INCE|Connect News

MC Mining eyes expansion with new Uitkomst loan. The coal producer has secured a R20 million facility from Absa which may be used for potential expansion opportunities at Uitkomst.

MC Mining has secured a R20 million loan facility from Absa to help fund capital requirements at its 70%-owned Uitkomst Colliery - as well as potential expansion opportunities.

The coal producer changed its name from Coal of Africa last December and underwent a 20-for-one share consolidation to try to attract bigger investors. It bought Uitkomst from Pan African Resources in June 2017 to generate cash during the pre-production phase of its Makhado mine in Limpopo.

It said cash flows generated by Uitkomst had been greater than envisaged since its acquisition. Uitkomst transitioned to an owner-operated mine in August with the acquisition of the independent underground mining contracts business operations, including mining equipment and the transfer of about 340 contractor employees. Following this, the colliery secured five-year, R15 million asset finance facility from Absa, which was used to finance new underground mining equipment.

The new facility has a floating coupon at the prime interest rate plus 1%, with Uitkomst debtors ceded as security.

The facility further enhances our relationship with Absa and is an endorsement by an independent financial institution of the potential of Uitkomst Colliery and its ability to deliver on tonnage targets coupled with prevailing favourable coal prices," CEO David Brown said. "In addition, MC Mining continues to progress with various initiatives relating to the Makhado hard coking and thermal coal project with further updates to come."

Last month, Makhado secured its first offstage agreement for hard coking coal (HCC) with China's Huadong Coal Trading Center. The off-take will see a minimum of 400 000 tonnes of HCC a year go to Huadong, equal to about half of Makhado's annual production. Makhado is expected to produce up to 800 000 tonnes of HCC annually as well as between 900 000 and one million tonnes of export quality thermal coal.

Its shares rose 6% to R3.51 yesterday.

Susan Booysen: The coming suspension of electoral disbelief. Yes, there will be elections, but will there be a political party to vote for, one that is truly credible and trustworthy? The is the question on many South Africans' minds, judging among others from undecided factors in public opinion polls, and from criticism of all political parties in public narratives.

The African National Congress is suffering lessened public credibility. Is it the old or the new ANC that will be nudging the electorate into the ballot box precincts? It is the new one, judged by post-Nasrec outer appearances, but is it a party courageous enough to axe ministers and officials of disrepute? Is the contemporary ANC, as an alliance of factions (in a compromised unity party), a political suicide bomb that is set to be detonated at the 2019 ballot box? Or, can the Democratic Alliance stay on track in the wake of the Patricia de Lille blow-up? Was the extraction of the Independent Democrats remnants a mere historical hiccup? Or, is there an Economic Freedom Fighters, now that the party has lost its moral high ground in the brawl of the VBS benefits brigade?

Thus, has South Africa's revered multiparty democracy lost its mojo, now that the major political parties have weakened reputations and lessened gravitas with the voters?

The avalanche of new political parties that have registered with the Electoral Commission, or have threatened to register, does not promise to be the saviour of multiparty politics either. The new generation of parties are veiled in obscurity and some do not move beyond the threat to become a political party. For example, who exactly is the Mazibuye National Congress, and what is its link to the African Transformation Congress, and the already registered African Transformation Movement? From Limpopo we have heard that the Baroka Swaranang Movement, driven by chiefs who have lost faith in the ANC due to the VBS fiasco, is on the verge of joining the ranks of 500 or so political parties in South Africa (some defunct by now).

Despite these party-political ambiguities South Africans will vote in large numbers come April 2019, even if it means voting for virtual political parties, which at best breathe some of the forms and sounds that political parties make. And there is an uncanny match between these not quite political parties and, in crucial respects, the non-government that "rules" in South Africa and is likely to rule post-election.

Consider the "government of the day" in South Africa ... Across South Africa there are alternative forms of political participation. "Protest and burn" is a repertoire to beckon representatives to take care of communities in need of government attention. Elected representatives, at whichever level of government, are not experienced as reliable in representing constituents. Government listening to the needs of the people cannot be taken for granted.

