the person in the
Speaker 3: White House when it comes to tariffs? You at The
Speaker 3: Money Show at seven o'clock.
Speaker 1: And now The Money Show with Stephen Credits on seven
Speaker 1: o two next walk Little.
Speaker 3: The Money Show with Stephen Curtis is brought to you
Speaker 3: by AUBS of Corporate, an investment bank proud sponsor of
Speaker 3: the African Blockchain Report. Twenty twenty four coming up in
Speaker 3: the next few moments, we'll discuss beef prices. Move away
Speaker 3: from the politicians and talk about beef prices, and of course,
Speaker 3: in light of the foot and mouth outbreak, you'd expect
Speaker 3: there'll be a spike in beef prices and in beef carcasses.
Speaker 3: There was that seems to have come down. Rotend to Houndwingui.
Speaker 3: He's already here with your Africa update. We'll go through
Speaker 3: some of the big business stories on our continent and
Speaker 3: personal finance this evening, Warren Ingram is away. We'll be
Speaker 3: speaking to tab Or hall or now from the old
Speaker 3: mutual financial education, particularly around online gambling, and this is
Speaker 3: one of the big changes in financial behavior that we've
Speaker 3: seen around online gambling in some way is really quite scary.
Speaker 3: How much money is going into online gambling at the moment,
Speaker 3: and the fact that rarely, over time, the odds are
Speaker 3: against you, and some people it seems, are gambling rarely
Speaker 3: motivated by a desire to get out of debt, which
Speaker 3: scares me big time. We'll talk more about that online
Speaker 3: gambling is becoming a big, big thing. Good to hear
Speaker 3: from you this evening. Oh double one double a three
Speaker 3: seven two two one four four, six oh five six
Speaker 3: seven and voice notes this evening on seven two, seven
Speaker 3: oh two one seven oh two The Money Show with
Speaker 3: Stephen Well while all of the other political noise was
Speaker 3: going on around Uncle B C. Johnas a confirmation from
Speaker 3: the Transport Minister, the Barbara Creesy that the board of
Speaker 3: the Road Accident Fund has now been fired or dissolved bick.
Speaker 3: A word relieved from their duty seems to be in
Speaker 3: vogue this week, and it follows, of course, the board's
Speaker 3: decision to put Collins left Swallow on suspension or special
Speaker 3: leave again, pick your choice. He's sort of fought that
Speaker 3: so far as I know, he hasn't had any success
Speaker 3: in that. But we can keep messing around with the
Speaker 3: politics and the internal goings on in the Road Accident Fund.
Speaker 3: A couple of things stand out for me. The one
Speaker 3: is there's a large amount of money involved here. The second,
Speaker 3: and we spoke to the Minister about this I think
Speaker 3: two weeks ago. The current model is just not working.
Speaker 3: It is tied up in courts. I mean I've sat
Speaker 3: in a courtroom and watched advocate after advocates come to
Speaker 3: represent a case against the fund I mean, it just
Speaker 3: goes on and on and on. Where I'm really going
Speaker 3: with all of this is that the structure needs to
Speaker 3: be changed. Now the Minister agrees, and there'll be a
Speaker 3: sort of no fault system. There'll be a sort of
Speaker 3: standardized rate for what you get paid out, so it
Speaker 3: won't pay you out for future earnings which led to
Speaker 3: some quite insane payments to foreign tourists and things like that,
Speaker 3: and hopefully it won't be based so much on which
Speaker 3: lawyer you get to represent you. I do think though,
Speaker 3: that there's a need for urgency. So if the board
Speaker 3: has been dissolved, now we need to get a lot
Speaker 3: more and new board. They need to deal for concert
Speaker 3: swallow situation very quickly and change the structure. And this
Speaker 3: should not get tied up in coalition debates or arguments
Speaker 3: or just general politics. It needs to happen. It needs
Speaker 3: to happen quickly. And people who are in accidents, if
Speaker 3: there is a legal way for them to be compensated,
Speaker 3: must be compensated. That really is what needs to happen.
Speaker 3: Do you think it will. I'm not holding my breath.
Speaker 3: Stephen has gone.
Speaker 6: X at at Stephen.
Speaker 3: Whether it meat producers organization confirming the price of beef
Speaker 3: carcasses is starting to moderate. Prices did spike after the
Speaker 3: outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Now it seems those
Speaker 3: prices are coming down. To Bila and Kunja is an
Speaker 3: agricultural economist, to Bila, good evening. I mean, I remember
Speaker 3: the moment when it was confirmed there was a foot
Speaker 3: and mouth outbreak in Ka Teng, and I presume it's
Speaker 3: almost normal in agricultural economics for that to push meat
Speaker 3: prices up quite sharply.
Speaker 8: Yeah, something is the listeners. Yeah, so that is correct
Speaker 8: because I remember that, you know, when it comes to meat,
Speaker 8: they as much as it is an issue for other
Speaker 8: cloud products, the issue of supply and demand is always
Speaker 8: the kid driver there. Once we have in an issue
Speaker 8: where we don't really have enough that you're getting into
Speaker 8: the mand that they're always going to see these things.
Speaker 8: But you know, this is something that we anticipated once
Speaker 8: we saw those outbreaks. We are actually following another issue.
Speaker 8: We remember earlier on we had a problem with the
Speaker 8: feit prices that were quite a big problem as we
Speaker 8: were coming from you know, the previous season because of
Speaker 8: the drought that impacted the production of it. So once
Speaker 8: we were going to that. Before we actually even began
Speaker 8: to recover to that, we had had these outbreaks, you know,
Speaker 8: for the mob disease, and another issue was another outbreak
Speaker 8: in Brazil for the evening influence, which also again affected
Speaker 8: you know, our supply of meat in general. Because meat
Speaker 8: prices across they tend to be moving, you know, towards
Speaker 8: you know, the same direction, depending on which product is
Speaker 8: more avaidable. Consumers tend to go for those that are
Speaker 8: more afaidable more.
