
Swiftnet sells, Telkom swells: one deal, big dividends — for now
Telkom dazzled investors with its financial results recently, but a deeper dive reveals that the sale of the Swiftnet tower infrastructure business – once considered central to Telkom's strategy – provided the windfall that lit up the numbers. But strip out Swiftnet, and the glow fades fast.
The Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT) congratulated Telkom on its 'phenomenal' results, with Minister Solly Malatsi hailing it as 'a key enabler of South Africa's digital future' in a statement on 10 June.
Unlike traditional SOEs like Eskom or Transnet, Telkom is listed on the JSE and not governed under Schedule 2 of the Public Finance Management Act – but with 54.5% of its shares held by state-linked entities, it behaves more like a public-interest asset than a private firm.
Despite these apparently strong financials, all of these indicators are positive as a result of the sale of a core business within Telkom's holding – Swiftnet, which owns all of the company's mast and tower business. The numbers vs the narrative
Telkom's FY2025 performance was strong across all headline metrics: group revenue rose 3.3% to R43.9-billion, adjusted EBITDA jumped 25.1% to R11.8-billion and free cash flow surged to R2.78-billion – a 555% increase on the prior year, almost unbelievable on paper. The company declared dividends for the first time in four years, totalling R1.3-billion.
Every number on the switchboard appears to be green, with the state emerging as a major beneficiary: a R540-million dividend windfall flowed into government coffers just in time to help buffer the fiscus.
Still, one question remains on the line: are these numbers the result of strategic depth, or a carefully choreographed series of asset disposals?
A towering turnaround
At first glance, the turnaround reads like a textbook recovery play: streamlining, divestiture, energy efficiency, capital discipline. However, a detailed analysis of the financials shows that nearly all the key indicators of Telkom's turnaround hinge on a single major action: the sale of Swiftnet, Telkom's mast and tower business.Swiftnet managed more than 4,000 high sites – many in remote areas – serving as the physical spine of Telkom's mobile and fixed wireless networks. Its sale means Telkom will now pay to access the infrastructure it once owned, with long-term lease costs baked into future operations.
Swiftnet's disposal generated R6.6-billion in proceeds, cut net debt to almost half of what it was, bringing it to R7.48-billion, and unlocked the funds for dividend reinstatement. The buyer was a consortium led by Actis, alongside Royal Bafokeng Holdings and the Mineworkers Investment Company. Not insignificantly, the R4.4-billion net gain on Swiftnet's sale also inflated reported profit, pushing EBITDA margins higher.
Free cash flow surged by 555% – impressive, yes, but primarily due to this windfall, a reduction in capex and tightened cost controls. That eye-watering number highlights the real concern: Telkom's FY2025 turnaround looks like a one-trick pony, unless the company intends to keep selling off core infrastructure.
Telkom brought back dividends this year, promising to pay out between 30% and 40% of its free cash flow to shareholders. But in 2025 it went even higher, paying out 48%. That extra payout was made possible by the cash it earned from selling Swiftnet, which gave the company a big financial boost.
Notably, Telkom hadn't paid dividends since 2021, citing pandemic pressures, margin decline and capital requirements. The 2025 payout signals a strategic shift, though not necessarily a structural one.
'Without Swiftnet's R4.4-billion disposal gain, Telkom's core profit story looks significantly more modest – and its future operating costs are now structurally higher,' the company noted in its investor release.
Divestment-driven growth
The Swiftnet deal transferred control of income-generating infrastructure to an external operator. Telkom now leases back some of these same towers at a cost. While the short-term capital unlocked helped reduce debt and deliver dividends, it baked in long-term lease liabilities.
Selling vs leasing towers – a case study in strategic trade-offs
MTN's 2021 sale of more than 5,700 towers to IHS Towers unlocked immediate capital and was initially hailed as a strategic move to streamline its balance sheet. However, the deal later attracted criticism as leaseback costs began to rise, eroding the expected financial benefit.
More significantly, MTN ceded control over key passive infrastructure, which reportedly led to delays in site upgrades, reduced agility in rural network expansion and strained relationships with the tower operator over access and maintenance. The long-term implications of relinquishing infrastructure ownership became a cautionary tale in the telecoms industry – one that Telkom may now be echoing with the Swiftnet sale.