There are, equally, many parallel forms of non-state public policy-making. The prerequisite was an ANC Nasrec policy decision on land, for example. Land-hungry (and sometimes politically instigated) communities did not wait for the ANC in government to give formal effect to a new policy of expropriation without compensation. Across urban communities there was the whisper of the new policy direction. From then on multiple communities voted with tape to demarcate proceeds from the new policy. De facto policy was made; government is still trying to catch up with the feet on the ground.

In the same vein there is alternative, non-government service delivery - to match the non-party elections. For example, electricity supply to many areas is practically free to the poor and those brave enough to do unauthorised, informal connections. Pirate water connections are commonplace too. In the absence of formal government services, the refuse removal system in many areas is to pile it up on the street corner.

The list of alternative governance and policymaking is long. Law and order is virtually no-existent. Often, the criminal underworld and its gangs rule. Citizens look after themselves or lose out. Government increasingly "acknowledges" that it can simply not do it all, not even manage state-owned enterprises without help from the private sector (and capturers lift their ears). Both state capacity and state budgets are the problems.

And, right up the stream of the anti-white minority capitalists: are all policy and ideological decisions not taken anyway by those who hold "the real power"? Or, on the other side of the coin and just as real: is the tenderpreneur treadmill so vibrant that deals are brokered that bear no relation to the quality of services to be delivered?

In government itself some ministers do government by running small empires through contingents of consultants and subversive official appointments in charge of decisions, and do all but act concertedly in the public interest. Health and education services in the public sector are frequently not fit for purpose; citizens pay for private alternatives or suffer the consequences.

If this is government, could South Africans pretend that, upon casting their ballots, they would actually be electing a government - a group of people to make policy, implement public decisions, and be available for accountability time?

This is the big challenge on which South Africa's political parties will be facing off with the electorate in the run-up to Election 2019. The situations depicted in this analysis are not wall-to-wall truths of political parties and government. Yet these problems are pervasive, and just as they have been impacting on public services and citizens' human rights and quality of life, they have adverse implications for the reputation of South Africa's multiparty democracy.

Elections are hollow when the contesting parties have little to offer in ethics, credibility and guaranteed delivery, and the resulting government cannot, credibly, promise that it will make a difference - and do so without passing the buck, overwhelmingly, back to citizens. DM

Ivo Vegter: Trade in rhino and tiger products might well save the species. China's decision to permit limited import, export and domestic trade in rhino and tiger products, provided they are sourced from legal farming operations and used in scientific research or Chinese traditional medicine, caused uproar among green NGOs and the environmental media.

In these pages, Don Pinnock attacks the South African government over its apparent desire for legal international trade in rhino horn, claiming to have detected a conspiracy between Chinese and South African authorities motivated by the sinister machinations of the invisible hand, rather than a bona fide concern for conservation.

"China's 'legal trade' announcement could sound the death knell for tigers and rhinos," cried the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). Debbie Banks, its Tiger Campaign Leader, warned: "The huge number of tigers held or bred in captivity in China suggests there will be a major explosion in trade - and this can only lead to more tigers being poached in the wild."

She states this as fact, but offers no empirical or even theoretical support for this view. That's because there is none.

In fact, "the huge numbers of tigers held or bred in captivity in China", which amount to some 6,000 animals, compared to 4,000 wild tigers, actually suggests there is plenty of supply to feed the limited trade China proposes to legalise.

Banks added: "The news today is a staggering display of brazen disregard for global opinion..." as if there is a reason why the opinions of armchair critics and slacktivists should prevail against professional experts in economics and conservation.

The Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) was also up in arms: "WWF urgently calls on China to maintain the ban on tiger bone and rhino horn trade which has been so critical in conserving these iconic species."

Again, this is stated as fact, but the WWF offers no empirical support for the claim that trade bans have in any way helped to conserve the species. That's because there is none.

Like other outraged environmentalists, Pinnock argues by assertion. He makes broad claims without offering any kind of empirical support for them, presumably in the belief that simply repeating the green anti-trade mantras will make people think they're true.

"There are more than a billion people in Asia," writes Pinnock. "Not all of them buy rhino horn, of course, but even a small increase in the percentage wishing to do so would be disastrous. Selling legal horn will signal that it's ethically okay to buy it, boosting sales. The stocks of the few rhino farmers and sale of state stockpiles would soon be overwhelmed and poaching of wild rhinos - already shockingly high - would rise."

