Equities surged in May while the Rand stabilised
The JSE had a bumper month and year-to-date. Given all the growing uncertainties on the global and domestic geo-political front, investors and the public expected the worst for the share and foreign exchange markets during the month of May.
Given the Trump administration's chop-and-change announcements in the trade war between the US and other countries, like China, Canada, and European countries, as well as the jittery South Africa/US relations, it was expected by many members of the public that the economy and financial markets would go from better to worse.
Table 1: Various share indices performances since the beginning of 2015
Index 1 month 3 months Year-to-date JSE ALSI 3.4% 10.2% 12.1% JSE Top40 3.4% 10.8% 14.4% JSE Financial15 4.3% 8.7% 16.0% JSE Industrial 25 4.2% 8.7% 16.0% JSE Res 10 3.1% 21.1% 31.3% Dow S&P500 5.5% -0.13% -0.14% UK FTSE 3.3% -0.04% 7.3% MSCI Europe 3.8% 7.0% 18.3% Hang Seng 5.3% 1.7% 16.10%
In contrast, share prices on the JSE reached record high levels and their best annual five months since the 2020 Covid-Virus equity downward streak, and all the main indices recorded growth of above 10% since the beginning of the year.
Prospects for share and capital markets
Despite the national budget woes, US trade tariff threats, the lack of domestic service delivery, and a deterioration of transport infrastructure and export facilities, signs of an economic recovery in South Africa boost capital and equity markets.
The cut in the repo rate by the Monetary Policy Committee , nine consecutive months where the inflation rate remained less than the Reserve Bank's midpoint target of 4.5%, and expectations of an inflation rate remaining around the 3.0% proposed new target range, boosted domestic and global investment confidence.
The expected further cut in fuel prices in June, despite the hike in the fuel levy by the Treasury, the possible extension of the Agoa agreement, and lower proposed US tariffs against South Africa, increase domestic and foreign investment appetite on the South African share and capital markets. The rand against the dollar stabilises and gives reason for a rate cut.
On the foreign exchange market, the rand improved in May to its strongest level against the major currencies for 2025. Against the dollar, the rand improved over the month of May by 3.1% or 50 cents from R18.59 to R17.99 on Friday. Against pound sterling, the currency appreciated by 2.5% or 57cents to R24.21/£ and against the Euro, stronger by 3.0% or 64c to R20.24/€. The stronger rand also contributes to a surge in financial, retail, and property shares on the JSE with the capital market returns also higher.
The Trump administration's latest tariff surge threatens.
US President Trump doubled tariffs on steel imports on Friday from 25% to 50% and announced: 'Nobody is going to get around that,' as he also introduced 50% tariffs on imported aluminum. This 'new' tariffs surge will be introduced on June 4. This latest tariff craze put global equity markets and currencies under pressure.
The Euro Stoxx 50 index lost 1.07% last week, and the Hang Seng index in Hong Kong traded 1.2% lower on Friday and tumbled by 1.4% over the week.
Prospects for this coming week
This coming week, domestic and foreign investors await the release of US non-farm payrolls for May 2025, which will be released on Friday. The market expects 140 000 new jobs, and the unemployment rate to remain at 4.2%. These two indicators will give an indication of prospects for a bank rate cut by the Federal Reserve at their next interest rate meeting later this month. Domestically, the new vehicle sales for May will be released today. Elsewhere, the ECB will make its interest rate decision on Thursday.
Chris Harmse is the consulting economist of Sequoia Capital Management and a senior lecturer at Stadio Higher Education.