Speaker 3: Can you see when a spike starts and then the
Speaker 3: foot and mouth outbreak sort of is over, It doesn't
Speaker 3: It doesn't end as quickly as it is declared. Of course,
Speaker 3: it ends in a slower way. Is there a sort
Speaker 3: of classical kind of shape on the graph It goes
Speaker 3: up quickly and then comes down over a certain period.
Speaker 8: Yeah, because that again, it is determined by a number
Speaker 8: of actors. They when including the fact that you know,
Speaker 8: as I was trying to explain that, once you know,
Speaker 8: the consumers see that amongst the products that remember that
Speaker 8: meat prices you know, I depend on the cuts and
Speaker 8: all that. So for the consumers now if they see
Speaker 8: that there is more affaidability in instance, normally you know
Speaker 8: a class C, they will fly into that. And also
Speaker 8: given the fact that you also tend to have credit
Speaker 8: economic issues and so afterca that determines this again, now
Speaker 8: that's going to be an impact of costumers buying more
Speaker 8: of that that automatically is going to drive that prices,
Speaker 8: which is something that we have seen. And then that
Speaker 8: of course, again it depends on whether how much of
Speaker 8: a balance you're going to have to admit it. We
Speaker 8: are having an availability of poultry the other sand with
Speaker 8: which we had issues again because of the slot of
Speaker 8: the supply that we have sued from the coming from US.
Speaker 8: So it does not really have a time spend. It
Speaker 8: depends on how you know how much the costumers depend
Speaker 8: the hispanic bag buying of specific products and then you're
Speaker 8: going to curdou see that spike immediately, but that again
Speaker 8: it is normally not the same across the products. If
Speaker 8: if you had to look across the mid types, then
Speaker 8: some they will increase sharply given the fact that costumers
Speaker 8: are flying to buy that. But then for others, especial
Speaker 8: goods that tend to be expensive, you normally don't see
Speaker 8: a spike in that. But then again that is going
Speaker 8: to be determined by the supply and demand of those
Speaker 8: products that consumers are buying adan size.
Speaker 3: This happened at a Karen feed lot in Hearting. We
Speaker 3: don't often have foot in mouth and Karting is not
Speaker 3: as often as you would in Was that a a
Speaker 3: major factor in how prices responded? Parting Central Province and
Speaker 3: Karen as I understand, quite a big feed lot.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was that.
Speaker 8: That was a big fight. I still remember that in
Speaker 8: South Africa about seventy percent of the beef that we
Speaker 8: are to consume across that supply across the country, it
Speaker 8: is coming from the federal system. And then when a
Speaker 8: bigger supplier of the of the beef through the FIDLOW
Speaker 8: system that supplies around seventy percent, it is bound to
Speaker 8: have issues in terms of the supply. And then with
Speaker 8: Current being a leading supplier and the producer of this
Speaker 8: and having to have an outbreak in one of their
Speaker 8: largest you know fed lots that was boundary have issues
Speaker 8: in terms of the other supply, which is why we
Speaker 8: sow that you know that spike you know in a
Speaker 8: in the in the press, and remember that said on
Speaker 8: we already had seen an issue in terms of mid
Speaker 8: prices even earlier on because of the fit crices and
Speaker 8: then a perfect storm king drop because we had seen
Speaker 8: therese outbreaks and then again coming across a pert when
Speaker 8: there was already another issue in terms of other methods,
Speaker 8: particularly the chicken, which is normally an available PRIs So
Speaker 8: that is why those factors in perfect storming it that
Speaker 8: led to all you know this in the Prices Act.
Speaker 8: So but it is good that you know for now
Speaker 8: things look like are going that's not going to be
Speaker 8: in one we think it's going to be depending on
Speaker 8: the factors we are seeing at breaks and in recent days.
Speaker 8: So that's another affect that you're gonna be monitoring. And
Speaker 8: it's gonna always in an impact piece.
Speaker 3: No sure. And things like rain which would affect feed
Speaker 3: the price of feed for cattle, does that ever become
Speaker 3: a factor? I mean, how bad does the drought have
Speaker 3: to be before that becomes a fact in the price
Speaker 3: of beef?
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean the drought it's always gonna be a
Speaker 8: problem still, I mean the way this route or otherwise.
Speaker 8: But what is important is that the issue around the
Speaker 8: reign is that it positively impact it's generally the mains
Speaker 8: production figure, which is the key combinding that supplies the
Speaker 8: feed to the federal system and generally and animal livestock production.
Speaker 8: So when we have quite a good year like the
Speaker 8: one that we are currently looking into WASS you are
Speaker 8: quite heaver rebounds from the private season. So that is
Speaker 8: generally a good thing, you know, in terms of the
Speaker 8: prices were still you're going to have normal prices, but
Speaker 8: not excluding the fact that for the figure is not
Speaker 8: a bigger player if you are to look into the
Speaker 8: global space. But then again, even when you're looking in
Speaker 8: the global space, they know there's generally enough Craine to
Speaker 8: supply you know, livestock for yourself. So therefore when it
Speaker 8: comes to that, we are generally fine. But the issue
Speaker 8: is going to remain around these are breaks that because
Speaker 8: as I said earlier on that we have seen quite
Speaker 8: a significanty line in terms of the slotter numbers, meaning
Speaker 8: if you are to compete the progress ys, that has
Speaker 8: a serious indications in terms of how much is available
Speaker 8: and which products that the counsumers want to buy. Even
Speaker 8: though the terrain itself does and input in the role,
Speaker 8: especially in terms of the feed that we want to
Speaker 8: supply for them, not for the producers otherwise we can
Speaker 8: have enough and available a feed. But if the supplier
Speaker 8: in terms of the slotter numbers are not coming, as
Speaker 8: it is the case in Understandance because of the limitations
Speaker 8: and movements and all that, that is always going to
Speaker 8: have a set of implications in terms of the supply
Speaker 8: and then eventually the price that you're going to be
Speaker 8: paying for the mid at the end of the day.
Speaker 3: In some agricultural commodity, so chicken, for example, highly traded
Speaker 3: around the world. We produce a lot of our own chicken,
Speaker 3: and we also import a lot of our own chicken.