There is no evidence for this claim. None, whatsoever. This has never happened. On the contrary: trade prohibitions did not prevent the relentless rise in poaching, and arguably caused them.

Almost all of the rhinos that have ever been poached in South Africa were poached after the introduction of the moratorium on trade in 2008. In 2007, 13 rhinos were poached in South Africa. By 2014, poaching reached a peak of 1,215 animals. A hugely expensive, military-scale effort to combat poaching has had some impact, but even so, over 1,000 animals are being poached every year since the peak.

In Japan, rhino horn has been illegal since 1980. In China and Vietnam, since 1993 and 1994 respectively. Yet none of these bans prevented the steep rise in poaching in South Africa over the last decade.

"What's clear is that the department is angling to increase the sale of rhino horn while cracking down on poaching - eliminate illegal trade but at the same time stimulate a parallel legal market. In simple terms, stop the bad guys and so the good guys can make a profit," writes Pinnock. "This has never worked..."

Arrant nonsense. It works for every game animal that isn't subject to a CITES trade ban. It works for large game animals such as roan, sable antelope and bontebok, which once were rare in South Africa's national game reserves, but now are abundant on private game ranches and hunting farms.

It worked for vicua, which were saved from poaching by permitting private ownership and trade in their fleece.

Pinnock seems to reserve a special distaste for commerce.

"Why is the department prepared to brook international criticism, particularly at CITES, for what is blatantly market-driven and not conservation - fanned, it seems, by a few wealthy rhino farmers?"

Well, Don, perhaps because markets and conservation are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary. The government is probably well aware that market-driven conservation worked for crocodilia. They were saved from widespread poaching by permitting captive breeding, ranching and legal trade in their leather. The illegal trade in crocodilia products has largely been eliminated as a result.

"The survival of these two species was assured when CITES turned their wool and skins, respectively, into valuable and sustainably managed commodities of benefit to local communities," said former CITES secretary-general Willem Wijnstekers in 2005.

In fact, the IUCN is on record (as is academic research), directly contradicting Pinnock's unfounded opinion that a legal market has never displaced an illegal market: "Despite predictions that legal trade would encourage illegal trade, an outstanding result of market-driven conservation of crocodilians is that illegal trade has all but been eradicated in the face of well-regulated legal trade."

That should be the end of the discussion. But it never is, is it?

Pinnocks commits another common sleight-of-hand by conflating concerns about conservation with concerns about animal welfare. Cruel farming practices are independent from the question of whether farming animals for trade ought to be legal.

Cruel farming practices involving pigs, chickens or cattle are legitimate targets for public awareness campaigns and legal prosecutions under animal anti-cruelty laws. However, they do not imply anything about whether farming them ought to be legal. It is arguable that a legal, regulated market visible to the public eye results in a lot less animal cruelty than an underground black market that is hidden from view. It's no different for game, including farming of large, charismatic species.

"The only sensible approach would be to reduce demand in every way possible," writes Pinnock, again without offering any empirical support.

"Without detailing how it intends to do so, the department told Parliament it would instead attempt to manipulate Asian consumer behaviour to choose legal horn over poached horn. Plans for this mammoth PR task were not in evidence..."

Demand reduction has been the mantra of anti-trade activists for years. They hold up Japan and Yemen as examples of markets where demand for rhino horn was successfully minimised by such campaigns.

I suspect that the eye-watering rise in the price of rhino horn from hundreds of dollars per kilo to something like $80,000/kg may have had a great deal to do with it, especially in Yemen's case. You can't get all that many ceremonial dagger handles out of a kilo of rhino horn, which would make them insanely expensive in a country that had an all-time high GDP per capita of $1,309 in 2010, before its catastrophic collapse to $432 by 2016.

Yet demand reduction campaigns were the way to go, anti-trade groups said. But according to Pinnock, convincing people to buy legal products instead of illegal products is somehow a harder public relations task than convincing them not to buy the products at all. Now, the task is suddenly too big. This would apply equally to any other demand-reduction campaign, but Pinnock seems blithely unaware of the self-contradiction.

