After the Bell: How much is a business idea worth?
Through all of the years I have been lucky enough to be a journalist, there is one fundamental dynamic that has become completely entrenched in our society, and most others.
It is that the rich are getting richer while the poor are falling further and further behind.
One of the big drivers of this seems to be the way in which salaries for CEOs have really increased in the past few years.
Now, I fully expect and understand that someone who is able to create value for themselves and others should be paid well. And I do mean really well. It seems entirely moral to me that people should be paid for doing constructive things.
I do wonder though about cases that really involve a rise in technology, or just one insight.
So, Mark Zuckerberg has literally created an industry. But he did this as part of technological changes in society. He would not have been able to do it without being American, being at Harvard, and being there when he was.
Something similar must have happened in 2022 when soaring platinum prices resulted in the CEO of Sibanye-Stillwater, Neal Froneman, getting paid about R300-million.
Now, I could never do what Froneman does. He has a rare combination of skills and the ability to lead a group of people to enable others to make money.
And, of course, much of his salary was in the form of shares, their value increased in line with platinum prices immediately after the Covid pandemic.
This means that this money was not paid out directly by the company, but was the result of the increase in the value of shares he had been given before the rally.
The case of The Foschini Group CEO Anthony Thunström is an interesting example.
In 2024, he was paid 43% less than the year before because the group missed certain targets. This year, he was paid R45-million because he hit those targets.
While he cannot control all of the variables around him, there is something about this that seems intrinsically fairer to me than Froneman's situation, where he benefited hugely from a historic dynamic that lifted platinum prices.
That said, he could argue, perhaps, that only he could have ensured his company was able to take such full advantage of that increase.
I was thinking about all of this watching the Constitutional Court's ruling in the Nkosana Makate case against Vodacom.
He and Vodacom have been arguing for nearly 20 years over how much the network should be paying him for his insight that it should start a 'Please Call Me' service.
I really thought today would be the day this case would finally end. I mean, really, how long can one case drag on?
Instead, all of the judges found the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had got the case hopelessly wrong. But, being on the Constitutional Court, they also felt they should not have to sift through the arguments and the maths.
Now the SCA must do it again, with a new Bench of judges.
For me, at the heart of it is: How much can one idea be worth?
I can see that, for Zuckerberg, perhaps that idea could be worth a huge amount – he did create something that changed the world.
For Elon Musk, perhaps his ideas – around electric cars, rockets and goodness knows what else – will literally save the planet.
That must be worth quite a lot.
But like Musk and Zuckerberg and Froneman, there are other forces at work in the Makate case.
Obviously on the one side is Vodacom, one of our biggest companies with huge resources. It will fight for many years to prevent having to pay out any amounts that go into the billions.
While it can appear as if Makate is on his own, in fact at least part of his campaign has been financed through contingency fees with law firms and, during at least one stage, other groups.
This means that both sides will fight forever. The stakes are that high.
This may be an unpopular view, but I'm not convinced one person should get billions for one simple insight that would probably have been implemented anyway.
It's true that the Please Call Me service is now old hat, but at the time it was revolutionary.
But it was one simple insight into a technology that was evolving very quickly. And MTN already had their own Please Call Me service up and running before Vodacom was able to implement theirs.
Should he receive compensation? Sure. Millions? Maybe. Billions? Surely not.
Of course, no matter how rich or comfortable we may be, we all have our own financial hopes and dreams.
Some of us just want to pay off our bond. Or our kids' school fees.
These are all legitimate. And that's why our demands to be properly paid are also entirely legitimate.
Even if your first name is Elon, and you are hoping and dreaming of going to Mars. DM
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
Tebogo Malaka ‘sting' – here's why Daily Maverick did it and what's next
The action of the Independent Development Trust's CEO and her spokesperson is an assault on the fourth estate, a vital pillar of a functioning democracy, and on freedom of expression. It's been more than three years since the State Capture commission wrapped up its work. Precious little has been done in the way of prosecuting those responsible for pillaging this country's coffers. So woeful is this lethargy that even former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo recently lambasted President Cyril Ramaphosa 's government, a highly unusual step for someone in Zondo's position. Failing to act on past State Capture crimes is one thing. Sadly, though, it is starting to dawn on South Africans that our ongoing corruption crisis is as grievous as it had been when the Zuma-Gupta syndicate ruled the roost. Whistle-blowers and forensic investigators are being gunned down. Shady contractors with no real business bona fides still clinch huge government contracts. Our President, for some reason, keeps cash in his couches. The deputy president and his family sit on vast assets that they can't quite explain. Two of Ramaphosa's 'post-capture' ministers have been caught in huge graft scandals. One of them resigned from the Cabinet, but still ended up as a Member of Parliament. The other was simply reshuffled to a new portfolio. Recent allegations regarding our police service read like a horror story. Entire pockets of the police, along with the organisation's political custodians, may very well be in the clutches of criminals. It is in this unsettling milieu that Daily Maverick decided to investigate the Independent Development Trust (IDT), a lesser-known yet important state body that spends billions of rands on social infrastructure projects. Our investigation into the IDT's R836-million oxygen plants debacle led us ever deeper into the IDT and its CEO's affairs. Somewhere along this research journey, we must have triggered a very sensitive nerve. The IDT's spokesperson got in touch with our journalist. He said he had 'very sensitive' business to discuss. A first meeting ensued, one in which promises of tenders and cash payments dominated the conversation. The spokesperson, Phasha Makgolane, wanted to set up another meeting to seal the deal. Makgolane's boss, Tebogo Malaka, would avail herself for this second gathering, the spokesperson promised. This left Daily Maverick with a crucial decision to make: spurn whatever advances Makgolane had made up to that point, or string them along with the hope of documenting a most compelling instance of alleged bribery. We went for the latter option. It was a tack that was always guaranteed to spark some debate, even if it achieved its goal of exposing high-level malfeasance. Journalistic 'stings' aren't exactly unheard of, but they're certainly unusual. They involve deceit and covert tactics, plus a level of planning and resources that nowadays aren't readily available to newsrooms. But we strongly believe it was more than justified. In a normal world, it would not fall to journalists to conduct sting operations, complete with hidden cameras and surveillance. But these are not normal times. In normal times, action would be swift off the back of the evidence presented. In normal times, the systems which should hold power to account would react. An arrest warrant issued. But, these are not normal times. The action of the IDT's CEO and her spokesperson is an assault on the fourth estate, a vital pillar of a functioning democracy, and on freedom of expression. Corruption, particularly within state entities such as the IDT, diverts public funds, undermines service delivery and erodes trust in governance. Journalists are not merely reporters; they are conduits of information essential for citizens to hold their leaders accountable. But these are not normal times. To accept a bribe, or to simply walk away from such an offer without exposing it, would be a betrayal of this fundamental responsibility. It would also be a betrayal if we stopped there. Good journalism plays the role of a watchdog – shining a light on abuse of power, corruption and injustice – not enforcing the law. But in these abnormal times, it falls to us to act in self defence and hold the line. To risk our lives to expose the truth. In another time, when the other three pillars of a democracy are functioning at strength, our job would be done. But history has shown that exposure is not enough. So while we strive against becoming political actors or activists, we cannot maintain a passive role when journalism is the target of bad actors intent on snuffing out our torches. To safeguard our independence, freedom of expression and to fight against this tendency to bribe journalists, Daily Maverick will be taking legal steps in the form of criminal charges against our would-be bribers. Anything less is a dereliction of our duty. DM Jillian Green is the Editor-in-Chief of Daily Maverick and Pieter-Louis Myburgh Daily Maverick's senior investigative journalist.
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
We live in dangerous times of anti-gender ideology and democratic backsliding
Amid the tumult unleashed by the second Trump Administration that is global in its reach, its impact on the constellation of gender, LGBTQI and trans rights and justice has taken a back seat. Yet, any form of democratic backsliding needs to be viewed through a gender lens that will show that gender is, in fact, an important nodal point through which rising authoritarianism is channelled. This is something we should contemplate on this Women's Day, 2025. Anti-gender ideology is a part of the backlash against progressive politics and policies that have gained traction since the 1970s. This backlash is aimed at rolling back women's equality, the acknowledgement of LGBTQI identities, same-sex marriage, gender fluidity and transgender rights. It is an attack on equality norms (including racial equality) and gender justice, with a specific focus on policing and restricting women's reproductive rights and access to healthcare, as well as healthcare for transgender people and the restriction on information on gender relations. Some of Donald Trump's first executive directives in his first and second terms were to restrict women's reproductive rights, making abortion now nearly impossible to access in many American states. This backlash is also mirrored in the overturning of the landmark court ruling, Roe v Wade, that legalised abortion in the US in 1973. The concept 'gender ideology' was used for the first time by Pope John Paul II, who claimed that a misleading concept of sexuality and women's dignity and 'mission' is driven by ideology also called 'gender'. This concept was taken up by the Vatican, which has expressed itself on gender theory as a totalitarian ideology that is more oppressive and pernicious than the Marxist ideology, and that it corrupts young people. Anti-gender is more than a resistance against gender equality, or women's inclusion in politics, but is in fact a movement that is global. This rhetoric of 'anti-gender' has been taken up by evangelical/charismatic churches that have spread ideas in the name of anti-gender ideology that homogenise feminist theories and scholarship and delegitimise gender activism. It also appropriates gender concepts to use against feminists, such as pro-woman, or feminists for life (pro-life), or changing pro-choice into pro-abortion. The influence of evangelical churches supporting anti-gender ideology has also become pronounced in Latin America and Africa. The anti-gender movement consists of heterogeneous coalitions, including churches and rightwing political parties, but all with the aim to reverse gender equality gains made over the past few decades and to ensure a return to patriarchy, traditional family values and re-establishing the binary relationship between only two sexes (male and female). Anti-gender ideology focuses on concepts like gender identity as being distinct from biological sex, transgender rights, comprehensive sex education (that they want to remove from the curriculum), and LGBTQI+ inclusion policies. For this very reason, the Trump Administration has targeted diversity, equality and inclusion policies (DEI) at universities and other organisations for cancellation. It has also contributed to the delegitimisation of women's and gender studies programmes, and queer studies. The anti-gender movement can be viewed as a countermovement that is connected to certain conditions, such as the need to challenge power relations (women have too much power); feeling threatened by the values, successes and actions of the existing feminist movement; showing that it is having some policy success to obtain their objectives; and the ability to have political allies that can help in the provision of resources. The danger for democracy is the stigmatisation of legitimate areas of human rights as dangerous, rejecting gender education and research, as well as a scientific understanding of sexuality. It also curtails civil liberties such as freedom of choice and freedom of association. Where DEI programmes are targeted for closure or defunded (eg the US), it undermines or restricts academic freedom outright. In Scotland, the parliament ruled that there are only two biological sexes: male and female, dealing a blow to transgender people. The anti-gender movement has gained political traction in many countries in Europe, as well as in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Chile and Peru. In Africa, the circulation of anti-gender ideas has stigmatised any deviation from heteronormativity as 'un-African'. Countries such as Uganda, Kenya and Zimbabwe have passed laws that have severe consequences for LGBTQI+ people. In Uganda, being gay can be penalised with the death penalty, and people who know about people with lesbian or gay sexualities will be viewed as complicit in covering up non-traditional gender identities and also penalised. Anti-gender activism across national borders has enabled anti-LGBTQI+ networks to collaborate transnationally with the aim of enforcing patriarchy and traditional family