Taken from an FM article on BEE investment houses who end up being benificiaries of deals and their overall performance. The article concludes that BEE deals need to evolve, suggesting perhaps that a move toward entrepreneurship and away from passive hand-out involvement.
Recent broad-based empowerment deals from the likes of SAB, Tiger Brands and Adcock Ingram point to a changing trend in the structuring of black economic empowerment (BEE) deals. The tide has swung away from those that favour one black company or group of individuals. "The BEE deals of today are different to the way they were structured five years ago," says Sanlam Investment Management portfolio manager Ricco Friedrich. "Staff and related communities are now the preferred beneficiaries in deals that are broad based. They are more sustainable than the kind that favoured the usual suspects'. Those are dead in the water."
And then there is this quote from Jenny Cargill of BusinessMap.
"Current policy has effectively placed a 25% ceiling on BEE equity ownership. The acquisition of controlling interests by BEE investors is no longer evident and this has led to a more opportunistic character to BEE ownership."
I have always noted the sterility of the 25% target. Once you set a target then people go for it and rarely exceed it – ask any sales manager. Could this be why jungle (speaking predictably out of turn) is suggesting a 30% equity target by 2017? Got to love his exemplorary knowledge of BEE and affirmative procurement. And why not leave this post with a quote from my esteemed aficianado
Manyi said the BMF was changing its focus to concentrate on ownership, affirmative procurement and enterprise development instead of employment equity.
Does this mean that it's his other hat as DoL DG that will be looking after the EE side?