Speaker 3: And I'm not sure we import nearly as much beef.
Speaker 3: But if we had a long term foot and mouth outbreak,
Speaker 3: how long would it take before imports started to come
Speaker 3: in and started to bring prices down.
Speaker 8: Yeah, So that one, it's going to depend on how
Speaker 8: much you know of the current outbo we're seeing in
Speaker 8: terms of efflquent and s stiven, because we cannot really
Speaker 8: just you know, based on the number of the current heaving.
Speaker 8: Let's just say, lord, we need to import anyway, So
Speaker 8: THATSAA does import you know, beef, but this is mostly
Speaker 8: in the form of live in the form of life
Speaker 8: winners mostly from Botswana and then maybe which I have always
Speaker 8: been our supplier of winners, but generally so that does
Speaker 8: import a few. But in we are a net export
Speaker 8: a meaning we produce and we sell more than we buy,
Speaker 8: so we don't really have an issue there. So therefore,
Speaker 8: even if we are to see you know, an issue
Speaker 8: in terms of these art breaks, it's gonna take a
Speaker 8: while to see in terms of we really need to
Speaker 8: put breaks you know, in terms of general of producing domestically,
Speaker 8: and then we can say then we're gonna rely on
Speaker 8: buying you know, outside because that has sort of indications
Speaker 8: for the sector because you know, there's a lot of
Speaker 8: course that you has to be taken into consideration in
Speaker 8: the number of people that are empled across these sectors
Speaker 8: because of the formers themselves that currently are holding their
Speaker 8: LifeLock into their fie loves and also to make sure
Speaker 8: that they're getting you know, their products into the system.
Speaker 8: But then again, the number of the frequency of these
Speaker 8: outbreaks we are saying, is gonna take to mind of
Speaker 8: how much we're gonna be you know, we think that
Speaker 8: indefecially in the policies and the decisions that I need
Speaker 8: to be made in relations to those frequences. And then
Speaker 8: then therefore that's only when we're gonna be able to
Speaker 8: say maybe the company is still rail consider buying base outside.
Speaker 8: But then until then we're gonna be monitoring the heartbreaks
Speaker 8: which are really an issue as this.
Speaker 3: Then for now Tabillian contract, thanks so much, Agricultural econmosts
Speaker 3: really appreciate the time.
Speaker 4: So many shows the Africa Business Reports.
Speaker 3: Doctor Rotendo and Dunki is founding director of Tribe Africa Advisory,
Speaker 3: author of the book Rumble in the Jungle Reloaded and
Speaker 3: good to see you again Rotendo, thanks so much for
Speaker 3: coming in. Key Gari is spending one hundred million dollars
Speaker 3: on a cable car project. Do we mean I mean,
Speaker 3: I know it's mountainous Inerwanda, Do we need them mountain
Speaker 3: or do it mean like a trolley car?
Speaker 9: No, it's essentially on the mountainous side, and that's one
Speaker 9: of the reasons that they've had it. But wander and again,
Speaker 9: a good evening to you, Steven, and a good evening
Speaker 9: to your listeners. Rwanda always in the forefront from an
Speaker 9: African perspective initiative. If you remember at one time the
Speaker 9: drones and the blood and then also they were in
Speaker 9: the forefront with VW doing that mobile solution and assembly plant.
Speaker 9: So they have invested about one hundred million US dollars
Speaker 9: in cable cars and the reason for this look the
Speaker 9: logic is quite simple. They want to decongest traffic as
Speaker 9: well as obviously go green and also optimize in terms
Speaker 9: of people traveling. The cable cars are also an attraction
Speaker 9: from a tourist perspective because remember there's a lot of
Speaker 9: mountains and there's a lot of tourism around that, so
Speaker 9: people moving up and down the mountains and this is
Speaker 9: going to be intertwined with the regards to the transport system,
Speaker 9: so it's got a lot of positives around it. They
Speaker 9: expect to move Stephen about fifty thousand people through this
Speaker 9: and reduce the average travel time in the urban areas
Speaker 9: by fifteen minutes, which converts to mobility. So it's a
Speaker 9: good initiative and it will be the first in sub
Speaker 9: set in Africa, and I think the plan to go
Speaker 9: live twenty twenty six, So it's a great initiative and
Speaker 9: another positive direction for for wunder Cape.
Speaker 3: Tom's going to say we did it first. We all
Speaker 3: know what's going to happen.
Speaker 9: Not be wrong with a bit of competition. Stud it's
Speaker 9: not wrong with a bit of competitions.
Speaker 3: Looking at job creation now sports sector a big investment
Speaker 3: of fifty million dollars. It's interesting because if you look
Speaker 3: at the youth bulge in Africa, you want the African
Speaker 3: sports audience in the future, you really do. Yeah, I
Speaker 3: mean America, sure, but mature markets you need to come here.
Speaker 9: And that's a to put a figure to it. The
Speaker 9: sports market for Africa is a twenty billion US dollar
Speaker 9: industry and it's grained on average about two percent year
Speaker 9: on year, so worthwhile investing. The companies that invested in
Speaker 9: it are well. The vehicle is Helio, which is listed,
Speaker 9: which is registered in the UK, but it's focused in
Speaker 9: terms of the Africa space. They've received an injection of
Speaker 9: fifteen million US dollars from popra Co which is a
Speaker 9: subsidiary of a French company, as well as the IFC,
Speaker 9: so the World Bank is also partnering there. And really
Speaker 9: the financing is to help sport ip event management, infrastructure
Speaker 9: and retail and hospitality. And the key for partner Steven
Speaker 9: that I involved in this initiative, NBA Africa one of
Speaker 9: my favorite companies, the Malachit Group, PFL Africa as well
Speaker 9: as Zarrea. And really at the end of the day,
Speaker 9: I think the challenge in Africa, Steven, is that we've
Speaker 9: got a lot of talent, got a lot of young people.