BUSINESS REPORT
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
US and EU clinch deal with broad 15% tariffs on EU goods to avert trade war
Deal includes $600 billion EU investments in US, more EU energy, defence purchases 15% tariff better than threatened 30%, in deal mirroring Japan's US steel and aluminium tariffs remain at 50% By Andrew Gray and Andrea Shalal The announcement came after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen travelled for talks with U.S. President Donald Trump at his golf course in western Scotland to push a hard-fought deal over the line. 'I think this is the biggest deal ever made,' Trump told reporters after an hour-long meeting with von der Leyen, who said the 15% tariff applied 'across the board'. 'We have a trade deal between the two largest economies in the world, and it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability,' she said. The deal, that also includes $600 billion of EU investments in the United States and significant EU purchases of U.S. energy and military equipment, will indeed bring clarity for EU companies. However, the baseline tariff of 15% will be seen by many in Europe as a poor outcome compared to the initial European ambition of a zero-for-zero tariff deal, although it is better than the threatened 30% rate. The deal mirrors parts of the framework agreement the United States clinched with Japan last week. 'We are agreeing that the tariff… for automobiles and everything else will be a straight across tariff of 15%,' Trump said. However, the 15% baseline rate would not apply to steel and aluminium, for which a 50% tariff would remain in place. Trump, who is seeking to reorder the global economy and reduce decades-old U.S. trade deficits, has so far reeled in agreements with Britain, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although his administration has failed to deliver on a promise of '90 deals in 90 days.' He has periodically railed against the European Union saying it was 'formed to screw the United States' on trade. Arriving in Scotland, Trump said that the EU wanted 'to make a deal very badly' and said, as he met von der Leyen, that Europe had been 'very unfair to the United States'. His main bugbear is the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the EU, which in 2024 reached $235 billion, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. The EU points to the U.S. surplus in services, which it says partially redresses the balance. Trump also talked on Sunday about the 'hundreds of billions of dollars' that tariffs were bringing in. On July 12, Trump threatened to apply a 30% tariff on imports from the EU starting on August 1, after weeks of negotiations with the major U.S. trading partners failed to reach a comprehensive trade deal. The EU had prepared countertariffs on 93 billion euros ($109 billion) of U.S. goods in the event there was no deal and Trump had pressed ahead with 30% tariffs. Some member states had also pushed for the bloc to use its most powerful trade weapon, the anti-coercion instrument, to target U.S. services in the event of a no-deal.
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The Finance Ghost: The battle for MAS is over – now begins the war?
With Hyprop terminating its bid for MAS Real Estate, Prime Kapital has won the first skirmish. But the war is in its early stages… MAS Real Estate is the company that nobody expected to become the juiciest M&A story on the JSE this year. All the ingredients are here – big hitters on either side of the table and a board in the middle that is coming under increasing pressure by the day. And depending on the outcome of the extraordinary general meeting that has been scheduled for Wednesday, 27 August, at the request of a group of South African institutional investors, we could see an equally big hitter like Des de Beer landing up on the board as well. But why all this interest and opportunistic dealmaking activity? Why are such impressive sharks circling this particular boat? Blood in the water Although MAS isn't exactly a household name, it does have a market cap of R15.6-billion. Despite this significant size, MAS has been struggling to prepare for upcoming bond maturities, flagging weak support in the bond market for companies with MAS' risk profile. This led to the suspension of the MAS dividend in 2023 and subsequent panic selling by dividend-focused investors. Then, as various other strategies to strengthen the balance sheet came to fruition, investors with more of a net asset value (NAV) or total return focus (vs purely caring about the dividend yield) bought shares, leading to a recovery in the share price to levels seen before the panic selling. But here's the really important bit: the current share price still represents a substantial discount to NAV, which means that there's money to be made by getting control of the assets and managing the balance sheet in such a way that value can be unlocked over time. A lot of money. And in reality, the progress made by MAS towards being ready for bond refinancing or redemption activity is probably the major catalyst for the recent flurry of interest, as the best time to acquire control of a business is when it is still a recovery story rather than a bright and shiny object that everyone loves (and hence wants to be paid a fortune to part with). Either way, the substantial gap between the 52-week high of R24.65 and 52-week low of R15.76 tells quite a story, with plenty of opportunities for traders along the way. But aside from the short-term gains (and losses) on offer, the real story here is the battle between Prime Kapital and Hyprop, with both parties keen to get their hands on the MAS value unlock opportunity. Disclosure, dividends and liquidity – these are the tools of war In the world of corporate