As a final example of why China's decision is not alarming, and may very well benefit tigers and rhinos, consider South Africa's lions.

From 2008 to 2015, there was an unrestricted trade in lion bones in South Africa. Initially, they were largely by-products of trophy-hunting. However, the US decision to outlaw the import of hunting trophies in 2015 forced many captive lion operations - when they didn't simply euthanise their lions - to pivot to skeletons produced for export. As it turns out, lion skeletons are much more valuable with the head attached.

In 2015, a report was published by researchers from Witwatersrand University, Oxford University's Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, and specialist wildlife trade NGO, Traffic, led by Vivienne Williams. Called Bones of Contention: An assessment of the South African trade in African Lion bones and other body parts, the report found that the lion bone trade had no discernible negative impact on wild lions in South Africa.

"In South Africa, the trade in Lion bones currently has a negligible impact on wild Lion populations," it found.

"The trade in bones appears to be a sustainable by-product of the sizeable trophy hunting industry in South Africa, and lions that are hunted are almost exclusively captive-bred. There are few records of wild-hunting and poaching in the country, especially at a level that could supply the sizeable bone trade."

Quotas introduced since 2016 suggest that the supply of lion bones continues to rise, yet two follow-up papers by Williams et al. in 2017 reconfirmed that few wild lions are hunted or poached in South Africa's protected areas, and the legal trade is supplied almost exclusively by the captive-bred lion industry. This is not the case in African range states with no farmed lions, where poaching places wild lions at risk.

Empirical evidence contradicts the theory that a legal trade in animal products will stimulate poaching and the illegal trade. Instead, it suggests that a legal trade, supplied by captive breeders and game ranchers, acts as a buffer, protecting wild populations from poaching.

The answers to emotive questions about trade in vulnerable, threatened or endangered species are never simple. Introducing legal trade where there was none before is not a panacea, and will not happen without difficulties that need to be resolved.

Maintaining trade bans hasn't worked. On the contrary, they appear to have stimulated poaching by suppressing the legal market, posing an existential threat to some of the species "protected" in this manner.

By contrast, the problems with legal trade do not pose an existential threat to animal species. On the contrary, legal trade appears to protect wild populations, and unlike with the anti-trade environmentalists' mantras, there is empirical evidence for this.

Instead of lecturing African or Asian governments on how to conserve their wildlife, perhaps the Western elites that run and donate to global environmental NGOs should be a little less strident, patronising and neo-colonialist. Especially when, like Pinnock, they're dead wrong. DM

Recession Proof US Shares worth researching Part 3. As in Part 1 & Part 2 of this series.

The shares listed below meet the following criteria:

Low probability that the dividend is at risk

Paid dividends for more than 20 years

Average annual dividend growth is more than 5% for the last 20 years

Growing Dividends (more than 5% last year)

Dividend Yield between 2.0% to 7.5%

Must have generated free cash flow 7 out of the last 10 years

Increased or at least maintained its dividend through the last financial crisis between 2007-09

Current dividend is above its 5-year average yield (could indicate the share is undervalued)

Dividend Pay Out Ratio is less than 75% (Indicating the company is retaining sufficient capital for re-investment)

Average return during the 2007-09 recession was equal to or higher than the S&P 500

I will not discuss the benefits of staying in or moving out of the Share Markets during market downturns as there is plenty of research available on this subject. However here is an interesting graph I found on Charles Schwab website that shows the duration and gains / losses of bear and bull markets.

I am a firm believer in staying invested in dividend growth shares during market down turn cycles. I also believe in investing in companies, not markets. Year to date my dividends (and income) have increased in spite of a market correction. If you are selling shares to fund your retirement then you should always have about 3 years of expenses invested in cash-like investments so that you can ride out market down turns without having to sell shares when the prices are low. In fact, you should try to have ready cash available to buy Dividend Growth shares when the market is down. You will then get a higher dividend yield as well as benefiting from the price increase in the stocks when the market recovers.

Here are the next 5 shares I believe are worth researching as potential Recession Proof Shares to invest in.

