logo
Silent spending is draining South African households: Here's where your money is really going

Silent spending is draining South African households: Here's where your money is really going

IOL News14 hours ago
South African consumers are being hit with silent charges, like subscription renewals and small bank fees, that often go unnoticed but cost thousands over time.
Image: File
A growing number of middle-class South African households are discovering that their biggest financial threat isn't load shedding, high inflation, or rising food prices, but their silent spending habits.
A recent audit of diverse households has revealed how small, recurring expenses like app subscriptions, impulse buys, and overlooked bank fees are collectively costing families thousands of rands each year.
Experts warn that many of these hidden drains are going unnoticed due to the 'set and forget' nature of modern consumer habits, especially with the increasing use of digital payment systems and auto-renewing services.
Take the case of a young couple living in Cape Town. Without realising it, they were spending more than R450 each month on digital subscriptions, most of which they rarely used.
'It was shocking to see how many platforms we were paying for,' they said.
'We had Netflix, Apple Music, two meditation apps, and backup storage services we hadn't looked at in months.'
Once they reviewed their bank statements and cancelled unnecessary services, they saved close to R4,000 over the course of the year. But streaming services weren't the only culprit.
'We found we were spending over R2,000 a month on coffee and lunch runs,' they said.
'It doesn't feel like a lot when it's R50 here or R80 there, but when you add it up, it's ridiculous.'
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad Loading
A high school teacher said impulse grocery trips and unplanned takeaways had become a coping mechanism for her family.
'We'd get home tired and just order food or pop into the store without a list. We were often over budget without understanding why.'
The family was exceeding their monthly food budget by more than R1,100 on average.
Recurring bank fees and overdraft penalties were quietly eroding their disposable income.
'We switched banks, set app alerts, and created a budget for once-off annual costs like school uniforms and birthdays. That alone gave us breathing room,' she explained.
One of the biggest revelations to emerge comes from Bank Zero CEO Yatin Narsai, who raised concerns about how South Africans are being charged 'international payment' fees for rand-priced subscription services like Netflix, Spotify, YouTube, Apple TV+, and Amazon Prime.
Narsai said that while these services appear to be billed in rands, many South African banks charge a cross-border transaction fee, ranging between 2% and 2.75% of the transaction value, or a fixed fee of R3.00 in the case of banks like Capitec and TymeBank.
'Bank Zero still follows the principle of not charging fees wherever possible,' Narsai said.
'Only if a third party charges us a big fee, like for cash or immediate payments, are we forced to also charge a fee to the customer.'
'No such large extra fees exist specifically on cross-border rand-based card transactions,' he added.
The implication? Banks may be profiting from fees that don't reflect actual processing costs. And for many middle-class families who maintain multiple international subscriptions, these seemingly minor charges can quietly erode their disposable income.
A 2024 study by the South African Savings Institute found that 62% of middle-income earners struggle to save consistently, with the majority citing 'unexpected' or 'forgotten' costs as a key obstacle.
Yet most of these expenses, according to the data, could be identified and reduced through regular financial audits.
Digital tools are increasingly stepping in to assist. Budgeting apps like 22seven, YNAB, and bank-integrated platforms such as FNB's Smart Budget tool offer real-time expense categorisation and alerts.
These platforms can also highlight unused subscriptions, spikes in discretionary spending, or unusual bank charges.
For some households, switching to cash-only weeks or setting limits on contactless transactions helped curb their spending impulses. Others set up 'future expense' savings pots, monthly amounts reserved for school fees, birthdays, or holiday costs, to avoid surprises later in the year.
What should South Africans do now?
Financial advisors recommend: Quarterly financial audits, carefully review bank and card statements.
Switching accounts, look for banks or digital wallets with flat-fee or no-fee structures, especially on international payments.
Cancel or reduce subscriptions and opt for annual plans where cheaper.
Track small spending, daily coffee, snacks, or impulse buys add up fast.
While headline costs grab attention, it's the compact, often-overlooked drains, card fees, cash handling, and subscription costs, that quietly erode personal and business wealth.
IOL News
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Rachel Kolisi posts thirst-trap amid divorce 'glow-up'
Rachel Kolisi posts thirst-trap amid divorce 'glow-up'

The South African

time2 hours ago

  • The South African

Rachel Kolisi posts thirst-trap amid divorce 'glow-up'

Rachel Kolisi's followers are gushing over a hot new picture of herself she has posted on her Instagram account. This comes after the mom-of-two – the former wife of Springbok captain Siya Kolisi – showed off her hair 'makeover' According to many, Rachel is displaying signs of a 'divorce glow up.' RACHEL KOLISI STUNS IN NEW IG POST On her Instagram post, Rachel Kolisi shared a look at what she had been up to lately. This included parenting her two children with Siya Kolisi, as well as his step-sister, and juggling her many career hats. In one picture, Rachel shared a behind-the-scenes look at a fashion shoot. The 35-year-old was dressed in a skimpy one-piece set of lingerie, which she wore as she had her makeup professionally done. The image had been of her followers gushing over Rachel's beauty. She captioned the post: 'I'm unbelievably excited and expectant for August! I have a bunch of speaking engagements coming up and can't wait to see some of you there. What a ride!' View this post on Instagram A post shared by Rachel Kolisi (@rachelkolisi) Last month, Rachel Kolisi showed off her hair makeover – a fresh, youthful look courtesy of a bob haircut, a full face of glamorous make-up, and a stylish outfit. Rachel was enjoying a girls' night out with Springbok WAGS like Aimee Kitshoff, Saskia Snyman, Hope Mortimer, and Rassie Erasmus's twin daughters, Nikki and Carli. Rachel Kolisi is showing off a new look. Images via Instagram: @rachelkolisi Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 . Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X, and Bluesky for the latest news.

