then 'Add to home screen'
then 'Add to home screen'
Opinion
There is a difference between disagreement and misunderstanding. What we are seeing around the Econet InfraCo transaction is not a clash of investment philosophies. It is a failure to grasp basic corporate mechanics.
The debate started when pension fund representatives raised concerns about Econet Wireless Zimbabwe’s plan to delist locally and separately list its infrastructure arm on the Victoria Falls Stock Exchange. That alone is normal. Large restructurings always attract scrutiny. What matters is whether the criticism rests on facts. Right now, much of it does not.
The core issue revolves around a dividend in specie. That phrase sounds technical, but the principle is simple. It is a dividend paid in shares rather than cash. It does not erase existing shareholdings, nor does it dilute ownership in the parent company. Under the proposed structure, shareholders who remain invested in Econet keep all their current shares and also receive InfraCo shares at no cost. If exiting shareholders choose to take only part of their allocation, the balance is redistributed to those who stay.
In plain terms, investors are not losing anything. They are being offered additional exposure to a new infrastructure asset while retaining their original position. That distinction matters. The claim that shareholders are being forced into an unwanted asset shift ignores one basic fact. Investors have choice. They can hold the InfraCo shares or sell them once listed. No one is compelled to remain exposed.
This is not unusual. Corporate restructurings globally often create optional pathways for shareholders. Some investors prefer focused asset plays. Others prefer integrated groups. The market usually decides which approach carries value. What is unusual is seeing institutional bodies misinterpret this flexibility as coercion. This is bigger than one transaction.
Zimbabwe’s capital markets already struggle with liquidity, confidence, and technical depth. When influential investment stakeholders publicly misread standard corporate finance mechanisms, it sends a worrying signal. It suggests the real risk is not market volatility. It is information asymmetry.
For investors watching from the sidelines, clarity matters more than optimism. They need to know whether market participants are operating from analysis or assumption. Right now, that line looks blurred. Strip away the noise and a clear pattern emerges.
Econet is separating infrastructure from retail telecom operations. That is a familiar global playbook. It unlocks capital, clarifies valuation, and creates specialized investment vehicles. Infrastructure assets behave differently from consumer telecom services. They offer long term, stable cash flows that appeal to institutional investors. That is precisely why infrastructure listings often attract pension funds worldwide. Ironically, the same investors now raising concerns are typically the natural buyers of such assets.
The debate should not be about whether shareholders lose their Econet stake. They do not. The real question is whether InfraCo will deliver predictable returns and whether the separation improves capital efficiency. That is a legitimate discussion. It is also the one that has been overshadowed.
This episode exposes a deeper issue in local markets. We still treat corporate restructuring as a political event instead of a financial one. Emotion enters where analysis should lead. For serious investors, the signal is clear. Read the circulars. Understand the mechanics. Ignore the noise. Markets reward those who do their homework, not those who react to headlines. And in this case, the homework is straightforward.