Ticker

Name

% Above 5-Year Average Dividend Yield

Dividend Yield

1 Year Dividend Growth

Uninterrupted Dividend Streak (Years)

Recession Dividend

Recession Return %

Annual ROR forecast next 2 years

ADM

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company

2.00%

2.70%

6.70%

27

Increased

-21.00%

21%

IBM

International Business Machines Corporation

49.00%

5.20%

7.30%

23

Increased

-28.00%

25.00%

HSY

Hershey Company

14.00%

2.70%

6.10%

29

Maintained

-30.00%

17.00%

PEP

PepsiCo

15.00%

3.20%

7.00%

27

Increased

-35.00%

10.00%

VFC

V.F. Corporation

4.00%

2.40%

12.40%

29

Increased

-39.00%

7.00%

A brief summary on each company follows

ADM - Archer-Daniels-Midland Company. Has an A credit rating. Founded in 1898 The company transports and processes corn, oilseeds, wheat, and other commodities into products for food, beverage, animal feed, chemical, and energy uses around the world.

IBM - Needs no introduction. Has an A credit rating. IBM recently made a large aquisition in Red Hat. Share prices have dropped significantly due to underperformance. IBM may be a stable company but recent history and forecasts are not exciting.

HSY - Hershey Company - Founded in 1894. Has an A credit rating. Manufactures confectionary products. Sells them under the following brands: Hershey's, Reese's, Kisses, Jolly Rancher, Almond Joy, Brookside, barkTHINS, Cadbury, Good & Plenty, Heath, Kit Kat, Lancaster, Payday, Rolo, Twizzlers, Whoppers, York, Scharffen Berger, Dagoba, Ice Breakers, Breathsavers, and Bubble Yum brands, as well as under the Golden Monkey, Munching Monkey, Pelon Pelo Rico, IO-IO, Nutrine, Maha Lacto, Jumpin, Sofit, SkinnyPop, Oatmega, Paqui, and Tyrrells brands. A healthy company with safe dividends.

PEP-PepsiCo. Pepsi-Cola and Frito-Lay merged in 1965 to form PepsiCo. Has an A+ credit rating. The company has the following brands: Lay's, Pepsi, Tropicana, Quaker Oats, Gatorade, Naked Juice, Aquafina, Lipton, Doritos, Tostitos, Mountain Dew, Ruffles, Cheetos, and Sierra Mist. Pepsi is the largest Food and Beverage company in USA, Canada, UK, Russia and is second largest in Mexico. The combination of strong brands and mix of beverages and snacks give Pepsi a wide moat. I will do a deep dive into Pepsi in the near future as it is another great Dividend Growth investment to consider.

VFC - V.F. Corporation. Founded in 1899. Has an A credit rating. Is a leading global lifestyle apparel maker in the outerwear, footwear, denim, backpack, luggage, accessory, sportswear, occupational, and performance apparel categories. 40% of sales are outside US making it a good global investment. The company's strong brands give it a good moat.

The shares discussed in this series are a sample of the US shares that could outperform the S&P 500 index during a market down turn. In the next and final article, I will run a back test to see how these 15 shares would have performed compared to the S&P500 had they been used to construct an equally weighted portfolio 20 years ago.

Disclaimer: Please note that I am not a Registered Financial Planner. The articles I write are based on my own personal research and for my own use and is not to be construed as financial planning advice. At all times readers are urged to exercise caution when investing in any financial instruments, to do their own research. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

Follow @Bruce Ingram

...back to Share Picks USA

Etion sells shares to support digital thrust. The digital technology group has sold a 12.4% stake to Douglas Investments as it raises capital to expand its digital security businesses.

Etion has sold shares worth R27.3 million to help strengthen it digital security businesses.

The 70 million shares in the digital technology group were sold to Clive Douglas Investments at 39c each, a 3.8% discount to the 30-day weighted average traded price of its shares prior to the issue. The stake represents 14.16% of issued share capital prior to the general issue and 12.4% after. Shareholders authorised Etion to issue up to 50% of its issued share capital for cash at its annual general meeting in September.

The investment by Douglas Investments is intended to strengthen Etion's thrust into cutting-edge digital security innovation, following its acquisition of cybersecurity specialist, LAWTrust, in June 2018," the group said.

