Spar South Africa CEO resigns amid financial challenges to lead McDonald's
Spar South Africa CEO Max Oliva will assume his role as McDonald's South Africa CEO on 1 July 2025.
Spar South Africa CEO Max Oliva has resigned from the group, just days after the retailer announced a decline in profits and a R4 billion loss.
The retailer said Oliva resigned after 30 years at Spar on Tuesday.
'It has been an honour to serve Spar for the past three decades. While this was not an easy decision, I am confident that the business is in capable hands. Angelo has my full support, and I am excited to see how the team continues to build on the momentum we've created,' he said.
Spar SA's next CEO
The retailer said Spar Group chief executive officer, Angelo Swartz, will replace Oliva.
'To ensure continuity and maintain the strong momentum Spar South Africa is currently experiencing, Swartz will assume operational leadership of the Southern Africa region.'
He has been with Spar for 16 years and was appointed Group CEO in 2023. Before Spar he was at Woolworths.
'I have had the privilege of working closely with Oliva for many years and have immense respect for his leadership and the legacy he leaves.
'Thanks to the strong foundation he has laid, I approach this next phase with confidence that, together with our talented team, we will continue to push forward and deliver on our growth ambitions for Southern Africa,' said Swartz.
ALSO READ: Is Spar in trouble? Retailer closes stores as sales decrease
Spar SA CEO leaves to lead McDonald's
Spar wished Olivia well as the CEO of McDonald's South Africa. He will assume his role on 1 July 2025.
The retailer said Oliva's time at Spar helped the Group navigate some of the most challenging periods, including the Covid-19 pandemic, the implementation of SAP, and the broader adoption of new technologies across the business.
McDonald's said the appointment comes at a time when the fast-food chain is evolving in a rapidly changing consumer landscape.
'He was selected following a rigorous executive search process aimed at identifying a leader with the vision, discipline, and commercial acumen to guide the business into its next phase of transformation.'
R4 billion hit
Spar's financial results for the 26 weeks ended 28 March 2025, released last week, showed that it has taken a hit of more than R4 billion after exiting its operations with Spar Switzerland and the Appleby Westward Group (AWG).
'These businesses recorded aggregate post-tax losses of R4.4 billion, including impairments of R4.2 billion.'
However, the loss was anticipated as the exit of the operations is part of Spar's strategy aimed at strengthening its balance sheet and recovering margins.
ALSO READ: McDonald's SA CEO steps down
Profits nosedive
The financial results also revealed its operating profits nosedived by 5.7% to R1.35 billion, compared to R1.43 billion during the same period in 2024.
Spar has also concluded the disposal of Spar Poland in January 2025. Which was one of the five key focus areas for Spar. The second key focus area that has been achieved is the completion of the Group's debt restructuring in March 2025 and May 2025.
It's not all bad; the Group's revenue from continuing operations remained steady at R66.1 billion, while gross profit increased to R7.1 billion. In Southern Africa, wholesale turnover increased by 1.7%. Combined grocery and liquor wholesale revenue rose by 1.1%, while retail revenue increased by 1.9%.
