DD
MM
YYYY

CATEGORIES

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

CATEGORIES

PAGES

Home Blog Page 4

Nigerian Banks Channel $16.8bn in Capital as Portfolio Flows Dominate Nigeria’s 2025 Inflows

By
Samuel Nwite
-
0

Nigeria’s banks processed $16.78 billion in capital inflows in the first nine months of 2025 — a 131.8% jump year-on-year — with nearly all funds concentrated in short-term portfolio investments, according to the Q3 2025 Capital Importation report released by the National Bureau of Statistics.

The figure represents a 131.81% increase compared to the $7.236 billion recorded during the same period in 2024, underscoring a sharp rebound in foreign investor activity. However, the composition of the inflows shows that approximately 97% entered as foreign portfolio investments (FPIs), while only 3.3% qualified as foreign direct investment (FDI).

The data suggest that banks primarily acted as financial conduits for portfolio flows rather than as ultimate beneficiaries of long-term capital deployment.

Capital importation strengthened steadily across all three quarters of 2025.

In Q1, inflows reached $5.64 billion, up 67.12% from $3.38 billion in Q1 2024. The pace accelerated in Q2, with $5.12 billion recorded — a 96.60% increase from $2.60 billion a year earlier. By Q3, inflows climbed to $6.01 billion, representing a 380.16% surge compared to $1.252 billion in Q3 2024.

Together, these quarterly performances lifted year-to-date inflows to $16.774 billion, already surpassing the full-year 2024 total.

Of the total inflows in the nine-month period, about $13.6 billion was invested in bonds and money market instruments, while only $590 million went into equity investments. This distribution reinforces the dominance of fixed-income securities in attracting foreign capital.

In November 2025, Central Bank of Nigeria Governor Olayemi Cardoso said at the 60th Annual Bankers’ Dinner that Nigeria had recorded $20.98 billion in foreign capital inflows in the first ten months of 2025.

“Foreign capital inflows reached US$20.98 billion in the first ten months of 2025, a 70% increase over total inflows for 2024 and a 428% surge compared to the US$3.9 billion recorded in 2023, reflecting a clear resurgence in investor confidence,” Cardoso said.

Banks as Primary Gateways

The Q3 data show a concentration of inflows among a handful of international and tier-one banks.

Standard Chartered Bank Nigeria Limited recorded the highest share in Q3 with $2.115 billion, accounting for 35.17% of total inflows. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc followed with $1.789 billion, representing 29.75%.

Citibank Nigeria Limited processed $561.40 million, while Access Bank Plc recorded $385.03 million. Rand Merchant Bank received $306.92 million, Ecobank Nigeria Plc $299.91 million, and First Bank of Nigeria Plc $254.29 million. Zenith Bank Plc, Guaranty Trust Bank Plc, and Fidelity Bank Plc recorded comparatively smaller shares.

The concentration pattern indicates that foreign investors continue to rely on globally connected institutions and top-tier domestic banks to intermediate capital flows into Nigeria’s financial markets.

In Q1 2025, Standard Chartered, Stanbic IBTC, and Citibank accounted for roughly 80% of total capital importation, highlighting their central role in facilitating cross-border portfolio transactions.

Sectoral data show that the banking sector attracted $3.142 billion in Q3 alone, equivalent to 52.25% of total capital imported during the quarter. The financing sector followed with $1.855 billion, or 30.85%.

Production and manufacturing received just $261.35 million, accounting for 4.35% of total inflows. The disparity underscores the limited penetration of foreign capital into sectors directly linked to industrial expansion and job creation.

In terms of source countries, the United Kingdom led with $2.935 billion, representing 48.80% of Q3 inflows. The United States contributed $950.47 million, while South Africa accounted for $773.95 million.

The geographic pattern reflects Nigeria’s continued integration with major global financial centers, though the data do not distinguish between FDI and portfolio components within each country’s contribution.

Sustainability Questions

The surge in capital importation signals renewed foreign investor appetite, driven largely by elevated domestic interest rates and attractive yields on treasury bills and bonds. Nigeria’s monetary tightening cycle has positioned its fixed-income market as a high-yield destination.

However, the overwhelming dominance of portfolio flows raises questions about durability. Portfolio capital is highly sensitive to global risk sentiment, exchange rate expectations, and interest rate differentials. A shift in global liquidity conditions or domestic policy direction could trigger reversals.