Speaker 9: Social media has obviously amplified the capability of Africa. But
Speaker 9: I think the big challenge, and this goes back to
Speaker 9: the Multilateral Trade and Finance Bank africsan bank actually investing
Speaker 9: in the creative industry through Canics, which is a vehicle
Speaker 9: that they used to enhance the entertainment industry in Africa.
Speaker 9: But the big challenge in Africa is how do you
Speaker 9: convert all that capability, that skill into IP which not
Speaker 9: only from an IP perspective, but also into a balance
Speaker 9: sheet item that can actually be invested in. And you
Speaker 9: can see reteral investment. And this is one of the
Speaker 9: initiatives that this Popera Core and IVFC have done through
Speaker 9: Halio in terms of injecting this capital to actually target
Speaker 9: key initiatives like this. It's quite exciting. As I said,
Speaker 9: a big GDP of twenty billionaois dollars is the creative
Speaker 9: industry in Africa. So when you've got investors like this
Speaker 9: coming to the party. It to definitely make an impact
Speaker 9: and translate into jobs for the young people like you
Speaker 9: and me.
Speaker 3: Stop it. There's certain things you'd have to do to
Speaker 3: make this work. So your sporting leagues need to be
Speaker 3: more professional sporting clubs. And I say this quite deliberately.
Speaker 3: We could start with the PSLs sometimes. I mean we
Speaker 3: shouldn't have government money to buy a VL system and
Speaker 3: things like that. I mean you need and then you
Speaker 3: can have a proper I mean we have an Africa League,
Speaker 3: but you could you know, into club thing, but you
Speaker 3: can have a real kind of you know, the bottom
Speaker 3: of the league plays the bottom of the league. You
Speaker 3: could really, I mean, there's so much potential to do
Speaker 3: it if you run it properly.
Speaker 9: No, one hundred percent sive and I think it has
Speaker 9: to start from the grassroots, not just from as I said,
Speaker 9: the talent is that you go into the townships, you
Speaker 9: go into the rural areas, you go into the urban areas.
Speaker 9: Whether it's sports, whether it's cricket, whether it's basketball, whether
Speaker 9: it's just pure acting. The skill sets are there. The
Speaker 9: said part is there's not enough of an ecosystem that
Speaker 9: is structured that has got accountability that goes all the
Speaker 9: way to the top, so that an internal or external
Speaker 9: investor and I'm talking from an Africa perspective, can look
Speaker 9: at you and say, God, this is an asset that
Speaker 9: I can actually invest in, and not only invest in,
Speaker 9: but actually scale.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 9: And when you look at social media you see the
Speaker 9: talent and the capability, it's scaling that to the next
Speaker 9: level so that it becomes a viable business opportunity. So
Speaker 9: that's why this investment by Helio in conjunction with proper
Speaker 9: Core and IFC is a step in the right direction. Stephen.
Speaker 3: And there was a lot of talk about what was
Speaker 3: happening with Total Energy and Mozambique and particularly around the
Speaker 3: situation Cabo Delgado, the insurgency there, and now it seems
Speaker 3: that that twenty billion dollar liquified natural gas project is
Speaker 3: going to continue.
Speaker 9: Yeah, so, member, Stephen, I mean just the history of
Speaker 9: this project goes back to twenty twenty one. Obviously, the
Speaker 9: Islamic insurgents in Mozambique, it took a bit of a
Speaker 9: stop and also the investors. America was involved, the UK
Speaker 9: was involved, but the big players is Total and the
Speaker 9: CEO Patrick Poyan, I hope I say that quite nicely.
Speaker 9: Recently met I think it was last week Thursday with
Speaker 9: the president, the new elected president of Mozambique, President Chapel,
Speaker 9: and they've more or less said, okay, this project is
Speaker 9: going to continue. They're confident that the security measures they've
Speaker 9: put in they will make a big impact. And next
Speaker 9: year is when they're going to restart everything. That's based
Speaker 9: on what they've said so far. Why is this so
Speaker 9: important not just from mozambig perspective in terms of infrastructure,
Speaker 9: in terms of job creation, but for the region, l
Speaker 9: G plays a significant part in terms of if if
Speaker 9: the infrastructure in the region builds up, it contributes in
Speaker 9: terms of power and electricity and energy, which is really
Speaker 9: which is needed in the region. So quite a great initiative.
Speaker 9: And hopefully this time when it does pick up, that
Speaker 9: the whole insurgent Islamic problem will have gone away. But
Speaker 9: I doubt it's ephen because you know that those regions
Speaker 9: are highly volatile. But let's let's on the side of
Speaker 9: question and hopefully this thing will take off and be
Speaker 9: sustainable and grow and grow as expected.
Speaker 3: And in Liberia they have been having a conversation with
Speaker 3: the US Embassy in Monroevia. This is about the signing
Speaker 3: of a big deal around around power exploration.
Speaker 9: Yeah, to put a figure on at one point eight billion,
Speaker 9: and just to look at the players that are involved.
Speaker 9: I mean Liberia obviously based in West Africa and close
Speaker 9: to Guinea, so you've got two big players in terms
Speaker 9: of the iron ore mining space there, Stevens. So first
Speaker 9: you've got ivan Hare, which is an American company owned
Speaker 9: by HPX, and they've got minds in Guinea and they
Speaker 9: come through rail to Liberia to be exported obviously back
Speaker 9: to the US or to other international markets. But you've
Speaker 9: also got Usler Metal that is also involved. Now they're
Speaker 9: using the same railway line, so carrying is sharing or
Speaker 9: sharing is carrying as the same goals. But they challenge
Speaker 9: that is there is that HPX is coming said, look,
Speaker 9: we want to invest in one point eight billion in
Speaker 9: terms of the railway line and we believe it's going
Speaker 9: to make we needed and HPX Usler Metal is a
Speaker 9: bit unhappy with that because they're saying, well, does that
Speaker 9: mean that there's no longer any future investment in US
Speaker 9: So there's a bit of a dispute there, but at
Speaker 9: the end of the day, it's one point eight billion
Speaker 9: US dollars of investment. Initially the deal was supposed to
Speaker 9: be confirmed. The librarians are saying, no, the deal is confirmed.