NOW READ: Pick n Pay CEO receives the highest salary in retail. Here's how much others get
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
35 minutes ago
- Daily Maverick
SA's rural women who save — driving social cohesion, gender equality and climate resilience
Last year in South Africa, women, vulnerable individuals and rural communities collectively saved more than half a billion rands. NoWinile Lungiswa Mangquzana is a smallholder from Ntabankulu Mabofu, Eastern Cape, who grows organic produce and raises chickens. She sells her cabbages and spinach to Boxer Store and Spar, and supplies the local community with vegetables, seedlings, chickens, and eggs. Mangquzana, a successful entrepreneur, continues to grow her small business enterprise through careful saving and directed grants. She has even installed an irrigation system run on solar power for when the taps run dry, as they often do. Most middle-class South Africans still haven't managed to install solar power (3.51%) despite load shedding, which has been part of the national sensibility for almost two decades. So, what has allowed Mangquzana to allocate for this significant cost alongside the challenges of running a business that supports her family? Spoiler alert: It's not a miracle, winning the lottery, or a gift from the gods. Wealth management It's saving. A word that pairs nicely with chores, paying taxes, bureaucratic form-filling, and queuing at Home Affairs. For most of us, saving is something we should do, but we'll get to it later. Maybe. And, while some of us may be lucky enough to have parents who espoused the virtues of emergency funds, nest eggs, and cash flow, for the most part, the wealthy teach wealth management to their kids, and the poor and middle-class operate under the system of 'getting by'. However, now, more than ever, saving needs a massive rebrand. And the taglines of old, 'Save for a rainy day' and 'Waste not, want not', are simply not cut out to compete with the heady allure of consumerism and spending. Yet, in rural parts of the country, for Mangquzana and thousands of other South Africans (particularly women), saving is a growing movement. Since 2008, the NPO SaveAct, along with its partners, has empowered vulnerable individuals, provided financial education, and facilitated the formation of savings groups. SaveAct founder and executive director Anton Krone explains, 'Twenty years ago, I dared to imagine that rural women would save and take collective steps towards claiming their rights to safety and food security. Then, 1,000 women in savings groups seemed like a realistic goal to demonstrate that this would be an effective model. Now, there are more than 100,000 (savers), and we have ambitious plans to build an ecosystem of collaborators to reach two million women.' These community-led savings groups are a simple and innovative way to develop sustainable livelihoods and promote a circular economy, wellbeing and enterprise development. The system is simple enough; participants (92% women) consistently save small amounts in a collective pool and then provide each other with interest-bearing loans. At the root of the structure are community, trust, discipline, accountability, and support that foster confidence to build, grow, and improve. Krone sees the potential for growth by 'building a collaborative ecosystem of partners playing various complementary roles to enable this work to be scaled more rapidly to attain the goal of reaching two million women over the next decade. With more stakeholder engagement, the vision of social and economic justice is achievable.' Last year, the members in SaveAct's collective savings groups saved a whopping R535-million. In the current context of the country, this is a staggering feat. As a culture of consumerism, spending is promoted as an important driver of GDP, business growth, job creation, and a generator of tax revenue. However, there's a more problematic facet. Post-apartheid South Africa has framed spending and consumerism as cultural and social signifiers of success, freedom, and equality. Since democracy, aspirational culture has broadened through advertising, social discourse and the ever-present credit facilities that make it easier for low-income South Africans to participate in the cycle of consumerism. And with this participation comes massive debt. Under the allure of conspicuous consumption and aspiration is the harsh reality that most South Africans live paycheck to paycheck. Between May 2022 and May 2023, FNB estimated that middle-income South Africans spent up to 80% of their salary within just five days of payday. This finding specifically applies to earners in the R180,000-R500,000/year bracket. Responsible Finance Forum's 2025 survey indicates that about 10 million adults are over‑indebted, with 12 million struggling financially when informal debt is included. Of course, it's easy to cast aspersions on how people spend their money. However, many people are in debt not because of overspending on luxuries, but because of everyday costs, exacerbating long-term debt issues, and cultural expectations. And, while the government has introduced measures to encourage saving, these don't always translate into practice. The reality is that daily survival is more important than long-term security, which is compounded by apathy and disenchantment about the country's political, personal and economic security. As a business owner, having a bank account and access to capital are crucial. Yet, as of 2022, 15% of South Africans, or about nine million people, were unbanked. The reasons include insufficient funds, limited access to banking infrastructure (both offline and