By contrast, FDI — which supports infrastructure development, factory construction, and long-term enterprise growth — remains marginal at just over 3% of total inflows.

The 2025 figures, therefore, present a dual narrative. On one hand, capital importation has rebounded strongly, surpassing 2024 levels within nine months. On the other hand, the structure of those inflows suggests that Nigeria’s financial system is serving primarily as a channel for short-term investments rather than as a magnet for long-term productive capital.

Nigeria’s FDI Stalls at $565m as Portfolio Flows Dominate $16.8bn Capital Surge

By
Samuel Nwite
-
0

Foreign Direct Investment made up just 3.3% of Nigeria’s $16.78 billion capital inflows in the first nine months of 2025, underscoring the economy’s continued reliance on short-term portfolio funds.

Nigeria recorded $565.21 million in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) between January and September 2025, even as total capital importation surged to $16.78 billion, according to the latest data from the National Bureau of Statistics.

The contrast between the strong headline inflows and the limited scale of long-term investment highlights a structural imbalance in the country’s capital profile. While Nigeria is attracting foreign money at levels that already exceed the $12.32 billion recorded in the whole of 2024, most of that capital remains short-term and yield-driven.

Quarterly capital importation remained robust throughout 2025. The first quarter delivered $5.64 billion, followed by $5.12 billion in the second quarter and a stronger $6.01 billion in the third quarter. The Q3 figure marked the highest quarterly inflow in three years.

Yet FDI — widely regarded as the most stable and development-oriented form of foreign capital — accounted for only a small fraction of that total. FDI rose gradually from $126.29 million in Q1 to $142.67 million in Q2 before increasing to $296.25 million in Q3. The third-quarter improvement signals some recovery, but the cumulative figure remains modest in absolute terms and small relative to total inflows.

Portfolio investment exceeded $14 billion during the same nine-month period, reinforcing the dominance of financial market-driven flows.

This imbalance matters because FDI typically supports factory construction, infrastructure projects, technology transfer, and employment generation. Portfolio inflows, by contrast, are primarily invested in treasury bills, bonds, and other financial instruments.

The Yield Effect and Monetary Policy Transmission

The surge in portfolio flows aligns with Nigeria’s elevated domestic interest rate environment. Tight monetary policy and high fixed-income yields have positioned Nigeria as an attractive destination for foreign investors seeking carry trade opportunities.

Higher returns on naira-denominated assets have pulled in foreign capital into banking and financing sectors, which continue to absorb the majority of inflows. In Q3 alone, banking attracted more than $3.14 billion, while the financing sector accounted for $1.86 billion. By comparison, manufacturing received just $261.35 million.

This pattern suggests that foreign capital is largely circulating within financial markets rather than being deployed into productive sectors such as industrial manufacturing, agriculture, energy, or infrastructure.

The concentration in finance improves liquidity conditions and supports foreign exchange stability in the short term. However, it does little to expand Nigeria’s productive base or diversify its export capacity.

Source Countries and Capital Composition

The United Kingdom led capital inflows in Q3 with $2.94 billion, followed by the United States at $950.47 million and South Africa at $773.95 million. The data do not disaggregate how much of these flows represent FDI versus portfolio investment, but given overall composition trends, the majority likely reflects financial investments rather than greenfield or strategic corporate commitments.

The absence of significant sectoral diversification further reinforces the view that Nigeria’s capital recovery is concentrated in financial instruments rather than long-term business expansion.

The composition of capital inflows has direct implications for economic growth. FDI tends to generate multiplier effects through supply chains, skills development, and employment. It also signals investor confidence in long-term policy stability and market fundamentals.

Portfolio flows, while beneficial for boosting reserves and stabilizing the currency, are highly sensitive to interest rate differentials and global risk sentiment. A shift in global liquidity conditions, a fall in domestic yields or renewed exchange rate volatility could trigger rapid outflows.

Nigeria experienced similar dynamics in previous tightening cycles, when strong inflows reversed following changes in global conditions.

The 2025 data, therefore, present a dual narrative. On the surface, capital importation has rebounded sharply, surpassing full-year 2024 levels within nine months. Beneath that strength lies a familiar vulnerability: limited long-term investment relative to short-term financial flows.

Economists note that for Nigeria to translate capital inflows into sustained structural transformation, the composition will need to shift toward sectors that expand productive capacity. They also warn that without stronger FDI growth, the current surge may support macroeconomic stability but fall short of driving durable employment, industrialization, and broad-based economic expansion.