Speaker 9: The Americans are saying no, no, it was. It was
Speaker 9: just an agreement in terms of expression of interest. Maybe
Speaker 9: it's the English is not so clear into regards to this,
Speaker 9: but Steven otherwise, it took.
Speaker 3: Me a minute to get that. Oh that was a
Speaker 3: good dig. Yeah, that was a good dig.
Speaker 9: Only the English is aligned. But ultimately, at the end
Speaker 9: of the day, if this works out, it leads, it
Speaker 9: gives opportunity in terms of growth and infrastructure in that space.
Speaker 3: And very quickly the Egyptian billionaire Naguib soars they're spending
Speaker 3: one hundred million dollars. They're going to convert motorbikes to
Speaker 3: electric power in Morocco, and I mean you see more
Speaker 3: and more electric driven by electric whatever, electric bikes in
Speaker 3: South Africa. I mean, it's the way forward.
Speaker 9: It's a one hundred million years dollars and it's specifically
Speaker 9: to to drive with regards the conversion of fossil fuel
Speaker 9: back to electrical power. He's injected one hundred million. He's
Speaker 9: a billionnaire obviously from Egypt. And the idea is this
Speaker 9: is in line with Morocco's ambition to have fifty percent
Speaker 9: of their energy mix by twenty thirty renewable energy. And
Speaker 9: I think currently their average their greed is study about
Speaker 9: forty in terms of renewable energy. So obviously the initiative,
Speaker 9: I think the exciting stort of for me as Steven
Speaker 9: is that you're looking at an African country in another
Speaker 9: African country to make it a positive impact. And that's
Speaker 9: the kind of initiative we're trying to sort of relate
Speaker 9: across the whole of the continent.
Speaker 3: Rotundo and doing really good to see. Thanks very much, indeed,
Speaker 3: doctor and Doring Glee is of course the is, of
Speaker 3: course the person we speak to for our Africa Update
Speaker 3: every week, the founding director of Tribe Africa Advisory. You've
Speaker 3: just gone seven thirty on The Money Show.
Speaker 4: The Money Show, Personal Finance.
Speaker 3: Well, Warren Ingram is out this evening. Tabo Halo is
Speaker 3: the program manager for Old Mutual Financial Education at TUBLE.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Good of you to join us tonight, and
Speaker 3: thanks very much. Indeed, we're talking about online gambling this
Speaker 3: evening and I've been utterly amazed by how quickly this
Speaker 3: seems to have taken off over the last three years.
Speaker 3: The adverts are everywhere. The gambling industry in South Africa
Speaker 3: is a turnover. I mean it's a trillion rand a year.
Speaker 3: It's incredible when you think about it. And the Amba
Speaker 3: Bungani Center for Investigative Journalism has said that virtue all
Speaker 3: of this money seems to go overseas. It's not making
Speaker 3: South Africans riches a too. How quickly has this sort
Speaker 3: of happened. It seems to have happened very fast.
Speaker 10: Grivening and steven and thanks for the opportunity and grieving
Speaker 10: in to your listener. And certainly, if you look at
Speaker 10: the growth of a very short period, it kind of
Speaker 10: caught us napping, isn't it that it grew up so
Speaker 10: so so quickly? And outstanding that looking at an amount
Speaker 10: of around a trillion revent that that's an incredible number,
Speaker 10: if by any stretch of imagination. So yes, it's it's
Speaker 10: quite a big, big number and certainly a bit of
Speaker 10: a wirying phenomena if you ask.
Speaker 3: Me, well, I'm going to come on to that in
Speaker 3: a moment, what are we gambling on? And we're gambling
Speaker 3: on sport? Right we're South African?
Speaker 10: Oh, yes, South African. It seems like sports betting is
Speaker 10: our our choice. If you look get out of the
Speaker 10: total amount of trill and rent, over seven hundred billion
Speaker 10: went into into sports, into sports betting. So it's it
Speaker 10: would seem like, at least from from the findings, that
Speaker 10: sports betting seem to be overwhelmingly the the betting choice.
Speaker 3: There's something quite attractive, isn't it. And I'm not on
Speaker 3: the field with downs or the box, but I can
Speaker 3: sort of, you know, have a stake in whether they
Speaker 3: win or lose. I mean, I can see the power
Speaker 3: of that, the idea that you're a part of it.
Speaker 3: You're not just watching, you're actually playing. You have a
Speaker 3: much bigger stake in what happens.
Speaker 10: Look, certainly it would present some sort of an allure
Speaker 10: of being part of it, right and and well, for
Speaker 10: some it might be a harmless fun just taking a
Speaker 10: bed or two, right, but it becomes more problematic when
Speaker 10: it becomes almost like a problematic gambling, it becomes pathological,
Speaker 10: so it tends quickly into into an addiction. So yes,
Speaker 10: from a distance. It might look like some fun, but
Speaker 10: we must quick be quick to acknowledge that it can
Speaker 10: also turn into a problem.
Speaker 3: How, How and when does it turn into a problem.
Speaker 3: I mean, this is always the big question with something
Speaker 3: like gambling once or twice might be fun, it's just entertainment.
Speaker 3: It's fine, I can lose that money. It doesn't seem
Speaker 3: to stay like that for so many.
Speaker 10: People, not not for a lot of people. Certainly doesn't
Speaker 10: seem to stay like that. And if you look at
Speaker 10: the text now, is that there's increase in the number
Speaker 10: of addictioning cases at least in the in the gameless space.
Speaker 10: And you're starting to see studies are studying to show
Speaker 10: and increase, unfortunately, in pathological and problematic gambling, so that
Speaker 10: that in itself is seemingly on their rise and on
Speaker 10: the increase unfortunately.
Speaker 3: M I think for a lot of people, they feel
Speaker 3: that they can win, and look the adverts, very glamorous,
Speaker 3: et cetera. I mean, it is true that you can win.
Speaker 3: Isn't that really the problem?
