The race to turn artificial intelligence into business growth is no longer confined to Big Tech. Design platforms like Canva and Figma have embedded AI into their core products, while enterprise users are experimenting with generative tools at scale. Against this backdrop, Adobe finds itself under mounting pressure to prove that its AI bets will deliver more than headlines.

ChatGPT alone has amassed roughly 700 million weekly users, a number that has redefined expectations across industries. Canva, with its “Magic” AI suite, has surged to 220 million monthly users, adding enterprise clients at a rapid clip. Figma has pushed further with agent integrations and code-aware workflows, repositioning its collaborative canvas as an AI-enabled platform.

These competitors have set a high bar for Adobe, which has rolled out Firefly inside Creative Cloud, introduced Acrobat AI Assistant, and launched GenStudio to help marketers scale content production.

The adoption numbers are undeniably strong. Adobe says 99% of the Fortune 100 now use AI features in at least one of its apps, with about 90% of its top 50 accounts tied to AI-first products. But the financial story has been less convincing. Adobe shares are down 20.6% year-to-date and more than 11% over the past six months, reflecting Wall Street’s doubts that AI will meaningfully re-accelerate growth.

Morgan Stanley added fuel to those doubts this week, downgrading Adobe to equal-weight from overweight and cutting its price target to $450 from $520. Analyst Keith Weiss argued that Adobe’s Digital Media annual recurring revenue (ARR) isn’t reflecting the pace of innovation.

“Since that upgrade, we have seen the Digital Media ARR growth directionality diverge from the pace and quality of innovation being embedded within the product portfolio,” he said.

The bank’s call emphasized three concerns: monetization is lagging adoption, rivals like Canva, Figma, and Big Tech platforms are intensifying competition, and the reduced price target—nearly 15% lower—signals lower near-term upside. Shares dropped 2.35% to $353.27 on September 24 and edged down further after hours.

Adobe executives insist the momentum is there. CEO Shantanu Narayen said this month that “AI-influenced ARR has now surpassed $5 billion, and we have already surpassed our full-year AI-first ending ARR target.” CFO Dan Durn echoed that optimism, saying AI-first products have already generated $250 million in ARR, a full quarter ahead of expectations. Yet, the aggregate numbers tell another story.

In Q2 fiscal 2025, Adobe’s Digital Media ARR climbed 12.1% year-over-year to $18.09 billion. By Q3, it reached $18.59 billion, but growth slowed to 11.7%. That deceleration has raised doubts about whether AI features are boosting upsell revenue and seat expansion enough to materially change Adobe’s growth trajectory.

The comparison with rivals underscores the tension. Canva has built an AI-powered ecosystem that is attracting enterprise teams en masse, while Figma’s integrations with coding workflows put it at the intersection of design and development. Big Tech, meanwhile, has the luxury of bundling AI into existing cloud and productivity suites, lowering customer acquisition costs. Adobe, by contrast, is trying to monetize AI primarily within its existing Creative Cloud framework, which could limit how fast the revenue needle moves.
Adobe Faces Morgan Stanley Downgrade as AI Adoption Outpaces Monetization

Adobe’s $5 billion in AI-influenced ARR shows the early promise of its strategy for bullish investors. But for skeptics, the slowdown in overall ARR growth suggests AI may prove more of a defensive tool—helping Adobe keep existing users—rather than the disruptive growth engine Wall Street has been expecting.

This means, amid the intensifying competitive landscape, Adobe now faces a dual test: proving its AI tools can fend off rivals like Canva and Figma, while also convincing Wall Street that those same tools can power meaningful, sustained revenue growth.

Ecobank Transnational Incorporated (ETI), the parent company of the Ecobank Group, has finalized its withdrawal from Mozambique after selling its entire stake in Ecobank Mozambique S.A. (EMZ) to FDH Bank Plc of Malawi.

The transaction, which received all necessary regulatory approvals, marks the conclusion of a divestment plan first announced on August 5, 2025.

“With this completion, FDH Bank Plc assumes full ownership and operational responsibility of the bank that was formerly owned in Mozambique by Ecobank,” ETI said in a statement signed by Madibinet Cisse, its Company Secretary.

The deal transfers EMZ’s four branches located across Mozambique’s largest cities, giving FDH Bank an immediate platform to expand its regional footprint.

The move is part of Ecobank’s broader strategy to streamline operations across Africa, focusing resources on high-growth markets and scaling down in areas where the Group has struggled to gain market dominance.

“This strategic decision aligns with our commitment to Ecobank’s Growth, Transformation, and Returns strategy, ensuring we remain a competitive and meaningful player across the markets in which we operate,” said Jeremy Awori, CEO of Ecobank Group.

The divestment highlights a broader trend among African financial institutions, which are increasingly rebalancing portfolios by pulling back from underperforming markets and consolidating in territories with stronger growth potential.