In June, Etion bought cybersecurity specialist LAWTrust for R109 million and said it was targeting new markets including Australasia and western Europe for products such as cybersecurity as it grows international revenue. It already has a presence in the Middle East. It has integrated LAWtrust into its Etion Secure division.

Weaker SA markets last year resulted in a 29% decline in group revenue to R573 million for the year to end-March, while headline earnings per share halved to 7.29c.

Its shares ended 9.5% down at 38c yesterday.

Sandown takes action to narrow discount. The investment group is changing direction after it came under pressure from shareholders to narrow its discount to NAV.

Sandown Capital has bowed to shareholder pressure and will change its investment strategy to narrow the discount its shares trade at relative to the net value of its assets.

The investment group, which was unbundled from Peregrine a year ago, plans to change its name to Zarclear and focus on investments in market infrastructure and regulation technology, complemented by a liquid and transparent portfolio.

Sandown has traded at a discount of between 20% and 40% to NAV since listening, resulting in a number of its shareholders raising concerns. Its board acknowledged that, if sustained, this would hamper its ability to raise capital over time. In July, the company said one shareholder, holding at least 10% of the voting rights, had demanded a shareholder meeting to look at reconstituting its board of directors. It said yesterday it would do this along with the other changes.

The company has been in a process of realigning its assets to fit with the changes while simultaneously focusing on minimising costs associated with managing its portfolio of assets," Sandown said. "The company is also making investments into businesses that are focused on providing market infrastructure and regulation technology ahead of the sweeping changes coming to South African financial markets under the Financial Sector Regulations Bill, commonly referred to as "Twin Peaks."

Sundown said it was in the process of applying for a trade repository licence under the new framework.

Releasing interim results yesterday, Sandown reported total revenue of R158.5 million and profit of R120 million for the six months to end-September. Headline earnings per share jumped 678% to 52.97c. Its net asst value increased by 422% to 559c per share.

Its shares closed 1.4% higher at R3.75. The announcement was made after the close of trade.

Discounts Discounts Everywhere! Very explicit comment from Sandown Capital in their annual report. $SDC pic.twitter.com/YDwiSNGpyT

-- Jan van Niekerk (@janvnrecm) August 1, 2018

Finbond loses business due to SASSA switchover. The mutual bank says the new Post Office card doesn't allow for debits or stop orders, limiting its ability to lend to grant recipients.

Finbond has lost out as the SA Social Security Agency (SASSA) moved grant recipients to a new SA Post Office card in May. The mutual bank says business volumes have been under pressure after a large portion of its SA client base moved to the new card, resulting in a 40% decline in its SASSA customer base.

The new card doesn't allow for EFT debits or stop orders, which limits its ability to extend credit to this segment of the market. However, Finbond says it's taken measures to address the issue as SASSA beneficiaries are shifted from Net1 to the Post Office.

Earlier this year, the lender accused SASSA officials of persuading grant beneficiaries to replace their Finbond bank accounts with the new Post Office Cards.

The lower volumes resulted in a 19% decline in Finbond's short-term SA loan book to R366 million in the six months to end-August. While average loan sizes were slightly higher over the period, the average tenure declined to just under four months.

Over the period, revenue from North America increased by 21% to R751 million. The group now generates just over 60% of its revenue in US dollars, up from 55.9% a year ago. It plans to make 70% to 80% of group earnings in US dollars in the next three to five years as it continues to expand its footprint in North America.

Total revenue from continuing operations increased by 12.7% to R1.25 billion. Operating profit on the same basis improved by 7.3% to R184 million and net profit grew by 1.6% to R94.2 million.

Finbond says it now plans to convert from a mutual banking to a commercial banking licence and is also applying for a licence in Malta. It's targeting a further 40 to 60 branches in the US and will add more SA branches in high-growth areas. It currently has 427 SA branches and 257 outlets in the US and Canada.

We believe that our continued growth in South Africa, the expansion into the North American short-term lending market and the implementation of our strategic action plan will ensure that we achieve results in the medium and long-term," Finbond said.

Its shares declined 1.1% to R4.08 yesterday.