Speaker 10: Actually, it's not necessarily false that you might win, but
Speaker 10: it would serve us good to to always realize that
Speaker 10: the house always wins. So yes, the allure might look
Speaker 10: at and if you look at the the the that
Speaker 10: leads and a lemon that's associated with the advertising around.
Speaker 10: If you trown around townships, for instance, you see the
Speaker 10: amount of advertising pilpots that have gone up, the number
Speaker 10: of outlets that have gone up, it might give you
Speaker 10: a sense of you might actually win. And I'm not
Speaker 10: saying you will definitely not win, but it would serve
Speaker 10: us good to always remember that always the house always wins.
Speaker 10: It might seem innocent, but ultimately in a long ride,
Speaker 10: it might not necessarily work in your favor.
Speaker 3: How does the householis win? Is it true that the
Speaker 3: odds are stacked against you? I mean there must be
Speaker 3: mats behind that to say it one way or another.
Speaker 10: I think common sense Steven Will suggests to me that
Speaker 10: mister Protus will not build such a big, big empire
Speaker 10: just to make holler reach. I doubt if that's the
Speaker 10: business model of most people that put up so some
Speaker 10: money in terms of gambling. So all the odds are
Speaker 10: are definitely stacked against the Panthers and the camblers. Unfortunately
Speaker 10: we don't realize that because the allure of winning, the
Speaker 10: allure of winning is always there and Unfortunately, that's what
Speaker 10: draws us in and the hope that one day I'll
Speaker 10: be that guy that gets that that million, and it
Speaker 10: always draws me in, and unfortunately doesn't always work like that.
Speaker 3: So if you had to gamble a lot of a
Speaker 3: time and some people do, you will win some, you
Speaker 3: will lose some. But over time, you saying the house
Speaker 3: will always win more than you do, well, you're always
Speaker 3: going to end up having put money in.
Speaker 10: Absolutely over along period you'll always be the one that
Speaker 10: that ends up losing. We've seen that in in programs like,
Speaker 10: for instance, I Blew It, where people will will come
Speaker 10: across a massive windfall and in a short space of
Speaker 10: time they will lose that money. So if you look
Speaker 10: at overall in the longer period, the odds are definitely
Speaker 10: stack stacked against any any cambler. The chances of you
Speaker 10: going out at least above the house at that much,
Speaker 10: even if the odds whether you take it even in
Speaker 10: a in a space of a lottery, for instance, the
Speaker 10: odds of you winning at that stack against you. So
Speaker 10: so the chances of an ordinary present making it out.
Speaker 10: For instance, we know that some of the people are
Speaker 10: a chambling to cover the debtor or even cover some
Speaker 10: of the expenses. Over a longer period, you end up
Speaker 10: in more debt and not being able to cover those expenses,
Speaker 10: and ending up in more problematic situation that you act in.
Speaker 3: I'm amazed that people are gambling to sort of pay debt,
Speaker 3: and I can. I mean, what this also shows us
Speaker 3: is that they have no other way of doing it.
Speaker 3: If they were able to have a sustainable source of income,
Speaker 3: a sustainable job or two, then maybe they wouldn't be
Speaker 3: doing this. But this is suggesting that, in fact, I mean,
Speaker 3: maybe even gambling is taking advantage here that there are
Speaker 3: there is no other way for people to make them
Speaker 3: to make money.
Speaker 10: Surely there's other alternatives. There should be other alternatives. The
Speaker 10: mean is, I'll be the first one to acknowledge that
Speaker 10: the rising cost of living can put some pressure on
Speaker 10: on on the pocket. Certainly there are other economic pressures
Speaker 10: that people experience, and and we we in a cycle
Speaker 10: of high unemployment in some instances. Yes, the it might
Speaker 10: look bleak, but let's take a second and ask yourselves,
Speaker 10: if gambling is the only way out, shouldn't we be
Speaker 10: exploring other other other ways, exploiting our talents and living
Speaker 10: with our within our means perhaps looking at other ways
Speaker 10: either than gambling to get ourselves or to ourselves out
Speaker 10: of the situation. I'm not I'm not ignorant to the
Speaker 10: extent that says we don't feel that much economic pressure. Yes,
Speaker 10: we do, but I'm not sure if gambling is the
Speaker 10: way out of it.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: Sure who's actually doing the gambling? Is it older people,
Speaker 3: younger people, richer people, poorer people. Who's actually doing this?
Speaker 3: And now that it's online, it's so easy to do
Speaker 3: so gambling has become you know, if you look at
Speaker 3: sort of old James Bond movies, right, gambling was something
Speaker 3: done in a casino by old European people in Europe
Speaker 3: dressed in tuxedos.
Speaker 10: And probably tuxedos, cigars and corneacan. And unfortunately, what we're
Speaker 10: seeing the rising demographic is the it's a young African
Speaker 10: maile and you could associate that perhaps with access to
Speaker 10: technologies are just mobile phone, which makes it easier for
Speaker 10: people to then go into online gambling, which is a problematic,
Speaker 10: problematic bit because these are the people that's supposed to
Speaker 10: be the padbone of the economy, at least of family structures.
Speaker 10: But if they themselves are going into into into gambling.
Speaker 10: That says very blik future ahead.
Speaker 3: Why does it meant so much? Is it because of
Speaker 3: the connection with sport? Is it? Is there some other reason?
Speaker 10: There's many reasons, Steven is not just it's not just
Speaker 10: the issue of sports, but there's psychological issues, maybe a
Speaker 10: sic of a thrill, thrill seeking behaviors, social pressures, and
Speaker 10: and in manly instances, the attraction to things like advertising
Speaker 10: and promotion ali exposure is one of those. So there's
Speaker 10: a myriad of reasons why people tend to gravitate into
Speaker 10: into gambling. And again I must be the first one
Speaker 10: to point out that some might see it as a harmless,
Speaker 10: harmless fun, right, but it becomes problematic where it becomes pathological,
Speaker 10: where where people cannot do without, where where people will
Speaker 10: wake up in the in the middle of the night
Speaker 10: just just so that they can gamble, just to stay on.