FDH Bank Steps In

FDH Bank Plc, a leading Malawian financial institution listed on the Malawi Stock Exchange, now takes full control of EMZ. The bank financed the deal entirely from retained earnings, a sign of its capital strength. Known for its strong digital banking infrastructure and wide-ranging services—including corporate advisory, trade finance, and global markets—FDH has positioned itself as a rising regional player.

For EMZ customers and staff, ETI stressed that operations will remain uninterrupted. Services, employee contracts, and client relationships will continue under FDH’s ownership, ensuring continuity in Mozambique’s financial sector.

Founded in 2000 as Novo Banco SARL and later rebranded in 2014 when ETI acquired it, EMZ has operated as a licensed commercial bank regulated by the Central Bank of Mozambique. Its transition to FDH ownership signals the end of Ecobank’s two-decade presence in the country.

The Mozambique exit is not Ecobank’s only recent portfolio adjustment. Last month, the Group confirmed the execution of a purchase agreement that will see Nedbank Group Ltd. sell its 21.22% stake in ETI to Bosquet Investments Ltd., the private investment vehicle of Ecobank’s Chairman, Alain Nkontchou.

That deal, advised by Enko Capital Management LLP and co-advised by Absa Bank Limited’s Corporate and Investment Banking division, underscores shifting priorities among Africa’s largest banks. For Nedbank, the move reflects a decision to concentrate on its core markets in Southern and Eastern Africa, where it directly owns and controls operations.

Comparatively, Ecobank’s move aligns with a wider pattern across Africa where large pan-African lenders such as Standard Bank, Absa, and Nedbank have had to weigh profitability against geographical spread. Nedbank itself recently pulled back from ETI to concentrate resources in Southern and Eastern Africa, reflecting a consolidation wave that is reshaping how banks allocate capital across the continent.

For Ecobank, the exit from Mozambique and the reshuffling of its shareholder base fit into its ongoing Growth, Transformation, and Returns strategy. The bank is betting that a leaner, more focused footprint will deliver stronger performance and improved returns across its 35-country network.

As FDH Bank steps into Mozambique, the acquisition could position it as a bridge between Southern and Eastern Africa’s financial hubs, strengthening competition in a market where digital transformation and cross-border services are rapidly bridging payment gaps.

On Horeb, Moses saw a marvel—fire on a bush, yet the bush remained whole. It was unusual, strange, and uncommon. Drawn to it, he moved closer. That was the beginning of a destiny-defining moment. Businesspeople, there are lessons here.

First, destiny often begins with attention. To unlock new opportunities, you must be willing to notice the uncommon signals in markets. Second, courage is demanded. Will you retreat when the data looks strange, when the customer numbers defy logic, or when the macroeconomic indicators glow with uncertainty? Or will you, like Moses, step closer to examine the “burning bush” of your industry?

And third, leadership follows the test. Moses’ commission—“I am sending you to Pharaoh”—was the reward of paying attention and showing bravery. In business, the most demanding KPIs, the strange assignments, and the difficult market targets are often preparation for your letter of appointment into higher missions.

When firms select leaders, they do not send them to green pastures; they send them into deserts where bushes burn without being consumed. Can you thrive in the turbulence of the Nigerian economy and still deliver? If you retreat, the elevation does not come. That CEO, GM, or Director role will remain elusive. Opportunity to lead is sealed only for those who embrace the burning bush without fleeing.

Yet, leaders must not be abandoned. God did not send Moses without provision; He gave him a roadmap, signs, and assurances. In the same way, companies must empower their leaders with tools, authority, and institutional backing. A mission without support is a set-up for failure. Just as the “I AM” endorsed Moses, great missions in firms must be communicated and reinforced by the highest authority. That is how companies birth liberators, reformers, and visionaries who change trajectories.

Happy Sunday—may your burning bush not scare you away but prepare you for destiny.

Ndubuisi Ekekwe – an ex-unit lead of Scripture Union Nigeria in Secondary Technical School Ovim, ex-Sunday School teacher in All Saints Chapel (FUTO), is a Bible Teacher who uses cases in Bible to educate business leaders.

Comment on Feed

My Response: “He was not prepared” – actually, I see it that Moses was prepared, at least theoretically. In his time, the best education was in the home of Pharaoh as the world’s best thinkers, astrologers and philosophers worked for Pharaoh. For Moses to have been “schooled” in that home meant he picked up skills and we can say he was prepared. The I AM must have considered that latent capability to have chosen him. Yet, he must be tested before he is handed the “CEO’ role!

What began as a business decision aimed at cutting inefficiencies in Nigeria’s fuel supply chain has spiraled into a bitter confrontation between Dangote Refinery and two of the country’s most powerful unions. At stake is not just the smooth running of Africa’s biggest refinery but the stability of Nigeria’s oil supply, the welfare of millions of households, and even the country’s economic outlook.