The importance of intra-African investment. Businessman and director at Intercontinental Trust Mauritius, Ben Lim - also known as York Shin Lim Voon Kee - delivered a presentation at the GIB Africa Alliance Conference. His focus was on how Mauritius can help drive intra-African investment.

The event was held in September at Long Beach Hotel and was attended by insurance brokers from across Africa and Europe. Some of the countries represented by the brokers in attendance are South Africa, Zambia, Kenya, Nigeria, Guinea, Ghana, Germany and the UK. The GIB Africa Alliance is a network of insurance brokers that spreads across the African continent.

These brokers in the GIB network have been identified as the cream of the crop in their respective countries. Through a careful vetting process, GIB Africa Alliance has created a network of professional, certified, and highly capable insurance professionals waiting to share their local knowledge with companies who do or wish to do business in their countries. The conference provides an opportunity for these brokers and other GIB partners to network and obtain knowledge and industry insights. This forms part of the GIB's dedication to continued professional development for its members.

Ben Lim is a financial services industry professional with a wealth of knowledge. He is also a proud African who believes in intra-African investment.

Said Ben Lim: "Mauritius is a business hub for intra-Africa and international investment. Whilst there are many tax benefits that are available to investors, the government is relentlessly working on improving the tax system to ensure that there is no malpractice and that the jurisdiction remains transparent and equitable."

Ben Lim also runs businesses in more than one African country showing his commitment to the continent and its growth.

Most Britons back staying in EU: poll. The apparent boost in remain support will be seized by campaigners who want a binding second vote taken on the terms London and Brussels reach before Britain splits from the other 27 nations in the bloc on March 29.

It remains unclear what would happen were that deal rejected, with some suggesting that a second referendum on Britain's EU membership be held.

Prime Minister Theresa May rejects the idea, arguing that it would be undemocratic for Britain to go back on the Brexit referendum result in June 2016.

Voters then chose to leave the EU by a 52-48 percent margin, fed in part by a desire to regain control of UK borders in the face of a refugee crisis sweeping Europe at the time.

But talks over Britain's withdrawal terms remain stuck due to a dispute over the Irish border, and the outlines of a potential deal taking shape look little like what the leave camp promised two years ago.

Commissioned by Britain's independent Channel 4 television, the online poll of 20,000 people was conducted by the Survation agency between October 20 and November 2.

It gave no margin of error.

The poll showed support for Brexit in some cities that voted to leave falling by around 10 percentage points.

In Southampton, a port of 250,000 in the south of England, it slipped from 53.8 percent to 41.8 percent, while in Birmingham, a central industrial city of one million, it fell from 50.4 percent to 41.8 percent.

At the same time, the poll showed backing for the deal that the two sides seem to be nearing at 41-30 percent among voters who identified themselves as members of May's Conservative Party.

The finding should give May a boost as she fights off eurosceptics in her cabinet who want a quicker and more profound economic break between the UK and EU after Brexit takes effect. DM

ANALYSIS: ANC NEC's major indecision and authority problem. It was fairly obvious before this last meeting started that, should something happen, it would mark a major turning point in the ANC. For years, arguably since Tony Yengeni's conviction, and the Arms Deal, and everything that followed, the major problem facing the ANC has been dealing with corruption.

Simply put, significant political support in the party appears to buy the shielding of the accused from any criminal, or inter-party, action. No matter what the politics outside of the ANC may be and how voters may judge this inaction.

The case of VBS appears to be no different. Except that, this time, the National Integrity Commission of the ANC put the NEC in a difficult position by recommending that those who are implicated in the VBS scandal be removed from their party leadership positions until the situation is cleared up. For those interested in the minutiae of ANC procedure (which at times may be all of us) this raises interesting issues. The ANC already has a National Disciplinary Committee that is supposed to deal with disciplinary issues. The Integrity Commission was brought in during the Zuma years in a bid to depoliticise discipline, made out of the ANC elders, who are supposedly neutral on internal issues, who can then make decisions about what should happen.

All of this can become important because those who are considered "implicated" by this commission could claim in front of the Disciplinary Committee that their case has been prejudged. Especially if they haven't had a hearing in front of the Integrity Commission. This goes back to the original problem; in political parties, it appears, almost all disciplinary actions are inherently political in nature, they are about tests of political strength, and not the rights and wrongs of their case. Then, of course, there is the problem of the precedent; everyone will be well aware of how important this issue is, and how important this decision could be. Already the Gauteng ANC has said it will wait to see how the national ANC deals with this issue, before deciding on what to do about former Gauteng Health MEC Qedani Mahlangu and now-former Chief Whip Brian Hlongwa.

However, in this case, there is a much bigger complication. The ANC itself, itseems, cannot decide if it actually benefited from VBS or not, and whether it received money or not. The former Treasurer, Zweli Mkhize, says they didn't.The current Treasurer, Paul Mashatile, says they did. The only thing more ridiculous would be for the ANC to march against itselfon e-tolls.

The NEC also appears to make strong decisions about what could be called "secret meetings". This is of course a reference to the gathering that saw Secretary-General Ace Magashule being caught out while meeting with former president Jacob Zuma, former North West premier Supra Mahumapelo and others who made up the Zuma faction ahead of Nasrec. The NEC statement says that "no Officials or member of the National Executive Committee, Provincial and Regional Executive Committees or general members of the ANC may participate in any meetings aligned to any pre or post NASREC factions. No meeting about the ANC or its operations may be held without knowledge and reports to the structures of the movement".

But, what exactly "pre- or post-Nasrec faction" is, may be hard to define. What if President Cyril Ramaphosa and ANC Chair Gwede Mantashe need to have a quick coffee? What if Magashule and ANC Deputy Secretary-General Jessie Duarte bump into each other? They are in the same floor of the same building after all. And yet, both those examples could, by their critics, be seen as examples of "factions" meeting each other.

As for the ban on secrecy, that is also hard to police. The ANC, like many organisations in this country, has dozens of WhatsApp groups. They're used for organisation, discussions, and no doubt simply to share jokes and memes. Is belonging to one of these now wrong? Can you only belong to one if it has representatives of both "factions" as members? And how would you police that?

What may be more entertaining for the general public to watch is whether a resolution about the use of social media has an impact. The NEC says that "... noting the impact of social media, reiterated the importance of enforcing the ANC Communications Protocol as affirmed by the 54th National Conference."

In other words, people should not tweet in a way that would harm the unity of the movement. One wonders if Tony Yengeni will continue to retweet Black First Land First, or focus on "WMC", when Ramaphosa himself has said that treating "white monopoly capital" as an enemy "must end".

The possible divisions in the NEC are also further illustrated by, once again, the lack of a hard decision around Andile Lungisa. Lungisa is currently a member of the Mayoral Committee in the city cabinet appointed by the UDM mayor of Nelson Mandela Bay, Mongameli Bobani. There is a standing ANC resolution that someone who is convicted of a crime must step down from their position. Lungisa has refused to do this, despite being convicted of assault for breaking a glass jar on the head of a DA councillor in the council chamber. The NEC has instructed him to step down, and he has refused. Now the NEC has resolved that "the Officials (the Top Six) will further engage the Provincial Executive Committee of the Eastern Cape around the organisational challenges in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro".

In other words, the Top Six now have to deal with this issue. But this is an incredibly clear cut case, the resolution is there, and the NEC is supposed to implement these resolutions. And yet, there is no clear public instruction that Lungisa must resign. It could be that the NEC simply cannot make a decision on this issue. Or, perhaps, it may be that there is a concern that Lungisa will simply refuse. And Bobani, being from the UDM, cannot be forced to fire him.

It may sound far-fetched to say that an ANC member would actually refuse to obey an edict from the NEC. But there is evidence that the real problem is not just the divisions in the NEC, but the fact that people do not accept the authority of the ANC as a whole any more. Two weeks ago ANC councillors in both the Sol Plaatje Municipality (around Kimberley) and in Matlosana in North West, defied instructions and voted for someone other than the person they had been ordered to install as mayor.

All of this suggests that the ANC's ability to manage itself is slowly coming under threat. The NEC is supposed to be the final decision-making body in the party between conferences. But, in these cases, and in others, it appears unable to make decisions, or abrogates them to other structures. This in turn may continue to degrade its authority still further. It would seem difficult, from this point, to see how the NEC will be able to regain the initiative from this point on. DM