structures, confining women to traditional sex roles. It has politicised and weaponised homophobia in Africa. Two of the main organisations that are involved in re-establishing the 'natural family' through pro-family activism are the Family Research Council (WCF) and Family Watch International, with anti-gay and anti-feminist agendas, both based in the US. They establish transnational networks of conservative activists. The WFC launched an International Organisation for the Family in Cape Town in 2016. It focuses on the heteronormative nuclear family to the exclusion of other types of marriages and the stigmatisation of same-sex marriage as adulterous. Their campaigns are well funded. Their view of the African family is rooted in a nationalist view of the family that is seen as the building blocks of citizenship, and therefore is prescriptive of procreation for the purposes of nation building. Regional conferences were held by the WCF in Ghana, Nairobi, Kampala, Nigeria, Malawi and Cape Town (2017) on the theme of the African family and how strong families build strong nations. Democratic backsliding refers inter alia to the curtailment of civil liberties and weak commitments to democratic norms, as well as the toleration of violence. One factor that seriously undermines democratic rights in South Africa is gender-based violence, with some of the worst violence and rape happening in the heterosexual family. This situation will be compounded by anti-gender ideology. We have to expose this anti-feminist, anti-LGBTQI+ and anti-African movement for what it is — a danger to democracy. DM
Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Letter to Mahlamba Ndlopfu: Comrades dip hands daily in the Dettol of plausible deniability
Ah, Chief Dwasaho! I write to you from the edge of my last nerve. The South African people don't know what they want or what's good for them. One minute, they're screaming for transparency. The next, they're foaming at the mouth when His Would-be Majesty, King Paul of Mashatile, godfather to the Alex Mafia, declares his 'family homes'. Now there's a brouhaha in the streets and gnashing of teeth on Twitter. To declare or not to declare, that is the question? But rewind the cassette, Comrade Leadership. A year ago, News24 let the cat out of the Gucci handbag, revealing that His Deputyship was staying (or was it squatting?) in palatial properties not registered in his name. At the time, Peter — and his dog — cried foul, howling that King Paul was living a life more golden than his declared income. There were whispers of corruption by proxy, and finger-pointing at the son-in-law, that dashing man who married Palesa. My leader, I don't mean to implicate myself, but I, too, may or may not have had a Palesa once. If only I had married her, I too could be R65-million to the good, lounging in Constantia with my feet up and my conscience asleep. Eish, my leader, perhaps Palesa was a moniker in one of Kwaito's hits. But I digress. Frankly, I don't understand the kerfuffle. The Honourable King Paul — yes, the same one with the Alex Mafia credentials and a GPS permanently set to Waterfall and Constantia — has declared the so-called 'offending' properties. He never said, 'I bought them.' He said — read slowly, Comrades — 'they are family homes'. We should understand this concept unless we've all suddenly developed amnesia about African communal living. In Africa, we don't own houses; we share them. That's how we roll. One house, six cousins, four uncles, and the occasional tenderpreneur son-in-law named Nceba. CR17, Colgate smiles, and the gospel according to Mkhwebane This, my leader, reminds me of the CR17 bonanza. Remember that? A few short years ago, you were showered with manna from Stellenbosch heaven — friends and funders alike backed you to take a calculated swipe at the ANC's Top Six, and voilà, you emerged Number One with a Colgate smile. Then came the legally illiterate, now impeached Public Protector Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane who accused you of failing to declare a benefit. Nonsense! It was a private matter between you and your billionaire buddies. But let's be honest, all politicians are double agents by design. They are not the Holy Trinity. They're at best two-in-one shampoo: one part public servant, two parts private businessperson with a dodgy connection to the cartels. I mean, take Phala Phala. You stashed foreign currency in your couch. Why? The first time you banked it, everyone wanted disclosure of depositors. You kept it at home; now everyone wants to know why it wasn't banked. Can't a man enjoy his loot in peace? I digress, again. My leader, if I may… I, too, have family homes. One in Waterkloof. Yes, read slowly, Waterkloof — the high-altitude sanctuary where the powerful play golf with tenderpreneurs and the streetlights never flicker. It's a gated utopia where politicians, shady businessmen (always men), and underworld figures reside in comfort under circumstances known only to the Department of Public Works — or perhaps the Mexican Sinaloa Cartel. Of course, I also have family homes in Ulundi and Eshowe, KwaZulu-Natal — by birthright, bloodline and braai. Don't you dare ask me about the European concept of ownership. These are African family homes, not title deeds from the Queen's Registry. Think of them as Holiday Club benefits — I use them on demand. Just like King Paul, I too am a true son of the soil. Frankly, I'm surprised King Paul hasn't joined uBaba in howling against the Constitution and its liberal concoctions. I mean, what rubbish is Section 25? The idea of property ownership for Africans died in 1913 with the Land Act. Now we're being lectured about 'disclosure' and 'conflicts of interest' by people who've never sat in a tribal council where five brothers, six cousins, and an uncle all claim the same kraal. Please. Family homes aren't corrupt — they're African culture. Chicken feet, cold beer and the tender-less comrade This self-made confusion by liberals — frothing at the mouth about 'our values' and demanding asset registers as if this were Geneva — reminds me of a time a comrade-friend visited me at my erstwhile 'family home' in Durban. Now, don't get it twisted, my leader. While I'd love to say the steak was sizzling on the Weber, tjoo, I'm embellishing. It was chicken feet on the braai — marinated in a secret sauce of rural village dreams deferred and already stinking like rotten meat. Mid-braai, my dearest friend fixed me with the kind of stare usually reserved for enemies of the revolution. He looked me dead in the eye and said, 'Stalin,' — my Struggle name— 'Stalin, you've disappointed me. After all these years of working in government circles, writing speeches for ministers and fetching wine glasses at political funerals, you're still poor. ' I was winded, my leader. It felt like a punch from a side pocket prophet. I steadied myself against my cooler box, exhaled, and after a complete three-minute silence — punctuated only by the sound of chicken feet crackling — took a majestic sip of beer, lit a cigarette, and responded: 'Ukukhuluma nami?' (' Are you talking to me?') He nodded. I nodded back. Silence lingered. Then I slowly explained that, unlike others, I had not yet discovered the tender route to prosperity. I, too, was a man of 'family homes' — no title deeds, but many memories. And yes, I may be materially poor, but I am rich. Don't ask for details; you just don't get it. I digress — apologies for my scatterbrain. Ribbons, Range Rovers and wives' revolutionary procurement Speaking of the route to tenders, the bloody liberals are now flinging accusations like confetti at a Zuma wedding — claiming all and sundry (read: ANC leaders) are neck deep in tender fraud. Njani? Take the case of a so-called KwaZulu-Natal ANC 'heavyweight' as reported by News24. Heavyweight? On whose Richter scale? Are we measuring influence or just belly circumference? If that's the metric, what would happen to Jeff Radebe and S'bu Ndebele, current head honchos? Anyway, this time the spotlight falls on Comrade Thanduxolo Sabelo — yes, the same one who, last I checked, was still recovering from being a has-been councillor at the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality. According to media reports, his two wives stand to benefit from a National School Nutrition Programme tender worth R2.9-billion. Two point nine billion, my leader. That's not a tender; that's a feast for generations. Oh, excuse me, and now their cats are crying foul. Why? Because a man with two family homes to feed is expected to survive on a councillor's stipend? Are you even serious? How can an ordinary councillor — whose power barely extends beyond cutting ribbons at a Pakistani tuck shop — influence a provincial tender committee in the Department of Education? Eye of the needle Let me spell it out. ANC leaders went through the eye of the needle, my leader. They've seen nothing. They know nothing. Ask them about the bid adjudication committee — you'll get blank stares and a Freedom Charter quote. As for the wives? They're hustling to keep the fires burning and the Range Rovers running. They didn't join the ANC to bake scones — they're in procurement for the National Democratic Revolution! The same logic applies to KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Education Sipho Hlomuka. Turns out, his wife, too, is an entrepreneur, which now seems to be a prerequisite for marriage in comrade circles — business-minded, politically adjacent, and tender-ready. She, too, is in line for a slice of the R2.9-billion school nutrition feast. Hlomuka's wife won the tender fair and square — the MEC was unaware of his wife's burgeoning empire. Have you ever seen or heard of an MEC sitting on tender committees? But now, what did you expect? That a whole wife of an MEC must spend her days hopping from nail bar to eyelash salon, sipping iced coffee and gossiping about non-aligned delegates? Clean hands Not to be outdone, Deputy Minister of Labour and Unemployment (sic) Jomo Sibiya's wife is also on the take. I can confirm the deputy minister knew nothing about this tender award. He saw nothing. He heard nothing. Like all seasoned Comrades, his hands remain impeccably clean, dipped daily in the Dettol of plausible deniability.