Speaker 10: So so there's there's no one thing in terms of
Speaker 10: that particular demographic and in general, there's multiple layers to it.
Speaker 10: But most importantly is the mental health that is associated
Speaker 10: with that, which is becoming more and at least according
Speaker 10: to the studies, more and more problematic.
Speaker 3: M I mean the stress of that of it must
Speaker 3: just be terrible, and that leads then push you into
Speaker 3: into kind of you know, more stress and more kind
Speaker 3: of need for that thrill. And they see gambling sometimes
Speaker 3: almost as a release because you get that thrill, you're
Speaker 3: thinking of something exciting that could happen.
Speaker 10: Certainly, which is which is the unfortunate part of it
Speaker 10: that the more you get sucked, you get sucked into it.
Speaker 10: So yes, there's there's definite mental health issues. There's also
Speaker 10: psychological thrill seeking kind of kind of behaviors, but do
Speaker 10: not forget all of that. Thrill seeking behavior has an
Speaker 10: impact on family structures. It has an impact on our
Speaker 10: personal finances. The next thing, it will have an impact
Speaker 10: on our employment structure stay because we might be using
Speaker 10: that little money that takes us to work to then
Speaker 10: push it into gambling. It might affect other other elements
Speaker 10: that have to do with with how we conduct ourselves
Speaker 10: in terms of personal finances. It's it's beyond just gambling.
Speaker 10: It has an impact definitely on other matters either than finances.
Speaker 3: It's easy to sit in a studio presenting a show
Speaker 3: called the Money Show and be slightly dismissive one of
Speaker 3: online gambling. If I were representing the online gambling companies,
Speaker 3: and I'm not, I would say, well, Stephen, you talk
Speaker 3: about share prices all the time. You talk about how
Speaker 3: much money went into bitcoin or went into gold, or
Speaker 3: went into nvidier or whatever it is, and people lose
Speaker 3: money there too, And isn't that the same thing? Is
Speaker 3: there a difference?
Speaker 10: I would argue that there is a There is a difference, Stephen,
Speaker 10: in essence that, at least my little understanding of investing,
Speaker 10: for instance, the science behind it. You don't just wake
Speaker 10: up and just throw the coin in the air and
Speaker 10: hope it will stick. There's there's there's a whole lot
Speaker 10: of science that goes beyond that, including investing as an individual,
Speaker 10: when you choose which vehicle to to to invest in
Speaker 10: or way to save your money, there's a bit of
Speaker 10: science that goes beyond it. I doubt if there's that
Speaker 10: much science that goes into into gambling really, because if
Speaker 10: you look at it, you're putting against the odds. What
Speaker 10: are the odds of you losing? And if you look
Speaker 10: at the general in terms of philosophy in uh in
Speaker 10: investing over a long up here you will still make
Speaker 10: your money, but I doubt if you can apply the
Speaker 10: same in terms of gambling. So certainly I don't see
Speaker 10: the lightness between investing in for instance, the stock exchange,
Speaker 10: et cetera, and and gambling. Yes, you might argue that
Speaker 10: you will lose, you might lose money in terms of investing, Yes,
Speaker 10: there is that that chance. But I would argue that
Speaker 10: you have a great chance of losing money if you
Speaker 10: go in the gambling route than investing. Uh, certainly, that's
Speaker 10: how I see it.
Speaker 3: So so I mean, if there is a big difference,
Speaker 3: I suppose. The other thing is that when it comes
Speaker 3: to investing, you often win. You usually win. In fact,
Speaker 3: you're you're not betting against the house, you're betting against
Speaker 3: the market, and the market tends to rise over time.
Speaker 3: What does rise over time? It's rarely only in gambling
Speaker 3: that you lose all the time over the longer run.
Speaker 10: Absolutely, And and and perhaps that should be the focus.
Speaker 10: Is how to to to teach people how to invest
Speaker 10: instead of pushing people into gambling, how to live with ennoyments,
Speaker 10: how to manage our finances better. Perhaps we should invest
Speaker 10: more in in in awareness in terms of risky behaviors
Speaker 10: such as that just gambling I understand that there's people
Speaker 10: that invest in that. I get it, and I get
Speaker 10: it that there's companies that are pushing billiance. But my
Speaker 10: side is on the is under consumer that I would
Speaker 10: rather the air on the side of question and look
Speaker 10: into investment and improvent investment rather than pushing themselves into gambling.
Speaker 3: We're speaking to Tabohollow tonight in Personal Finance, program manager
Speaker 3: for Old Mutual Financial Education, and the issues that we're
Speaker 3: seeing in the personal finance space with online gambling. You
Speaker 3: with the Money Show. It's ten minutes state the Money
Speaker 3: Show Personal Finance table. Hollow is the program manager for
Speaker 3: Old Mutual Financial Education talking about online gambling tonight. Warren
Speaker 3: Ingram back with us soon at Tabo. So one of
Speaker 3: the things about gambling online is that it's very gamified.
Speaker 3: It's like playing a game. It's exactly like playing a game.
Speaker 3: It's like the games my son's son plays, you know,
Speaker 3: on his phone. You sort of hear beep and shooting
Speaker 3: and things like that, and yet here there's money involved.
Speaker 3: So it's quite hard to sort of think, well, I'm
Speaker 3: playing games, neither I have a gambling problem. There's a
Speaker 3: kind of disassociation perhaps, and that's.
Speaker 10: The sad part, because if if you look at it
Speaker 10: and even the design of it, and perhaps it's it's
Speaker 10: it's it's design that we're just to keep us in there.
Speaker 10: And you're absolutely correct, it looks like harmless fun. It
Speaker 10: looks like harmless gaming. But what you're not what you're
Speaker 10: not seeing, is beyond just that harmless gaming effect, is
Speaker 10: the damage that it causes in terms of the the
Speaker 10: addiction path, just to keep you on that app, to
Speaker 10: keep you on that website, or on on on that platform.