The trigger came in mid-June when Dangote Refinery, still in the early months of rolling out operations, announced a bold new distribution strategy. On June 15, the company announced the purchase of 4,000 compressed natural gas (CNG)-powered tankers, a move it argued could slash transport inefficiencies and save Nigeria over N1.7 trillion annually. By June 29, the company introduced a nationwide petroleum distribution scheme built around the new fleet.

But what Dangote saw as modernization was interpreted as provocation by the unions. The Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG), whose members dominate tanker operations, accused the refinery of sidelining existing drivers by planning to recruit new operators barred from union membership. To NUPENG, this was a brazen violation of Section 40 of Nigeria’s Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association, as well as international labor conventions ratified by Nigeria.

The Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) soon joined the fray. Its leaders alleged that Dangote was not just restructuring logistics but actively undermining workers’ welfare and threatening their means of livelihood. The unions declared that if Dangote pressed ahead, they would block supplies — crude, gas, and refined products — from reaching the refinery.

The tension escalated on September 25, after Dangote Refinery terminated the contracts of some workers, who joined the unions, citing “sabotage” and safety risks. In a sternly worded letter, the company insisted the decision was necessary to protect the refinery from internal threats that had “dire consequences on human life and operational efficiency.” The refinery stressed that only a small number of staff were affected and that more than 3,000 Nigerians remain employed in the facility.

But PENGASSAN quickly retaliated. On September 26, it issued a circular directing its members at TotalEnergies, Seplat, Chevron, Shell, Oando, and NGIC to halt crude and gas deliveries to the refinery. The union framed its action as a defense of workers’ rights, accusing Dangote of misinformation and propaganda.

“You are hereby directed to cut off gas supply to NGIC effective immediately. All crude oil supply valves to the Refinery should be shut. The loading operation for vessel headed there should be halted immediately. NGIC Chairman, ensure that gas supply to the Refinery is cut off effective immediately,” the circular issued by PENGASSAN read in part.

Dangote hit back hard, calling the order “lawless” and “criminal.” The company insisted PENGASSAN had no legal authority to disrupt contracts between the refinery and suppliers. It warned that halting fuel and gas flows would not only destabilize operations but also constitute “economic sabotage.”

“There is also no law in our statute books that would support or enable the PENGASSAN branches having to “cut off” gas and crude oil supplies to Dangote Refinery or at all,” the refinery said in a statement on Saturday.

A Familiar Battle

The unions’ position can be traced to a precedent in the not distant past. In 2007, NUPENG pressured then-President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua into reversing the sale of government-owned refineries to private investors, a move that many now see as a setback for Nigeria’s refining capacity. It is believed that this history is repeating itself, with unions once again attempting to strong-arm a private operator that has invested billions into what government-owned facilities repeatedly failed to deliver.

Energy economist Kelvin Emmanuel pointed out that Nigerian labor law lays out a clear dispute-resolution process: from ministerial mediation to arbitration and ultimately industrial court adjudication. None of these steps, he argued, were followed before the unions resorted to blocking trucks or directing crude cut-offs. In his words, “That’s the law. Now tell me, which of these processes did NUPENG follow before it took trucks to block the entrance and exit to the Dangote Refinery?”

The Economy At the Mercy of It All

Some analysts see this as not just a labor dispute but a test of whether Nigeria can create the kind of investment climate that attracts and sustains multibillion-dollar projects. Dangote’s $20 billion refinery is not just a private business; it is a national strategic asset. It has already begun to ease Nigeria’s dependence on imported refined products, stabilized foreign exchange pressures by reducing fuel import demand, and reassured investors that private capital can succeed where state-led refineries collapsed.

Against this backdrop, economists warn that disrupting Dangote Refinery amounts to economic sabotage.

“Dangote bought NNPC refineries. Local unions said no. Dangote left and built his own refinery. Now unions want to move into his refinery. If you can’t see danger from 100km, you can’t see danger from 1km,” financial analyst Kalu Aja argued.

“So that tomorrow, one guy wearing a facecap will say PENGASSAN will strike over another issue, and Aliko will shut down his $15b refinery. Will the union pay the $ loan? Not only the union, also demand that workers get 10% equity for free, abi (right)?” he added.

This faceoff, meanwhile, means different things for everyone. For the unions, the fight is about preserving influence in a sector where automation and modernization are threatening long-held privileges. For Dangote, it is about protecting a fragile investment from being held hostage. For Nigerians, it is about whether the pumps run dry, whether transport costs spike, and whether hard-won gains in foreign exchange stability evaporate.

However, while the refinery may not solve all of Nigeria’s oil sector problems, it has brought a measure of stability to fuel supply and the naira. Undermining it through prolonged labor hostilities would be self-defeating. As many economists agree, crippling Dangote Refinery’s operation in any form is not just a business quarrel — it is economic sabotage.