finance, parties bring different negotiating tactics to the table. At Prime Kapital for example, one of their key strengths in this fight is that they hold the keys to unlocking the capital that is currently tied up in the joint venture between MAS and Prime Kapital. With so much focus on the balance sheet at MAS and a desire to get back to paying dividends, that capital is a highly valuable bargaining chip. This joint venture has been a major bone of contention for institutional investors, with allegations that the board of MAS didn't disclose important elements of the joint venture agreement to the market. Simply put, investors have been caught by surprise that Prime Kapital holds quite so much influence over the broader MAS balance sheet and cashflow profile. This has led to the demand by investors for changes to the board, which would include the removal of a couple of directors and the appointment of several new independent directors. The 'white knight' for these investors is Hyprop, a JSE-listed Reit (real estate investment trust) that is well known to the local institutional investor community. Such is the support that Hyprop enjoys that it had no difficulties in raising more than R800-million in an accelerated bookbuild process, based on little more than a vague suggestion that it would have a go at acquiring MAS if it raised the money. But of course, R800-million is nowhere near enough to acquire control in a fund with a market cap of R15.6-billion, which brings us to the next negotiating point: liquidity of the shares. For Prime Kapital to acquire control of MAS, it needs to convince shareholders to accept a part-cash, part-shares deal. Although it is currently suggesting that it would put more cash on the table than Hyprop (which is a positive), the downside to its indicative offer is that the equity portion would take the form of an inward-listed preference share that is unlikely to have much liquidity at all. The actual terms of the preference shares do have some appealing features, but they will almost certainly require investors to take a long-term view of holding them until some kind of redemption event. In contrast, Hyprop shares are liquid and investors who swap their MAS exposure for shares in Hyprop would have no trouble in reducing that stake if required. The Hyprop offer is thus perceived as having a stronger equity portion, while the Prime Kapital indicative terms are stronger on the cash side. Understanding these levers is important, as it shows how we got to a place where Hyprop put in a bid that was terminated almost as quickly as it arrived. A highly unusual offer structure Offers to shareholders are usually open for a long time, as there's a process in which the board of the target company is given a chance to hire an independent expert and give the market a proper view on the transaction. Such offers are also usually open for acceptance even once important conditions have been met, allowing shareholders to accept an offer that they know is going ahead. And in most cases, those conditions are outside of the control of the offeror, i.e. they relate to regulatory approvals. The Hyprop offer followed none of these market norms. Before Hyprop decided to terminate the bid, the structure of the offer was that it would have been open for acceptance for only a few days from when it was announced. This doesn't give the board time to properly opine on the terms, nor does it give enough time for any of the important underlying conditions to be fulfilled. In other words, investors would have to accept the offer (via an irrevocable undertaking) and then wait and see how long it would take for conditions to be met. But there's more: one of the conditions was a demand by Hyprop to be given the same access to information as Prime Kapital, which of course ties in beautifully with the institutional investors and their valid concerns around disclosure shortcomings. Now, had there been no attempt to address those shortcomings, this would be fair. But the nuance here is that the MAS board had already released a detailed legal summary of the terms, so this demand by Hyprop implied that there were still significant disclosure issues. If true, that casts the MAS board in a very poor light. And if false, then it creates inappropriate optionality in the offer that prejudices shareholders who must give an irrevocable undertaking in the hope that Hyprop eventually chooses to go ahead with closing the offer, something that could take several months. As the demand by Hyprop wasn't going to be met by Prime Kapital (as this would've required detailed disclosure of documents by a party that is in no mood to cooperate with Hyprop's bid terms), Hyprop decided to walk away from this offer. Much as it may lay the blame at the door of poor disclosure, I still can't see how they could justify such an aggressive offer structure. Why was it necessary for the acceptance period to be just one week, particularly when the price implied by the offer was at a substantial discount to the current traded price of MAS? What's next? With Hyprop terminating its bid, Prime Kapital has won the first skirmish. But the war is in its early stages, as we are still talking about a substantial property fund that is trading at a juicy discount. Will Hyprop stay in this fight? Will another party enter the fray? There's no way of knowing. All we know is that Prime Kapital certainly isn't going anywhere, as it is a significant minority shareholder in MAS and holds great influence over its economics. We also know that the institutions won't just roll over, as they are pushing for changes to the board and answers about disclosure. It feels unlikely that this will just fizzle out. All eyes will now be on the extraordinary general meeting in August, followed by the responses of the (potentially new) board to the institutional investor questions. If nothing else, perhaps the lesson to learn here is that if you are going to attempt an offer with highly unusual terms, you are setting yourself up for an unpleasant outcome. Had Hyprop simply dialled back some of the terms to more reasonable levels, it wouldn't have given Prime Kapital so much ammunition to discredit its bid. DM