Volkswagen Targets 20% Cost Reduction by 2028 Amid 35,000 Job Cuts Plan, China Market Slowdown and U.S. Tariffs

By
Samuel Nwite
-
0

Volkswagen plans to cut costs by 20% across all brands by the end of 2028, according to Manager Magazin.

The move comes as Europe’s largest carmaker seeks to reinforce its balance sheet against rising expenses, intensifying competition in China, and U.S. tariff pressures.

Chief Executive Oliver Blume and finance chief Arno Antlitz presented what the publication described as a “massive” savings plan during a closed-door meeting with top executives in Berlin in mid-January.

A company spokesperson said Volkswagen began a group-wide cost programme three years ago and has already achieved savings in the double-digit billion-euro range, helping to offset geopolitical headwinds such as U.S. tariffs. Further details on where additional reductions will be implemented were not disclosed.

China, Tariffs, and Technology Costs

Volkswagen’s push comes amid mounting structural challenges across its core markets.

In China, once the company’s most profitable region, German automakers are contending with an aggressive price war led by domestic electric vehicle manufacturers. Local brands have combined competitive pricing with advanced software features and shorter development cycles, eroding the traditional advantages of European incumbents.

At the same time, the group faces elevated development costs tied to parallel investment in combustion engines and electric drivetrains. According to Manager Magazin, expenditures on software and dual powertrain development remain significant, straining margins during a period of slower global demand growth.

While Volkswagen operates production facilities in North America, transatlantic trade tensions and shifting industrial policy, marked by U.S. tariffs, continue to complicate supply chains and cost structures.

Speculation that plant closures could form part of the savings drive has drawn attention from labor representatives. Daniela Cavallo, head of Volkswagen’s works council, acknowledged the report but referenced an agreement reached with Volkswagen AG at the end of 2024.

“With this agreement, we have expressly ruled out plant closures and layoffs for operational reasons,” Cavallo said in a statement.

Volkswagen is already undertaking a major workforce restructuring. The company is cutting 35,000 jobs in Germany by 2030 as part of its competitiveness programme. In January, the core Volkswagen brand said it would reduce management positions and consolidate its production platform, targeting €1 billion in savings over the same period.

The balance Volkswagen must strike is delicate: delivering structural cost reductions while maintaining labor peace in Germany, where worker representation on supervisory boards carries significant influence.

Industry-Wide Cost Discipline

The tightening environment is not limited to Volkswagen. Mercedes-Benz said last week that profit margins at its automotive division could decline further this year and pledged “relentless cost discipline.”

Across Europe’s auto sector, manufacturers are grappling with:

  • Slowing electric vehicle demand growth in some markets.
  • High capital expenditure is tied to electrification and digitalization.
  • Competitive pricing pressure from Chinese entrants.
  • Regulatory requirements are pushing low-emission vehicle development.

Volkswagen, headquartered in Wolfsburg, said on Friday it remains committed to its long-term transition toward more efficient and low-emission vehicles, signaling that cost-cutting will not reverse its electrification trajectory.

Platform Consolidation and Brand Synergies

A 20% cost reduction across all brands implies deeper integration within Volkswagen Group’s multi-brand structure, which includes mass-market, premium, and performance marques. Analysts expect further consolidation of vehicle platforms, shared software architectures, and streamlined procurement to deliver scale efficiencies.

Improving inter-brand cooperation — long a challenge within the group’s decentralized structure — may become a key lever. Shared development of battery systems, software stacks, and manufacturing modules could reduce duplication and accelerate time-to-market.

The emphasis on software spending also reflects Volkswagen’s ongoing efforts to strengthen in-house digital capabilities after earlier setbacks in its software division. Containing those costs while remaining competitive in vehicle intelligence and connectivity will be central to margin stabilization.

Blume is expected to provide further details at Volkswagen’s annual results press conference on March 10.

The 20% target underscores the scale of the adjustment facing Europe’s automotive champions. With China no longer delivering easy growth, U.S. trade policy adding volatility, and technology investments compressing returns, German carmakers are entering a phase defined by capital discipline and structural reform.

Vitalik Warns Prediction Markets Face Collapse Without Fix on Directions

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin recently expressed serious concerns about the current state of decentralized prediction markets, warning that without a major shift in direction, they risk long-term unsustainability or collapse.