Who will steer the R55bn marriage of MultiChoice and Canal+?
Who will steer the R55bn marriage of MultiChoice and Canal+?

Daily Maverick

time3 hours ago

  • Daily Maverick

Who will steer the R55bn marriage of MultiChoice and Canal+?

There's a new power couple in African media. After nearly five years of courting, Canal+ has finally put a ring on MultiChoice to form a pan-African content colossus with global ambitions. French media titan Canal+ has secured the final go-ahead to acquire MultiChoice in a landmark R55-billion deal. After years of quiet manoeuvring and regulatory hurdles, the merger is now a question of who controls what. The Competition Tribunal's conditional approval, granted late last week, closes the chapter on a five-year 'creeping takeover' and opens a new era in African broadcasting. Now it's a balancing act weighing foreign capital with national sovereignty on a digital scale with local content. Enter the media monarchy In return for its princely sum, Canal+, owned by the French conglomerate Vivendi, gets access to MultiChoice's 14.5 million Anglophone and Lusophone subscribers, the DStv powerhouse, sports juggernaut SuperSport, and a foothold in streaming via Showmax. MultiChoice, facing rising costs and subscriber declines, finds itself rescued by a suitor with deep pockets and pan-African ambition. Combined, the merged entity will serve more than 24 million subscribers across 50 countries — instantly becoming the largest pay-TV and streaming provider on the continent. However, if Canal+ was hoping for free access, South African regulators had other plans. The deal's approval came wrapped in layers of red tape — not as a deterrent, but as a deliberate design feature. Transformation goals Central to the regulatory conditions is the creation of LicenceCo, an independent company that will hold MultiChoice South Africa's broadcast licence. It will be majority-owned and controlled by historically disadvantaged South Africans and employees. Crucially, Canal+ has no control and no board seats. This structural firewall protects South Africa's legal requirements around media ownership, ensures transformation goals are met and serves as a template for foreign investment in other sensitive sectors. Phuthuma Nathi, the B-BBEE shareholder darling, increases its economic interest in LicenceCo to 27%, with a new employee trust added. The licence, and the local airwaves it governs, stay South African. The R30bn lobola The Competition Tribunal didn't just demand structural separation; it also extracted a commitment package valued at more than R30-billion. This includes: A three-year moratorium on retrenchments linked to the merger; Significant investment in local content production, sports broadcasting, SMME procurement and Corporate Social Investment programmes; Ongoing free-to-air broadcast access for key sporting events, safeguarding the public's ability to view major matches without a subscription; and Local skills development through Canal+'s 'University Programme', to train historically disadvantaged individuals in broadcasting and production. In a media environment where Netflix and Amazon Prime are increasingly dominant, this local-first approach is designed to future-proof South African media. Showmax, SuperSport and scale Behind the regulatory muscle lies a clear commercial imperative. MultiChoice has struggled in recent years, shedding 2.8 million linear subscribers and burning cash to prop up Showmax 2.0, its streaming reboot built on Comcast tech and bolstered by NBC Universal's 30% equity stake. Canal+ brings financial stability and scale. It also inherits Irdeto, MultiChoice's profitable cybersecurity unit, and Showmax's potential to become Africa's answer to global streamers. Vivendi, Canal+'s parent company, views this merger as critical to its own transformation and part of a plan to split into three listed entities, with Canal+ as its global growth engine. Listing Canal+ on the JSE within nine months of deal completion is a further nod to local inclusion, visibility, and capital market confidence. The shiny ring can't cover controversial holes While South Africa celebrates a structurally sound deal with tangible local benefits, not all observers are convinced. Critics warn that Canal+'s track record and the Bolloré Group's 30.4% stake in it come with baggage. Vivendi's past includes one of the largest corporate losses in history and regulatory infractions that still cast a shadow. Vincent Bolloré, the billionaire behind the curtain, faces corruption charges in France and has been accused of turning Canal+'s French media outlets into right-wing political mouthpieces. With Canal+ now embedded in South Africa's broadcasting ecosystem, some fear creeping influence over editorial independence, particularly if there are future attempts to deepen ownership or control beyond the current firewall. Marriage isn't buying a horse Mergers are easy to announce but hard to manage. However, the competition bodies have played their hand cleverly — extracting commitments, safeguarding jobs and setting a precedent for how global capital must behave when it enters South Africa's strategic sectors. The long-term test lies ahead. Can Showmax truly compete with Netflix? Can SuperSport keep its sports crown as global streamers outbid for rights? Will LicenceCo be a transformative force or a regulatory box-ticker? Will Canal+ respect the firewall, or try to chip away at it over time? The merged entity is now king of the hill in African broadcasting, but it's a kingdom that won't run on size alone. Trust, execution and transformation will be the currencies of success. DM

The Finance Ghost: The battle for MAS is over – now begins the war?
The Finance Ghost: The battle for MAS is over – now begins the war?

Daily Maverick

time3 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

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store