Speaker 10: And absolutely right, it looks like hameless gaming that anybody
Speaker 10: can can pick up. And I suppose that's the art
Speaker 10: behind it, just to keep you on that. But what
Speaker 10: we don't realize is the more time you spend on that,
Speaker 10: the more you lose. And that's certainly the sad part.
Speaker 10: I suppose it looks so easy and I and I
Speaker 10: suppose for all intents and purposes it was designed that
Speaker 10: it's designed just to make it easier for you to
Speaker 10: to stay on, to to get captain there. And that's
Speaker 10: the said part of the driver behind the addiction in
Speaker 10: terms of that online gambling.
Speaker 3: How do you know when you have a problem, I mean,
Speaker 3: at what point do you have to say to yourself,
Speaker 3: actually I have a problem, or someone you know has
Speaker 3: a problem.
Speaker 10: There's there's definitely a pointer Stephen. Number one is generally
Speaker 10: you would live within this particular limit in terms of
Speaker 10: your budgeting. You know that you have money for transport,
Speaker 10: you have money for this, money for that. But once
Speaker 10: you go beyond just money for entertainment and now tapping
Speaker 10: into things like now you have to default on on
Speaker 10: on rent, you have to default on your margage pond
Speaker 10: just to feed your your your gambling habit, then you
Speaker 10: know that you have a problem. The second big when
Speaker 10: you start hiding in line. That's another show way of
Speaker 10: saying I have a problem. When you can't and you
Speaker 10: go beyond just having fun on those platforms or in
Speaker 10: those establishments, then you know that you have a problem.
Speaker 10: In some instances, when you start having quarters inside the
Speaker 10: family because of the nature of your your habit, then
Speaker 10: you know you have a problem. And I would wish
Speaker 10: that even the people that are around us who might
Speaker 10: pick it up before you as a problem as a gambler,
Speaker 10: picked it up, you should notify you and say, hey, Tambo,
Speaker 10: we start to we start seeing some sense of change
Speaker 10: in you, which is not pleasant. Then we can notify
Speaker 10: you in terms of your your problem.
Speaker 3: Gambling and when someone else is having a problem, I
Speaker 3: mean you'll notice money, perhaps training. But it's quite hard
Speaker 3: to confront someone and say I think you have a problem,
Speaker 3: and it's related to addiction. You know, cheese, it's a
Speaker 3: big thing, and addiction and money very dangerous combination and
Speaker 3: a big thing to accuse someone of.
Speaker 10: I think it's addiction in general. I mean even those
Speaker 10: that are addicted things like alcohol, for instance, it might
Speaker 10: not necessarily be easy to confront somebody and say I
Speaker 10: think you have a problem, or even self to say self,
Speaker 10: I think we have a problem. Similarly with money, and
Speaker 10: especially with money, it might not necessarily be a pleasant conversation,
Speaker 10: and money in general is not necessarily a pleasant conversation.
Speaker 10: So I will be the first one to acknowledge that
Speaker 10: perhaps that's where you need external help. That's where you
Speaker 10: need help from counsellors from other institutions to say, hey,
Speaker 10: I might be having a problem. Even before you say
Speaker 10: definitely have a problem. But once you start picking up
Speaker 10: certain patterns in terms of behavior, set in behaviors that
Speaker 10: are antisocial in their very nature, perhaps it's time to
Speaker 10: then start having those conversations that are not comfortable but necessary.
Speaker 3: Do we need to maybe have conversations in our homes
Speaker 3: about online gambling before people get into it? An online
Speaker 3: gaming industry won't thank me for saying this, but basically
Speaker 3: to say to people, look, these are the dangers it.
Speaker 3: And I mean, look, this is easy for me to say.
Speaker 3: I've never been someone interested in gambling. I know people
Speaker 3: who are who are exactly like me, but they just
Speaker 3: enjoy it. You know, I'm not like that. It's you know,
Speaker 3: some people do this, some people do that. But but
Speaker 3: I do wonder if really the message needs to be that, actually,
Speaker 3: if you're going to do this, put aside a budget.
Speaker 3: It's it's it's it's part of your entertainment budget. Is
Speaker 3: really and and just know that you're probably going to
Speaker 3: lose it.
Speaker 10: I would advocate strongly for that. If you have a
Speaker 10: separate entertainment budget, make that part of your interde and
Speaker 10: stick to it. Not just put up the money and
Speaker 10: when it's done you tap into into other sources. Stick
Speaker 10: to that budget. And yes, absolutely it should be a
Speaker 10: conversation that we having at home, but beyond that, even
Speaker 10: us as providers, for instance, financial services, technology providers, we
Speaker 10: should also drive up the message of awareness of the
Speaker 10: risks associated with gambling. It might not necessarily be up
Speaker 10: to the gambling houses only we I mean, now we're
Speaker 10: using technology. Surely there's an opportunity for for technology providers
Speaker 10: to say, hey, be aware of this, because there's the
Speaker 10: risk in my view, far out with the benefits. So
Speaker 10: from from whether it's it's financial services in terms of
Speaker 10: the accounts that that that people use to to to
Speaker 10: gamble or the technological platform. Surely it's incumbent on us
Speaker 10: just from a societal point of view to at least
Speaker 10: push those messages of awareness in terms of the dangers
Speaker 10: of gambling. So yes, certainly in terms of conversations at
Speaker 10: home in the households, but certainly from from regulators, also
Speaker 10: from technology providers, from financial services, it's in our best
Speaker 10: interest to start pushing the messages of awareness in terms
Speaker 10: of the risks associated with gambling.
Speaker 3: Tabo, thank you so much for your time, really to
Speaker 3: appreciate a Tabo hol Up is a program manager for
Speaker 3: old mutual financial Education. Some of the risks are concerns
Speaker 3: around online gambling, and of course there's so much to
Speaker 3: talk about. I can't help but feel that this is
Speaker 3: a conversation that we will be having again. I think
Speaker 3: there'll be a lot more to come in the online
Speaker 3: gambling space anyway. Really enjoyed that double thank you.