adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Business News

BUA Foods Plc declares final dividend payment of N3.50 to its Shareholders

Published

on

1649951702 306 BUA Foods

BUA Foods Plc has announced a final dividend payment of N3.50 kobo per 50 kobo ordinary share for the financial year ended 31 December, 2021.

This dividend payment will be subject to shareholders’ approval at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) to be held on August 4th 2022 and appropriate withholding tax.

According to the disclosure filed with the Exchange (NGX), shareholders are to ensure their names are registered in the Register of Members by the qualification date of July 13, 2022.

On Thursday, August 4, 2022, the dividend which amounts to N63 billion will be disbursed electronically to ordinary shareholders whose names appear on the Register of Members as at Wednesday, July 13th 2022, and those who have completed the e-dividend registration and mandated the Registrar to pay their dividends directly into their bank accounts.

The company’s registrar is Africa Prudential Plc and the e-dividend mandate form can be downloaded or filled online on the registrar’s website.

BUA Foods Plc has 18,000,000,000 outstanding shares and a market capitalization of N1.07 trillion at the time of filing this report. The company’s shares opened trading on 14th of April, 2022 at N59.50 per share and closed at N59.50 per share.

What you should know

  • BUA Foods Plc had released its Audited 2021 financial results for the period ended 31 December 2021, reporting a profit of N69.77 billion, representing a 97% growth year on year. Revenue of N333.27 billion was reported in the full-year period compared to N192.86 billion in the same period of 2020.
  • Earnings per share was recorded as N4.24 kobo against N1.97 kobo recorded in the corresponding period of 2020.
  • Year-to-date, the company’s shares have appreciated by 48.75% from N40.00 at the time of listing, to N59.50 as at the time of writing this report.

... BUA Foods Plc declares final dividend payment of N3.50 to its Shareholders Read More on ... Naijaonpoint.

WATCH NOW

DOWNLOAD NOW

Business News

10 of the most controversial clauses in the SEC digital asset regulation

Published

on

Cryptos

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Nigeria released its first form of regulation surrounding digital assets last week. The new rules for Digital Assets is part of the Nigerian SEC’s effort to regulate the digital/virtual space which includes the likes of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and NFTs. This is a document titled, “New Rules on Issuance, Offering Platforms and Custody of Digital Assets.”

The document covers regulation on five major items ranging from issuance of digital assets to rules that govern digital asset exchanges in the country. This is a follow-through on the promise of the SEC Director-General, Lamido Yuguda, in September 2021 that there will be some form of clarity for the digital asset players.

Although a lot of industry players welcomed the move by the SEC as a step in the right direction, however, many have expressed their unapologetic displeasure surrounding how the country intends to regulate the asset class. Below are some of the most controversial clauses in the new regulation;

