The investment in AYO by the PIC was welcomed by both the JSE and Africa’s largest asset manager. Picture: Supplied
In the cut-throat world of technology, diversity and innovation can be hard to come by.
That is why AYO Technology Solutions (AYO) stands out as a true trailblazer in the field. With its majority black ownership and 26-year track record of success, AYO has made waves on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) since going public in 2017.
However, despite the technology company’s commitment to digital transformation and customer service, AYO has been unfairly maligned by several media outlets over recent years – causing major setbacks for both the company and its valued customers.
The investment in AYO by the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) was welcomed by both the JSE and Africa’s largest asset manager. But due to malicious media coverage, the PIC is seemingly suffering from a bout of regret.
Regret can impact an investor’s rational behaviour, impairing their ability to make investment decisions that would benefit them as opposed to harming them.
How is it that investment executives at Africa’s largest asset manager with a wealth of experience - more than 100 years of experience collectively - now claim that they made wrong decisions?
Does this mean that the PIC can now withdraw from any investment should they experience a bout of regret?
Despite the salacious media coverage, AYO has never been found guilty of fraud or corruption by any court of law. However, the same cannot be said about many of AYO’s competitors, who have been found guilty of fraud and corruption to the value of billions of rand.
AYO has never been found guilty of any crime, but the PIC has been very quick to try and recoup its investment, while other companies who have actually been found guilty of corruption have not faced any repercussions.
This is clearly the discriminatory and unfair treatment of AYO.
Subsequent to the AYO’s listing on the JSE, President Cyril Ramaphosa established the Mpati Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Impropriety at the PIC, which included an investigation of the AYO transaction entered into by the PIC.
The final Mpati Commission Report was released and it stipulated that there was a public interest in investigating the dealings of the PIC. But despite the report finding no evidence of misconduct on the part of AYO, various media houses realised the newsworthy value of using AYO in sensationalised headlines and started publishing unfounded allegations and unproven correlations in their narratives.
AYO has never been found guilty of fraud or corruption by any court of law, but the PIC has taken a litigious approach towards AYO that is not only incongruent with the treatment of other companies but flat-out discriminatory.
Companies found guilty of fraud:
The PIC claims it is acting in the interest of the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF), yet in reality it is not.
If it was it would also have gone after these companies. It is unheard of that a major investor in any company can just stand by and watch the public decimation of its investment.
If it were acting in the GEPF’s interest, the PIC would have done all it could to protect its investment and continue to collect dividends.
There is a glaring discrepancy between the treatment received by AYO compared to other companies who have been found guilty of fraud and corruption yet still have not faced repercussions from the PIC.
It is clear that there is an unequal approach toward how different entities are treated when dealing with investments from the PIC, which may be seen as discriminatory.
sizwe.dlamini@inl.co.za
Sunday Independent