What this means for you
Telkom's big numbers might look great for now, but they came from selling key parts of the business, like its cellphone towers. That helped pay shareholders, but it also means Telkom now has to rent back the infrastructure it once owned.
If this cuts into future network investment, you could see slower upgrades, patchy coverage in rural areas, or even higher prices.
If you're a Telkom customer, it's fair to ask: will I get less for more? Will my signal suffer? Or should I start looking at other networks? Whether this will, in fact, be the case will likely only be seen by Telkom's performance and service over the current financial year.
On the spectrum – litigation and market dominance
In 2021-22, Telkom challenged Icasa's high-demand spectrum auction, claiming the process favoured comparative incumbents such as Vodacom and MTN. It cited ignored roaming agreements (such as Vodacom-Rain) and obsolete competition models.
'Icasa failed to conduct a new competition assessment and relied on outdated frameworks,' Telkom argued in its court application filed with the North Gauteng High Court at the time.
While the litigation was eventually withdrawn, the company's underlying point may now work against it. With debt slashed and cash freed up, Telkom is better placed than ever to bid aggressively, potentially replicating the very dominance it previously challenged.
Paper tiger or infrastructure backbone?
Telkom's 2025 performance is no doubt impressive, but many of its gains are the result of concretely one-off, non-repeatable actions.
The 2025 financial year gave Telkom a fiscal breather. The current financial year will determine whether that space becomes structural headroom, or whether the company suffers in delivery of key services due to the sales it has made. DM
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Swiftnet sells, Telkom swells: one deal, big dividends — for now
Telkom dazzled investors with its financial results recently, but a deeper dive reveals that the sale of the Swiftnet tower infrastructure business – once considered central to Telkom's strategy – provided the windfall that lit up the numbers. But strip out Swiftnet, and the glow fades fast. The Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT) congratulated Telkom on its 'phenomenal' results, with Minister Solly Malatsi hailing it as 'a key enabler of South Africa's digital future' in a statement on 10 June. Unlike traditional SOEs like Eskom or Transnet, Telkom is listed on the JSE and not governed under Schedule 2 of the Public Finance Management Act – but with 54.5% of its shares held by state-linked entities, it behaves more like a public-interest asset than a private firm. Despite these apparently strong financials, all of these indicators are positive as a result of the sale of a core business within Telkom's holding – Swiftnet, which owns all of the company's mast and tower business. The numbers vs the narrative Telkom's FY2025 performance was strong across all headline metrics: group revenue rose 3.3% to R43.9-billion, adjusted EBITDA jumped 25.1% to R11.8-billion and free cash flow surged to R2.78-billion – a 555% increase on the prior year, almost unbelievable on paper. The company declared dividends for the first time in four years, totalling R1.3-billion. Every number on the switchboard appears to be green, with the state emerging as a major beneficiary: a R540-million dividend windfall flowed into government coffers just in time to help buffer the fiscus. Still, one question remains on the line: are these numbers the result of strategic depth, or a carefully choreographed series of asset disposals? A towering turnaround At first glance, the turnaround reads like a textbook recovery play: streamlining, divestiture, energy efficiency, capital discipline. However, a detailed analysis of the financials shows that nearly all the key indicators of Telkom's turnaround hinge on a single major action: the sale of Swiftnet, Telkom's mast and tower managed more than 4,000 high sites – many in remote areas – serving as the physical spine of Telkom's mobile and fixed wireless networks. Its sale means Telkom will now pay to access the infrastructure it once owned, with long-term lease costs baked into future operations. Swiftnet's disposal generated R6.6-billion in proceeds, cut net debt to almost half of what it was, bringing it to R7.48-billion, and unlocked the funds for dividend reinstatement. The buyer was a consortium led by Actis, alongside Royal Bafokeng Holdings and the Mineworkers Investment Company. Not insignificantly, the R4.4-billion net gain on Swiftnet's sale also inflated reported profit, pushing EBITDA margins higher. Free cash flow surged by 555% – impressive, yes, but primarily due to this windfall, a reduction in capex and tightened cost controls. That eye-watering number highlights the real concern: Telkom's FY2025 turnaround looks like a one-trick pony, unless the company intends to keep selling off core infrastructure. Telkom brought back dividends this year, promising to pay out between 30% and 40% of its free cash flow to shareholders. But in 2025 it went even higher, paying out 48%. That extra payout was made possible by the cash it earned from selling Swiftnet, which gave the company a big financial boost. Notably, Telkom hadn't paid dividends since 2021, citing pandemic pressures, margin decline and capital requirements. The 2025 payout signals a strategic shift, though not necessarily a structural one. 