In a detailed post on X, Buterin acknowledged the successes of platforms like Polymarket—high trading volumes, the ability to support full-time traders, and their role as a news supplement.

However, he argued they are “over-converging” on an unhealthy product-market fit: focusing heavily on short-term cryptocurrency price bets, sports wagering, and other high-dopamine activities that provide momentary excitement but little long-term societal value or informational utility.

He described this as a slide toward “corposlop” (corporate slop), driven by platforms chasing revenue in tough markets by catering to “naive traders”—uninformed participants who consistently lose money, effectively subsidizing “smart traders” who profit from better information.

Buterin outlined three main types of participants who absorb losses in prediction markets: Naive traders (current dominant model): People betting on bad ideas, which he sees as morally neutral in isolation but “cursed” when over-relied upon, as it incentivizes platforms to encourage poor decision-making and exploitative communities.

Info buyers; decision markets where organizations pay for information: Limited by public goods problems, as info benefits everyone for free. Hedgers (his proposed solution): Users who accept expected losses (-EV linearly) for risk reduction, like insurance.

He advocated pivoting strongly toward generalized hedging as a more sustainable path. Examples include: Betting against politically unfavorable outcomes to offset portfolio risks like holding biotech stocks while hedging election risks.

A radical vision: Replacing fiat/stablecoins entirely with personalized baskets of prediction market shares tied to individual future expenses such as housing, food, regional goods/services. AI/LLMs could customize these baskets, providing true stability without relying on centralized currencies.

For this to work, markets would need to be denominated in desirable assets; interest-bearing ones, ETH, or wrapped stocks to avoid high opportunity costs. Emphasizing the risk of collapse if platforms continue depending on speculative gambling during bear markets, rather than evolving into robust hedging tools.

His core warning is that the sector’s current trajectory—dominated by short-term, high-dopamine speculation on crypto prices, sports, and similar events—creates an unsustainable model reliant on “naive traders” who consistently lose money.

Without a pivot, he argues, these markets risk collapsing or stagnating, especially in bear markets when speculative volumes dry up.

Here are the key implications of his critique and proposed shift toward generalized hedging: Current reliance on naive (uninformed) participants incentivizes platforms to prioritize addictive, low-value bets to maximize revenue and liquidity.

This creates a feedback loop: platforms build communities and features around “dumb opinions” to attract more losers, subsidizing smart traders. In prolonged downturns or reduced retail enthusiasm as seen in recent crypto cycles, volumes could plummet, leading to liquidity crises, platform failures, or regulatory backlash.

Buterin contrasts naive traders with hedgers: users who accept small expected losses for risk reduction, similar to buying insurance. This could elevate prediction markets from gambling/entertainment to core financial infrastructure, attracting sophisticated institutional capital, long-term users, and higher-quality liquidity.

It aligns with ideals from Robin Hanson but addresses public goods issues in info-buying models. Markets must be denominated in desirable, interest-bearing, or appreciating assets like ETH, wrapped stocks to minimize opportunity costs—non-yielding fiat would undermine hedging value.

Integration with AI for personalized baskets and onchain indices for goods/services prices would be essential. This requires major infrastructure builds like better oracles, LLM-driven customization, cross-asset denomination. If achieved, it could decentralize money itself, reducing reliance on USD-backed stablecoins and enhancing crypto’s antifragility.

Failure to adapt might leave markets niche or entertainment-only. Prediction markets have gained prominence but face scrutiny. A hedging pivot could position them as legitimate risk-management tools, potentially easing regulatory pressure by emphasizing utility over gambling.

Success here might inspire hybrid systems (prediction markets + governance/DAOs) and influence stablecoin designs. Failure risks the sector being dismissed as “casino crypto,” limiting mainstream adoption and innovation. It echoes ongoing crypto debates about speculation vs. utility.

This could spur developer focus on hedging prototypes, AI integrations, or new platforms. It also pressures existing ones like Polymarket to evolve or risk losing mindshare. Buterin’s intervention is a call to action: prediction markets have proven technical viability but face a moral and economic fork in the road.

Pivoting to hedging could unlock profound innovation—potentially redefining money and risk management in a decentralized world—while sticking with the status quo risks turning them into another unsustainable hype cycle.