  1. The first controversial clause that stands out, is clause 6, which speaks on moratorium on equity interest. The clause states, “The issuer’s directors and senior management shall, in aggregate, own at least 50% equity holding in the issuer on the date of the issuance of the digital assets.” This clause is against the best standards of crypto projects as majority of crypto projects today try to bring some significant level of governance and decisions back to the community and this, allowing the owners to own 50% of equity takes decision making away from the people which is against what crypto is all about.
  2. The next controversial clause that stands out is clause 7, which speaks on the maximum amount of funds that can be raised. It states that the maximum limits are, “Twenty times the Issuer’s shareholders’ funds i.e., the maximum quantum of funds permitted to be raised within any continuous 12- month period, subject to a ceiling of N10 billion or any other ceiling as the Commission may determine from time to time.” The issue here is the ceiling of N10 billion is equivalent to approximately $24 million, using CBN’s official rate. Cryptocurrency projects are usually capital intensive and require a lot of funding and high skilled labour to scale their business, not to mention marketing and other relevant and non-relevant costs. This limit, in turn, puts a limit on the overall progress a project can raise.
  3. Another controversial clause comes from clause 8, which speaks on investment limits to the general public. The clause states, “A person may invest in an initial digital asset offering subject to the following limits; For qualified institutional and high net worth investors, no restriction on investment amount; and for retail investors, a maximum of N200,000 per issuer with a total investment limit not exceeding N2 million within a 12-month period.” This clause is very problematic because the general idea behind cryptocurrencies is the ability to give the little guy a shot at playing in the same game as the big guys. Cryptocurrencies have, and always been first about the ability to transfer value cross border and also giving everyone an equal opportunity to finance and all its benefits. Putting a restriction on the participation of retail players goes against these beliefs and then brings a class system into a world that knows no class or segregation.
  4. The next controversial clause comes in part B of the document. The reason for the bone of contention with clause 10 is first, the vague definition of Digital Assets Offering Platform (DAOP). The SEC defines them as, “an electronic platform operated by a DAOP operator for offering digital assets.” By this definition, it does not outline the major industry players in the market and the definition also puts them all under one set of rules which cannot work because these industries operate entirely differently. For instance, the laws that govern Decentralized Finance (DeFi) cannot be the same laws that will govern Play-to-Earn (P2E) platforms.
  5. Clause 11.2 speaks on the fees to be paid to operate a DAOP in Nigeria. It reads, “An applicant shall ensure that the application submitted is accompanied with the prescribed fees: Filing/Application Fee – N100,000 (One Hundred Thousand Naira only); Processing Fee – N300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira only); Registration fee – N30,000,000 (Thirty Million Naira only); Sponsored Individuals Fee – N100,000 (One Hundred Thousand Naira only).” The total payment involved involves a whopping N30.5 million (approximately $73,300) in fees. Nigeria was once the poverty capital of the world and the country has high unemployment and poverty rate. These huge fees stifle innovation in the space and that is not all.
  6. Clause 11.4 speaks on Minimum paid-up capital and fidelity bond. It reads that DAOP must show, “Evidence of Required Minimum Paid up Capital – N500,000,000 (Five hundred Million Naira only) (i.e. Bank balances, Fixed asset or Investment in quoted Securities); Current Fidelity Bond covering at least 25% of the minimum paid-up capital as stipulated by the Commission’s Rules and Regulations; Notwithstanding the provision of (a) above, the Commission may at any time impose additional financial requirements on the DAOP commensurate with the nature, operations and risks posed by the DAOP.” This basically means that DAOPs must show N500 million (approximately $1.2 million) in their accounts and have a bond covering at least 25% of the amount. 25% is N125 million (approximately $300,000). These types of requirements stifle innovation and drive them out of the country.
  7. Clause 14 speaks on the Appointment of a Chief Executive Officer and Principal Officers for DAOP. Two of the requirement states that the individuals must, “hold at least a university degree or its equivalent; and have at least five (5) years cognate experience.” The first clause on having a university degree is an irrelevant and unnecessary requirement because we have seen great people like Bill Gates who are CEOs and do not have university degrees. On the second requirement, the majority of the successful crypto projects we see today are from individuals who are at the early stages of their careers. They have little to no experience and have still managed to build successful businesses.
  8. Another controversial subject is the vague definition of Virtual Assets Service Providers (VASPs). It reads, “means any entity who conducts one or more of the following activities or operations for or on behalf of another person: exchange between virtual assets and fiat currencies; exchange between one or more forms of virtual assets; transfer of virtual assets; safekeeping and/or administration of virtual assets or instruments enabling control over virtual assets; and participation in and provision of financial services related to an issuer’s offer and/or sale of a virtual asset.” As with DAOPs, the definition is very vague and also does not consider key industries in the space.
  9. The fees and minimum capital requirements for DAOP are the same as Central Exchanges (CEX). Asides from the fact that the SEC chose not to use the general term that describes centralized exchanges, CEX, they decided to go with another definition, Digital Assets Exchange (DAX). The issue here is that it shows the SEC is tone-deaf to the already established terms currently used in the space. Being that DAOPs and these ‘DAX’ have the same fee and minimum capital requirement, it again stifles innovation and pushes it out of the country.
  10. Clause 29 speaks on transaction fees for DAXs and it explains that the SEC will determine the fees. This is, however, impossible and clearly shows that the SEC still has a lot of learning to do when it comes to virtual assets. When it comes to sending money via blockchain, it is determined by the level of network congestion. This means that the fees cannot be determined by one single body.

On a general note, majority of the documentation to be submitted is quite unnecessary and cumbersome according to Samuel Oyenike, a cryptocurrency trader and enthusiast. He further states, “The SEC must immediately review these laws and speak to stakeholders in the space for more guidance. If not, if these laws stand, a lot of the innovation which drives our fintech space will be moved abroad and that will, in turn, ruin our economy.”

... 10 of the most controversial clauses in the SEC digital asset regulation Read More on ... Naijaonpoint.

WATCH NOW

DOWNLOAD NOW

Continue Reading

Business News

Indian Regulator SEBI Proposes Banning Public Figures From Endorsing Crypto Products

Published

on

sebi

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has reportedly proposed banning public figures, including celebrities and sportsmen, from advertising and endorsing crypto products. The regulator also proposed that public figures be held liable for any law violations when promoting crypto products.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the country’s securities and commodity market regulator, has proposed prohibiting public figures, including celebrities and sportsmen, from endorsing crypto products, Businessline reported last week. In addition, the regulator proposed requiring advertisers to disclose possible law violations.

SEBI recently shared its view on the subject with India’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance when it was questioned about various crypto issues, sources told the publication. The regulator subsequently submitted a detailed written response to the committee.

The Indian Ministry of Finance also asked SEBI to give its view on the crypto advertising guidelines published in February by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI).

SEBI reportedly wrote:

Furthermore, the securities regulator proposed that public figures be held liable for endorsing crypto products, which could violate certain laws, including the Consumer Protection Act.

In addition, SEBI suggested adding the following statement to the ASCI disclaimer: “Dealings in crypto products may lead to prosecution for possible violation of Indian laws such as FEMA, BUDS Act, PMLA, etc.”

ASCI’s crypto guidelines, which went into effect on April 1, state: “Since this is a risky category, celebrities or prominent personalities who appear in such advertisements must take special care to ensure that they have done their due diligence about the statements and claims made in the advertisement, so as not to mislead consumers.”

Meanwhile, the Indian government is working on the country’s crypto policy. Finance ministry officials have met with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to discuss crypto regulation. India’s finance minister recently said that the decision on crypto regulation will not be rushed. Crypto income is currently taxed at 30% in India.

What do you think about SEBI’s view on prohibiting public figures from endorsing crypto products? Let us know in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

WATCH NOW

DOWNLOAD NOW

Continue Reading