'Without Swiftnet's R4.4-billion disposal gain, Telkom's core profit story looks significantly more modest – and its future operating costs are now structurally higher,' the company noted in its investor release. Divestment-driven growth The Swiftnet deal transferred control of income-generating infrastructure to an external operator. Telkom now leases back some of these same towers at a cost. While the short-term capital unlocked helped reduce debt and deliver dividends, it baked in long-term lease liabilities. Selling vs leasing towers – a case study in strategic trade-offs MTN's 2021 sale of more than 5,700 towers to IHS Towers unlocked immediate capital and was initially hailed as a strategic move to streamline its balance sheet. However, the deal later attracted criticism as leaseback costs began to rise, eroding the expected financial benefit. More significantly, MTN ceded control over key passive infrastructure, which reportedly led to delays in site upgrades, reduced agility in rural network expansion and strained relationships with the tower operator over access and maintenance. The long-term implications of relinquishing infrastructure ownership became a cautionary tale in the telecoms industry – one that Telkom may now be echoing with the Swiftnet sale. What this means for you Telkom's big numbers might look great for now, but they came from selling key parts of the business, like its cellphone towers. That helped pay shareholders, but it also means Telkom now has to rent back the infrastructure it once owned. If this cuts into future network investment, you could see slower upgrades, patchy coverage in rural areas, or even higher prices. If you're a Telkom customer, it's fair to ask: will I get less for more? Will my signal suffer? Or should I start looking at other networks? Whether this will, in fact, be the case will likely only be seen by Telkom's performance and service over the current financial year. On the spectrum – litigation and market dominance In 2021-22, Telkom challenged Icasa's high-demand spectrum auction, claiming the process favoured comparative incumbents such as Vodacom and MTN. It cited ignored roaming agreements (such as Vodacom-Rain) and obsolete competition models. 'Icasa failed to conduct a new competition assessment and relied on outdated frameworks,' Telkom argued in its court application filed with the North Gauteng High Court at the time. While the litigation was eventually withdrawn, the company's underlying point may now work against it. With debt slashed and cash freed up, Telkom is better placed than ever to bid aggressively, potentially replicating the very dominance it previously challenged. Paper tiger or infrastructure backbone? Telkom's 2025 performance is no doubt impressive, but many of its gains are the result of concretely one-off, non-repeatable actions. The 2025 financial year gave Telkom a fiscal breather. The current financial year will determine whether that space becomes structural headroom, or whether the company suffers in delivery of key services due to the sales it has made. DM


Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Hackers hit Iran's largest cryptocurrency exchange, while global crypto markets tumble after US bombing
At the intersection of geopolitics and cryptocurrency, a sophisticated cyberattack on Iran's financial infrastructure has reverberated through global crypto markets, offering sobering lessons for regulators worldwide. In what appears to be one of the most politically motivated cryptocurrency heists in history, the pro-Israel hacker group Gonjeshke Darande (Predatory Sparrow) infiltrated Iran's largest crypto exchange, Nobitex, making off with between R1.5-billion and R1.8-billion in bitcoin, ethereum, dogecoin, XRP and solana. But here's the twist: it wasn't about the money. Instead, the hackers 'burned' the stolen cryptocurrency, permanently removing it from circulation by sending it to inaccessible wallet addresses — a digital equivalent of setting cash on fire. The attackers used provocative 'vanity addresses' containing explicit anti-terrorist messages, making their political motivations crystal clear. After the IRGC's 'Bank Sepah' comes the turn of Nobitex WARNING! In 24 hours, we will release Nobitex's source code and internal information from their internal network. Any assets that remain there after that point will be at risk! The Nobitex exchange is at the heart of the… — Gonjeshke Darande (@GonjeshkeDarand) June 18, 2025 'Unlike typical hacks for financial gain, the intent here appears to have been politically motivated, aiming to take funds away from the regime,' according to an analysis of the incident. The same group also claimed responsibility for simultaneously destroying data at Iran's state-owned Bank Sepah, which they accused of funding Iran's military. The sophistication of these attacks has led security experts to suggest they're beyond the capabilities of typical activist hackers and more in line with nation-state operations. Iran's crypto curfew response Iran's central bank responded by imposing strict operating hours on domestic crypto exchanges, limiting them to 10am-8pm daily. This 'crypto curfew' appears designed to prevent capital flight during periods of high geopolitical tension and assert greater control over citizens' cross-border cryptocurrency transactions. It's not the first time Iran has flexed its regulatory muscles over crypto. In December, the central bank temporarily shut down all exchanges to prevent the national currency, the rial, from depreciating further. The timing couldn't be worse for Iranian crypto users. Chainalysis notes that Nobitex plays a critical role in Iran's crypto ecosystem, processing more than R200-billion in total inflows, significantly more than the next 10 largest Iranian exchanges combined. For Iranian users cut off from traditional finance due to international sanctions, it serves as a crucial gateway to global crypto markets. Lessons for Africa When national currencies face devaluation due to economic instability or sanctions, cryptocurrencies and stablecoins can serve as stores of value. This is particularly relevant in African countries experiencing high inflation or currency instability. Unlike traditional financial systems that can be easily shut down or restricted by governments, cryptocurrency networks operate across borders and are more difficult to completely block, though governments can still restrict access to exchanges and on-ramps. Iran's crypto curfew shows how quickly governments can impose restrictions during crises. This uncertainty can affect market access and asset values. The key is staying informed about local regulations, using reputable exchanges with strong security practices, and understanding that while cryptocurrency can provide financial flexibility during uncertain times, it's not immune to geopolitical shocks and market volatility. Global market meltdown The crypto market's reaction to escalating Middle East tensions has been swift and brutal. Following US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and President Donald Trump's hints at potential regime change, global cryptocurrency markets shed more than R20-billion in liquidations within 24 hours. Bitcoin crashed below the six-figure mark for the first time in 45 days. Ethereum plummeted to its lowest price since May, while solana dropped by 8%. The Block's GMCI30 index, tracking the top 30 cryptocurrencies, slid by nearly 10% over the week, with smaller altcoins faring even worse — small caps plunged by 17% and AI-linked tokens plummeted by 20%. Perhaps most tellingly, Iran's parliament urged leaders to consider closing the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial artery for global oil shipments. While Iran has never successfully closed the strait, the mere threat rattled markets and highlighted how quickly geopolitical tensions can spill over into financial markets. The selloff challenges the narrative of bitcoin as a 'safe haven' asset during geopolitical uncertainty. Instead of flocking to crypto, traders opted to cash out, suggesting that fear temporarily outweighed any safe haven appeal. African lessons in regulatory balance The Iranian situation offers valuable lessons for African regulators grappling with how to approach cryptocurrency regulation. Sub-Saharan Africa has the world's highest rate of stablecoin adoption at 9.3%, with Nigeria ranking as the world's second-largest adopter of digital assets. But the Nobitex hack serves as a reminder of the cybersecurity risks associated with centralised exchanges. African countries and exchanges need robust security protocols, regular audits, and clear incident response plans to protect user funds and maintain trust. Perhaps most importantly, the Iranian situation demonstrates the dangers of regulatory ambiguity. Iran's central bank warnings conflict with the pervasive use of crypto in the country, creating uncertainty that can be exploited by bad actors or lead to poorly designed reactive policies. DM


Daily Maverick
12 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Naspers' Fabricio Bloisi reports transformative growth as e-commerce profits soar to $443-million
With a billion dollar swing in cashflow, profits from its e-commerce portfolio, and a R900bn buyback powered by Tencent, Naspers has entered its next act. CEO Fabricio Bloisi says the party has only just begun. It's been 11 months since Fabricio Bloisi stepped into the corner office at Naspers and Prosus, the tech investment arm of the company. If their latest financial results are anything to go by, he picked a good time to join the party. In the company's latest financial results, a surge in e-commerce adjusted gross profits to $443-million (R8-billion) was reported. This translated into a 100% dividend hike, a $1-billion (R18-billion) swing into free cash flow territory, and yet another leg in the marathon buyback programme. If Bloisi is to be believed, 'we are just getting started'. Positive cash flow Two years ago, Naspers had negative cash flow, and was haemorrhaging billions across its portfolio. Today, its free cash flow is positive, and for the first time its e-commerce businesses are contributing more to the bottom line than the Tencent dividends that prop up the group's financials. With Tencent already having paid its $1.2-billion (R22-billion) dividend for this year, the pressure to lean on it as a crutch has eased. 'We certainly have the ambition to grow this (e-commerce contribution) substantially in the year ahead,' said Naspers CFO Nico Marais, addressing the media after the company's annual financial results were announced on Monday, 23 June 2025. The group is seeing scale and operating leverage kick in. iFood orders, which is their food delivery service in Brazil, hit 120 million in March alone, achieving 30% revenue growth. OLX, the online marketplace, saw a 5% increase in its gross profit margin and a 60% profit increase. PayU India, a payment and fintech business owned by Prosus, came close to breaking even in the second half of FY2025. 'Adjusted EBIT (gross profit) for our e-commerce businesses was $443-million,' said Marais. 'Most importantly, that growth is translating into improved profitability.' The AI flywheel According to Bloisi's vision, AI is a key driver of the company's gains. He sees AI as the connective tissue across Naspers' global portfolio. 'We talk about ecosystems, we talk about innovation, about AI, about how to have technology that is best in class in the world,' he said. AI was already streamlining the company's operations through smarter customer support, optimised logistics, and personal marketing, Marais said. 'Our grocery business is far more efficient,' he said. 'They've improved its unit economics substantially over the past year. OLX's top line grew by about 18% — that shows the operating leverage that we have within the business where AI and other efficiencies are helping.' Bloisi says they are pushing to lead in the tech ecosystems of Latin America, India, and Europe. 'I believe we should have much more investment in training, developing, and education related to AI… my expectation (is) that Prosus is going to lead this through Naspers.' Shareholders are finally seeing daylight While Naspers has never struggled with asset value on paper, the market has discounted its shares due to structural complexity and a negative perception in growth prospects. Its buyback programme, launched in 2022 and funded by Tencent share sales, was intended to address this yawning discount between share price and net asset value. 'Through the share buyback we have now returned more than $50-billion to our shareholders,' Marais reported. 'We have improved the underlying net asset value per share by more than 15% and reduced the number of shares in issue by more than a third.' The buyback programme will continue as a key component of the group's capital allocation strategy. How does this affect you? Naspers is doubling down on its e-commerce strongholds like Takealot and Mr D. Expect better deals and services. Naspers says it's investing in AI talent and training, which could open up opportunities in tech and digital operations in South Africa. If you hold Naspers of Prosus stock, rising dividends, buybacks, and stronger results could lift share prices. Leveraging global talent to support local operations keeps entrants like Amazon on their toes, which is good for customers. Buying, selling, and the next act This past financial year was one of buying and selling at scale for the group. It sold off $2.6-billion (R47-billion) in assets while simultaneously deploying $7-billion (R127-billion) in acquisitions, including the Despegar travel platform and a pending deal with Just Eat 'We are going to keep the companies we believe in and the companies that help our ecosystem. If there are companies that don't help our ecosystems, we are going to cash out, sell, realise the investment and use the investment to keep growing,' said Bloisi. For the year ahead, the group has $11-billion (R199-billion) ready for new investments, but the short-term focus remains on executing and integrating recent moves. 'My big focus now is to complete the Just Eat transaction and make sure we have exceptional operations if we deliver in Europe,' Bloisi said. 'After that, we are going to keep making aggressive moves to create a global leader.' And what of South Africa? While Prosus focused on growing in Latin America, India and Europe, Naspers was holding the fort at home. It was not interested in new African investments, for now, but was doubling down on South Africa's digital economy through its existing portfolios, Bloisi said. The company's stake in Takealot, Superbalist, Mr D Food, Property24 and Autotrader is targeting the pipeline of becoming local champions. 'We are already investing more (in Takealot) than Amazon,' says Bloisi, adding that they were leveraging their global group — people from Brazil, India, and Europe working directly with Takealot. 'Our objective is to win the competition against the new entrants. We are from South Africa and we are there to win.' Bloisi expects the market to catch up. 'My expectation is that (analysts) are going to read the new numbers and say: 'Oh my god, they are much better than we thought,' and update the numbers.' DM