How my mother and grandmother taught me to manage money wisely
This Mother's Day, I'm reminded that the early money lessons I've learnt didn't come from textbooks or formal training – they came from the women in my family. They didn't have flashy financial tools or expert advice, but they knew how to stretch a rand until it squeaked. Their approach was simple: Save smart, live frugally, and make the most of what you already have. Watching my mom in action made it real – her quiet everyday choices shaped a kind of financial wisdom that was practical, powerful, and worth passing on.
My grandmother was the queen of preserving. Canning wasn't just a hobby – it was a way to make sure nothing ever went to waste. She'd bottle anything she could get her hands on. She taught me that having something set aside (especially something homemade) was a form of security. A quiet kind of wealth.
My mother's savings superpower was her sewing machine. Growing up, most of my clothes were homemade. Shop-bought outfits were rare, but I never felt I was missing out. If anything, it gave me a chance to stand out with one-of-a-kind pieces stitched with love. Beyond that, she was a budgeting wizard. She used the envelope system religiously – dividing the weekly cash into labelled envelopes for 'fruit & veg', 'milk & bread', 'church', 'parking' as well as for the occasional tuck shop treat. She bought in bulk when it made sense, reused and repurposed literally everything, and had a way of turning leftovers into new meals like magic. Nothing ever went to waste in our home. Not food, not fabric, and not time.
Financial advice doesn't always come wrapped in spreadsheets or seminars. Sometimes, it comes in the form of bottled peaches, hand-sewn dresses, or the quiet pen-and-paper budgeting at the kitchen table. I am most grateful for these lessons.
They have shaped us as a new generation of women, teaching us the value of smart, mindful saving.
Now that I manage my own home and raise a daughter of my own, I realise just how much I have absorbed during those years.
The biggest money lesson I hope to pass on, in turn, is what I've learnt from our actuaries: Your money can work harder than you do. You don't have to hustle every hour or reinvent the chicken broth to save. With time on your side and a bit of discipline, your money can grow quietly in the background, doing the heavy lifting for you. But start early, the more time your money has, the less effort you'll need later.
Here is a great example. If you start saving R1,000 per month when you are 23, increasing the savings amount by 10% per year and assuming growth of 10% per year, you can save a healthy R135,000 by the time you turn 30. This can be a 10% deposit on a R1,35 million home. In the end, your house will cost you R333,000 less, and the fees will cost you, say, R17,200. That's a lot of money you're scoring.
The best example of the influence of time is retirement savings. The earlier you start, the more time your money has to work for you. The longer you wait, the more you will have to put away to achieve the same growth.
The sums show what happens if you start saving R1,000 per month at the ages below, up to the age of 65. (Assume growth of 11% per year, and inflation of 6% to calculate the real value.)
The 'real value' column is a big word to tell what your retirement value would be worth today. This is to indicate that almost R4 million sounds like a lot of money, but 40 years from now, it will not buy you a lot.
Starting to save at age
Retirement value
Real value now 25
R3 880 000
R377 000 35
R1 566 000
R152 000 45
R572 000
R55 000 55
R169 000
R16 000
My story to my daughter is not as romantic as what I've learnt from my mother and grandmother, but I believe it also shows that the best gift from mother to daughter is a shared story on how to make every cent count. In turn, I hope that over time my daughter will show the quiet strength that comes from managing our money with intention. It is something she would have learnt not only from me, but also from my formidable mother and grandmother. To me, that would be the greatest Mother's Day gift of all.
* Havenga is the head of business transformation at Momentum Savings.
PERSONAL FINANCE

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

The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Investec Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.

IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
Investec Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.

TimesLIVE
8 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Pensioner prevails in eight-year rates court battle against City of Joburg
Lampe was initially granted permission to open her business by the then Randburg town council in 1984 after inspections were conducted on her property. According to court papers, she continued to pay the annual fee with no challenges until the payments were phased out indefinitely in the early 1990s. In December 2017 the city, under a new administration, sent her an 'unauthorised use of the property' letter, and instructed her to shut down within a month or face a criminal and civil case. Lampe's explanation that she had a permit from the 1980s fell on deaf ears. Instead, penalties were issued on her account. Delivering his judgment, judge Stuart Wilson blasted the city for being unfair to Lampe. 'Had the city engaged reasonably and sensibly with Ms Lampe from the outset, this application would never have been necessary,' he ruled. 'It is declared that the respondent's conduct in levying property rates on the applicant's property based on the tariff applicable to properties put to an illegal use is unlawful. The respondent is directed to reverse all charges against the applicant's municipal account.' Wilson further interdicted the municipality from terminating any services to Lampe's property and directed the city to furnish her with a recalculated bill within 30 days of the order. The city was also ordered to pay the costs of the application. Though happy with the order, Lampe — who claims to have lost more than R350,000 in legal fees — said she was sceptical the city will honour it. 'It's a positive outcome but my lawyer told me that the city has a history of ignoring court orders and it might be another year before they refund me,' she said. 'I just want to put this behind me. It is sad that the city could target someone who was trying to make an honest living ... [and] who is not a burden to the state for social grants.'