online), and a lack of identification. These problems are even worse for women and youth because of systemic barriers to financial inclusion. So, while South Africa has made significant strides in financial inclusion, there's still a long way to go, as Mangquzana describes. When she tried to go the traditional route to open a bank account, after months and months of waiting, she was eventually stonewalled. That's when she started with SaveAct and simultaneously entered into their enterprise development support programme. Asset-Based Community Development SaveAct applies an internationally recognised Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) stakeholder-driven planning framework. In layman's terms, it helps vulnerable individuals and households identify economic possibilities in their local environment and contexts. There are many misconceptions about the NPO and NGO sector, such as that these organisations are just handouts or charity-based. However, organisations like SaveAct are committed to long-term problem-solving, giving communities agency and a sense of purpose. The SaveAct model is incredibly successful – savings groups in South Africa save on average six times more than groups across Africa. And it's not just about saving. SaveAct also addresses the challenges of gender inequality, economic marginalisation and climate vulnerability. SaveAct's programmes are designed to improve livelihoods and empower individuals so that women such as Mangquzana can grow their businesses while also addressing social challenges. Nolufefe Nonjeke-Dlanjwa has been a passionate programme manager at SaveAct since 2008. She explains the impact she sees in the communities she works in, 'There is nothing more fulfilling than seeing savings group members, particularly from vulnerable households, diligently putting money aside in these savings groups, strongly believing that what they want to achieve to better their living conditions is possible within realistic milestones. With financial education lessons embedded in the savings group operations, members can make well-informed decisions to better manage their household finances.' Emerging research shows how savings groups build gender equality in communities through empowerment and gender dialogue. Facilitated gender dialogue raises awareness of unequal power relations and social norms, encouraging shifts in attitudes and behaviours. Through these interventions, men become gender allies, which reduces domestic conflict and even GBV. Women in savings groups become respected members of the community through their proven ability to manage finances and invest in assets, education, maintenance, and so on. Climate resilience SaveAct also helps mitigate the damaging effects of climate change through agroecology and sustainable land management. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2019), climate change is happening more rapidly than predicted. Many South Africans depend on the land for farming, and the impacts of overgrazing, unsustainable land use and biodiversity loss are worsened by climate change, particularly in regions prone to drought, erratic rainfall and soil degradation. This also has a gendered element because women are more vulnerable to climate change because of economic inequality, their role as caregivers, limited mobility because of restricted access to travel, and health impacts. In rural areas, women are also often responsible for food production and water collection. Savings groups help communities ease the effects of unanticipated climate shocks and act as a catalyst for resilience by improving cash flow and emergency relief funds. Furthermore, they help secure finances that may be needed to combat land degradation. Reversing land degradation can help adaptation to climate change, but a major challenge is mechanisms to incentivise rural communities to address it. One of the core tenets of SaveAct is sustainable land management because it has immediate and long-term benefits. Driving change Mangquzana has implemented what she has learnt from SaveAct and is committed to organic farming and sustainable methods. She uses onions, pepper water and other agroecology methods to keep pests away and is fastidious about her soil quality. Mangquzana keeps a vigilant eye on soil health and has measures in place to ensure it isn't too acidic or degrading. And, she is proud that she is passing on knowledge to the community so that she can drive change. At face value, these savings groups are just groups of women armed with notebooks. However, they are communities of practice where women drive tangible social, economic and ecological change. Krone elaborates, 'As women take advantage of these opportunities, they grow in confidence and assume control over their destinies. They are able to assert their agency and push back against systemic violence and marginalisation.' The burgeoning savings groups in rural South Africa are lived experiences of positive and sustainable change, improved social cohesion, robust gender discourse, social and economic empowerment and climate change resilience. Rural South African savings groups drive positive, sustainable change, fostering social cohesion, gender equality, empowerment, and climate resilience. These groups inspire a counterculture of long-term thinking and delayed gratification that proves financial resilience isn't a dream, but a real possibility. And real freedom is in saving. DM Dr Jaqui Hiltermann is a writer with a PhD in media studies from the University of Cape Town. She writes in her personal capacity.
Daily Maverick
35 minutes ago
- Daily Maverick
Are social grant numbers increasing (and is that a bad thing)?
Spending on social grants is a powerful way to support economic growth, because almost 100% of every rand spent flows back into local economies in the form of consumer spending, promoting economic activity and livelihoods. Following the release of the 2024 General Household Survey (GHS), we have seen many headlines pointing to an increase in the number of social grant recipients compared with 2019. These claims need to be interrogated and nuanced. It is not necessarily the case that the overall proportion of monthly social grant recipients continues to increase. At the same time, in South Africa's macroeconomic and historical context, it would not be such a bad thing if it did. The number of social grant recipients is often taken as a sort of proxy indicator for the health of the economy — the implication is that social grant numbers going up is bad, because they track the extent of poverty and unemployment in the country. This is often wrapped up with ideas about 'dependency' on social grants, which frame grant recipients as an unproductive drain on taxpayers, and sometimes directly counterpose the number of social grant recipients to the number of income tax payers. But the quantum of social grants is not only an indicator of the extent of poverty and unemployment. It can also be taken as a measure of growth-enhancing public investment, as well as the progressive realisation of constitutional rights. In this article, I unpack the social security findings in the GHS, and what they do and don't tell us about the state of our social safety net and our economy. Have social grant numbers increased, and relative to what? The GHS shows an increase in the proportion of individuals receiving social grants between 2019 and 2024 of 5.2 percentage points, from 34.9% to 40.1%. Much of this increase is attributed to the introduction of the Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant during the 2020 lockdowns. It is of course true that there are more social grant recipients today than there were in 2019, as the social protection system has been extended to include working-age adults in extreme poverty who previously had no access to social assistance. But since 2021, access to the SRD grant has decreased, as has access to the Child Support Grant (CSG). It is easy to be misled by how the SRD recipient data is measured and presented in the GHS. For the longer-standing social grants, including the CSG and Old Age Pension (OAP), eligibility is assessed on application, and, once verified, a beneficiary receives the grant on a continuous monthly basis, unless the government becomes aware of a change in their circumstances. For the SRD grant, people's eligibility is reassessed on a month-to-month basis (a highly problematic methodology), and the grant is paid only in the months they are deemed eligible. The GHS questionnaire does not take into account these differences, but simply asks whether respondents receive each grant. This means that people who have received the SRD grant irregularly or only once or twice in the past year may not know how to respond. This could potentially explain what appears to be large discrepancies between the GHS and other sources with respect to SRD grant numbers. The GHS finds that the proportion of individuals aged from 18 to 59 who 'receive' the SRD grant increased year-on-year, from 5.3% in 2020, to 13.9% in 2024. This is difficult to square with official figures from the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa), which show that in March 2022, 10.9 million people received the SRD grant, while in September 2024, recipient numbers stood at 8.3 million — a marked decline. This decline has been driven by decreasing budget allocations to the SRD grant from the National Treasury. We do not know why the GHS data shows an annual increase in the proportion of people receiving the SRD grant since 2020, but we suspect that it does not reflect the true number receiving it on a regular basis. We note that self-reporting is generally less reliable than administrative data. If you look at monthly SRD grant recipient numbers as shown in the graph below, based on data obtained from Sassa, the picture is very different. But the SRD grant is only one component of the social protection system. It's conceivable that an aggregate increase in social grant coverage could have been driven by significant increases in the proportion of children receiving the CSG, or seniors receiving the OAP. However, this is not the case. The proportion of the eligible population (people aged 60+) receiving the OAP has remained relatively stable over the period in question, ranging from 71% to 73%. The proportion of all children covered by the CSG has fallen from a peak of 69.1% in 2021 to 65.5% today — a significant drop. This does not reflect a reduction in the child poverty headcount. Analysis from the Children's Institute at UCT suggests that the proportion of children in poverty (measured at the Upper Bound Poverty Line) has increased since 2019, reaching 70% in 2022. The declining proportion of children receiving the CSG instead reflects the fact that the government has made it harder to access the CSG in recent years. Newborn babies and their caregivers (who make up the bulk of new CSG applicants) were less likely to access the CSG in 2024 than in 2021. This worrying trend dovetails with the introduction of procedural hurdles in the grant system, like onerous requirements for identity verification and additional documentation. Has dependence on social grants increased? So, contrary to headline findings from the GHS, the proportion of people receiving a social grant in South Africa each month has not necessarily increased in the past few years, despite the ongoing extension of the SRD grant. But another focus of reporting on the GHS is the degree of 'reliance' or 'dependence' on social grants as a primary source of income for households. The GHS tracks the main sources of income for households, and in 2024, found salaries to be the main source of income for 54.5% of households (a slight decrease from 54.8% in 2019), while grants were the main source of income for 23.8% (compared with 20.4% in 2019). This does not suggest an out-of-control welfare state. It reflects a dire crisis of structural unemployment, whereby a massive proportion of households do not have access to income derived from work. In approaching this, it is important to bear in mind that social grants are intended to be the primary source of income for their recipients, by virtue of the design of the social grant system. They are explicitly targeted at persons who are unable to access other forms of income (particularly salaries or wages), either because of their life stage (ie childhood, old age), sickness or disability, poverty or unemployment. Moreover, social grants are means-tested, meaning that individuals are ineligible to receive them if they have a meaningful alternative source of income. My organisation, the Institute for Economic Justice, has been a vocal proponent of moving away from means-testing benefits, precisely because it is a practice that can trap people in poverty as it penalises attempts to generate income and build sustainable livelihoods. Some groups, like persons with disabilities or those with full-time caregiving responsibilities, face specific challenges in generating income from employment, and need to rely fully (and appropriately) on social protection to meet their needs. This has a gendered dimension, as households headed by women (disproportionately likely to be caregivers) are much more likely to list grants as their primary source of income. (Far from languishing on benefits, CSG caregivers are doing the critical work of perpetuating the nation). For others, social grants can provide a minimum income floor to cushion against precarity and shocks. Over 80% of unemployed people have been unemployed long-term. The majority of working-age beneficiaries have little hope of securing work in the short term. But where they have the ability to do so, households receiving social grants should be able to access other income streams as well. South Africa's social safety net is full of holes But to address the question of whether social grant recipient numbers are trending too high (which is the subtext of much reporting on the GHS), we need to put them in broader perspective — of poverty and unemployment in South Africa, as well as of international standards for social protection. Even if we accept that the proportion of individuals regularly receiving social grants has increased in the last few years (which as discussed above is likely not the case), the South African social safety net remains woefully inadequate. Aside from the SRD grant, which provides a meagre R370 per month, able-bodied working-age adults have no access to non-contributory social assistance. The proportion of the working-age population that was unemployed (including discouraged work seekers) reached over 43% in the first quarter of 2025. At least 16 million working-age adults are estimated to be in food poverty. Only half of that number receives the SRD grant each month. The percentage of persons who experienced hunger increased from 11.1% in 2019 to 14.3% in 2024. As mentioned above, vulnerable children are also falling through the cracks, as approximately 4.5% of children in poverty are not receiving the CSG. It is often claimed that South Africa spends a high proportion of its GDP on social grants compared with peer countries, usually by those who would seek to limit this area of spending. Yet, according to the International Labour Organization's (ILO) World Social Protection Report 2024-26, South Africa's social protection coverage — at 63.4% of the population — is below average for upper-middle income countries (UMICs), which have an average coverage of 71.2%. Our coverage of non-contributory benefits (ie excluding UIF) is 44%, compared with an average of 51% among UMICs. The ILO, alongside many local and international experts, recommends that countries move towards universal social protection coverage — that is 100% of the population. Many high-income countries are already there. As to the claim that South Africa's social protection expenditure is higher than peers, this is also untrue. As a proportion of GDP, our spending on social protection excluding health is much lower than the UMIC average (5.4%, compared with an average of 8.5%). At the same time, we have much higher levels of income poverty and inequality compared to other UMICs. South Africa is the most unequal country in the world based on the World Bank's Gini Index. Among UMICs, we have by far the highest proportion of people below the international extreme poverty line — at 20.1% (aside from Turkmenistan, which at 43% is an extreme outlier and relies on very old data). Compared with emerging economies, South Africa's wealth distribution is skewed significantly towards the richest 20% — the top 20% owns 68% of the country's wealth, compared with an emerging economy average of 47%. Viewed in light of this shameful status, we should not be using peer countries as a yardstick to test whether South Africa's social protection spending is too high. Instead, we should be asking why we don't redistribute a greater proportion of our wealth through social protection programmes. The relationship between social grants, unemployment and economic growth If poverty is a cliff, we can either view social grants as the fence at the top or the ambulance at the bottom. Having a comprehensive social protection system is not an indication of the failure of growth and employment creation. It is a critical tool in the policy toolbox for fighting economic exclusion and unemployment. Spending on social grants is a powerful way to support economic growth, because almost 100% of every rand spent flows back into local economies in the form of consumer spending, promoting economic activity and livelihoods. In turn, this boosts government revenue as higher spending equals a higher VAT take, creating a virtuous macroeconomic cycle. Social grants also (if designed well) give people a foundation to escape the poverty trap, generating employment and building sustainable livelihoods over time. Receiving the SRD grant has been shown to increase the likelihood of entering into employment by six percentage points in the first year — an astounding finding given the grant's low value. This is because people use their grants to cover the costs of job seeking and accessing work (like data and transport). The SRD grant is also used to start or expand small businesses. However, the positive economic impacts of social grants are undermined by excessively low values, and restrictive means-testing systems which pull the safety net out from under beneficiaries as soon as their income increases slightly above a minimal threshold (in the case of the SRD grant, this threshold is set below the food poverty line). It may seem counterintuitive, but the truth is that if the proportion of households that are covered by adequate social protection does increase — and gaps in the social protection system are plugged — we will see a reduction in the proportion of households reporting social grants as their primary source of income. To achieve this, it is critical that we move away from a punitive approach that treats beneficiaries with suspicion and requires them to jump through administrative hoops and demonstrate utter desperation to access entitlements. Far from creating dependency, adequate, comprehensive and accessible social protection provides a springboard for economic inclusion and growth. To address the crisis of structural unemployment, food insecurity and poverty highlighted by the General Household Survey, South Africa should fill the gaps in the social safety net and expand social protection coverage to 100% of the population. DM Dr Kelle Howson is a senior researcher in labour and social security at the Institute for Economic Justice, in the workers' rights and social security programme. She is also a postdoctoral researcher with the Fairwork project at the Oxford Internet Institute.
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Proceeds from a 5-year R1,000 investment in FirstRand shares is now worth 25% of groceries
IOL's calculations show that, without reinvesting dividends, your shares would be worth about R1 785. Image: Ai If you invested R1 000 in FirstRand shares five years ago and reinvested all dividends (excluding the effects of inflation), your investment would now be worth about R2 378. This includes both share price appreciation and the compounding effect of reinvested dividends. That gain, of R1 378, is the equivalent of a quarter of the cost of an average food basket, based on May figures from the Household Affordability Index, published by the Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice & Dignity Group. The Group's report indicated that the national minimum wage in May, based on 21 working days, is R4 836. The average cost of a household food basket, in the same month, is R5 466. The Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice & Dignity Group's food basket tracks 44 basic food items, including a range of essentials like maize meal, potatoes, tomatoes, bananas, and various other fruits and vegetables, as well as staples like bread and milk. IOL's calculations show that, without reinvesting dividends, your shares would be worth about R1 785. Overall, dividends earned and reinvested over the period contributed an additional R593 to your investment value. This calculation is based on a five-year share price increase of about 78.7% and an average annual dividend yield of roughly 5.9%, with dividends reinvested each year. In contrast, the JSE's All Share Index has climbed some 81% over the same period. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Dr Azar Jammine, director and chief economist at Econometrix, pointed out to IOL that the Index was worth some 7 000 points at the turn of the century and is now heading towards 100 000. FirstRand started out as FNB, which claims to be South Africa's oldest bank. Its history can be traced back to the Eastern Province Bank formed in Grahamstown in 1838. Initially the Eastern Province Bank, FNB was established in Grahamstown and initially focused on financing the wool export boom in the district. It later hit a wobble and was acquired by the Oriental Bank Corporation in 1874, which was later bought out by the Bank of Africa in 1879. IOL