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
SA practising damaging politics of the zero-sum game
While there are many prisms through which you can attempt to understand our politics, one may be to examine whether people see the entire process as a zero-sum game. There may now be mounting evidence that more politicians and voters believe every single issue must be reduced to winners and losers. Anyone with much experience of life will be aware that, as a general rule, when life improves for one person, it often improves for another. This happens in an economy all the time. It is well known that one restaurant in one city block might be popular enough to bring in a certain number of customers. But a group of competing restaurants in the same place are much more likely to bring in a much bigger number. In other words, you are more likely to be successful through sharing space with other restaurants. Growing an economy might well rest on this. One cannot just make a product and sell it on your own. You need to be part of a chain that enables your market and ensures you have both suppliers to help you make your product, and customers to buy it. People who are thinking over the longer term will often make decisions that will cost them in the short run, because they expect to gain in the longer run. Last week, Moneyweb reported that some suppliers to Pick n Pay were actually giving it goods at lower than usual prices. While this costs them in the short run, they don't want a situation where Checkers becomes so dominant they only have one person to sell to. This means that they are helping someone to regain market share. In the case of South Africa, with its incredibly diverse constituencies, and defined by its inequality, the idea of people helping one another might well be more important than in many other places. Winners and losers The nature of our economy requires everyone to be working in the same direction. Instead, what we have is people simply fighting really hard not to be the losers, and others not the winners. Currently, 50 proposals to change the Labour Relations Act are going through Nedlac. While labour analyst Andrew Levy says it's not clear if they really change the balance between workers and managers, several groups and unions have already held a protest against the proposals. They believe that their members might soon lose out, and managers might win. This kind of situation happens all the time in our society. In our politics, the coalition sometimes appears to be reduced to fights between the ANC and the DA that are literally about ensuring one wins and the other loses. Because this is all happening in public, and they are representing constituencies, it can give the impression that those constituencies are really fighting to ensure they are not seen to lose. This transactional approach, and the damage it can cause, is wonderfully, and horrifically, illustrated by the Trump administration's approach to trade. One of the most important dynamics of the past 30 years has been the rise of China as a manufacturer of trade goods. It has made these goods at a cheaper price than many other places, and sold them. This has exported deflation around the world – the price of a cheap bicycle has declined dramatically in real terms since the 1980s. This is largely because companies in different countries have traded with each other. And both parties have become very rich doing so. Trump appears to believe that if one country is getting rich, the other must be losing out. The overwhelming evidence is that this is not the case. Instead, both parties win through these transactions. In some ways, such is the impact of the US, that this example might well be having an impact on our politics. At the same time, another important aspect of how life really works is being lost. In many cases, there is no clear 'winner' and clear 'loser'. Often it is entirely grey, with very little difference in shade. The NHI stand-off In our politics now, it seems that everything must become a life and death situation, that there will be armageddon if someone does not get what they want. Given our inequality, this can sometimes appear as if it is a life-and-death struggle between classes. The NHI might be a useful example: those who support it say the rich are trying to condemn the poor to death, those who oppose it say the rich will lose everything they have. Instead, this is something that should really be negotiated between representatives of constituencies. And there should be a solution that everyone can live with. There are many reasons why we are in this situation. Our racialised inequality must be an important reason. Those who are poor have everything to gain and nothing to lose, while those who are rich have everything to lose and nothing to gain. But this may also be the result of deliberate political strategy. Just as politicians have created abortion as a political issue in the US, by forcing people to take a position, so our leaders often do the same. Both the ANC and the DA benefit from continuing the fight around the NHI. They both get to demonstrate to their constituencies that they are fighting for them. And because the struggle for voters is now so difficult and so intense, the stakes rise each time, and so it is more likely that politicians will behave in this way. All of this feeds an artificial intensity in our politics.