Buterin concluded: “Build the next generation of finance, not corposlop.” This comes amid prediction markets’ growing prominence, but also regulatory pressures and debates over their role beyond entertainment/speculation. His view aligns with long-standing ideas in the space while pushing for practical, AI-enhanced evolution.

Rosebank Industries in Advanced Talks to Acquire Two U.S. PE-Backed Firms for $3.05bn, Plans £1.9bn Equity Raise

By
Samuel Nwite
-
0

British investment firm Rosebank Industries announced on Monday that it is in advanced negotiations to acquire two U.S.-based businesses owned by private equity firm American Securities for a combined enterprise value of $3.05 billion.

The proposed deals would mark Rosebank’s most significant transaction since its 2024 public listing and reinforce its strategy of acquiring, improving, and eventually exiting industrial and manufacturing assets. Sky News first reported that Rosebank is negotiating to purchase CPM (a leading global supplier of processing equipment for food, animal feed, oilseed, and biomass industries) and MW Industries (a precision components manufacturer specializing in fasteners, springs, and related engineered products).

To fund the acquisitions, Rosebank plans to raise approximately £1.9 billion ($2.59 billion) through an equity issuance, supplemented by debt financing. The company has not yet disclosed the exact structure of the equity raise—whether a rights issue, placing, or open offer—but such transactions typically involve institutional investors and existing shareholders.

The proposed deals follow Rosebank’s first major post-IPO acquisition in August 2025, when it purchased U.S.-based wire-harness producer Electrical Components International for just under $1.9 billion. That transaction established Rosebank’s foothold in the U.S. industrial sector and demonstrated its ability to execute sizable leveraged buyouts. Rosebank also confirmed its intention to move from London’s Alternative Investment Market (AIM) to the London Stock Exchange’s Main Market in the second quarter of 2026, regardless of whether the U.S. acquisitions are completed.

The uplisting would improve liquidity, visibility, and access to institutional capital, aligning with Rosebank’s long-term growth ambitions.

Rosebank’s focus on industrial and manufacturing assets positions it to capitalize on several macro trends:

  • Reshoring and supply-chain resilience — U.S. and European companies continue to prioritize nearshoring and “friend-shoring” of critical manufacturing capacity, creating opportunities for value-accretive acquisitions in the U.S.
  • Private equity exits — Many PE firms that acquired assets during the low-rate environment of 2020–2022 now face pressure to return capital to investors ahead of new fundraising, leading to increased availability of quality businesses at potentially attractive valuations.
  • Industrial digitization and automation — CPM and MW Industries operate in sectors increasingly adopting automation, IoT, and advanced manufacturing techniques—areas where strategic buyers can drive operational improvements and margin expansion.

The deals, if completed, would significantly expand Rosebank’s U.S. footprint and diversify its portfolio beyond wire harnesses into food/agriculture processing equipment (CPM) and precision-engineered components (MW Industries). Both targets serve stable, essential end-markets with recurring aftermarket and service revenue streams.

Financial and Shareholder Considerations

The £1.9 billion equity raise represents a substantial dilution event for existing shareholders, though Rosebank’s strong post-IPO track record and clear acquisition strategy may mitigate concerns. The combination of equity and debt financing suggests a leveraged buyout structure, consistent with Rosebank’s model of enhancing acquired businesses through operational improvements before eventual exits.

The proposed acquisitions are subject to customary due diligence, regulatory approvals (including antitrust review in the U.S.), and final negotiation of terms. No binding agreements have been signed, and there can be no certainty that the transactions will be completed.

Rosebank’s move comes amid a recovering global M&A environment in 2026, with financial sponsors under pressure to return capital to investors ahead of new fundraising. Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon noted at the UBS Financial Services Conference earlier this month that sponsor activity is accelerating, with valuation sensitivity diminishing as firms prioritize distributions.

The deals also reflect continued interest in U.S. industrial assets, particularly those with strong fundamentals and exposure to secular growth themes (automation, food security, electrification). Rosebank’s intention to uplist to the LSE Main Market in Q2 2026 is expected to improve liquidity and institutional access, potentially supporting further capital raises and acquisitions.

The success of the proposed deals—and the planned equity raise—will likely be key drivers of share performance in the coming months. Analysts believe the company’s ability to integrate CPM and MW Industries, realize synergies, and drive operational improvements will ultimately determine whether this transaction creates meaningful long-term value.

1...345...8,215Page 4 of 8,215

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy