Christo Wiese wanted Steinhoff to cover margin call – director

Company says normal governance processes for prior transactions were not followed.
Dr Christo Wiese stepped down as Steinhoff chairman on December 15 2017. Picture: Waldo Swiegers/Bloomberg

According to remarks made by one of Steinhoff’s current directors, Dr Christo Wiese – at the time Steinhoff’s chairman and largest shareholder – asked the company to cover a margin call on his behalf in the wake of the resignation of CEO Markus Jooste and the corresponding collapse in the Steinhoff share price.

Dr Johan van Zyl was recently attending an investor roadshow relating to his position as co-CEO of African Rainbow Capital (ARC), the unlisted parent company of JSE-listed ARC Investments, when he was asked questions relating to his role as a director of Steinhoff, according to people who were present at the closed, intimate lunch. “I think he responded to the questions in the interest of transparency,” said a person who was present. “But what he told us was certainly news and completely unexpected.”

In response to specific questions from the audience according to the people present, Van Zyl indicated that in the days following the resignation of Markus Jooste, he and Dr Steve Booysen, chair of the Steinhoff audit committee, were made aware that Wiese had instructed Steinhoff to pay a margin call one of his nominated investment vehicles had received as a result of the collapse in the Steinhoff share price.

A margin call is a term usually applied to situations where investors borrow money from financial institutions to buy shares. The investor will make a deposit so to speak – in the form of cash, or in Wiese’s instance, shares – that are used as collateral for the lending arrangement. In the case of shares that are deposited, the value of the collateral fluctuates with the share price. If the value falls below a pre-agreed threshold, the lender will contact the borrower (investor) and ask them to “top up” the value of the collateral by depositing cash or more shares. This process is what is referred to as a “margin call.”

As recounted to Moneyweb by our sources – who chose to remain anonymous given there was only a handful of guests present – Van Zyl and Booysen reportedly confronted Wiese about the request and threatened to resign from the board unless the instruction was cancelled or reversed. It appears that Wiese complied with their request.

Ultimately, Wiese stepped down as chairman of the board of Steinhoff on December 15 2017. According to the Sens statement published at the time, Wiese offered to step down “in order to reinforce the independent governance of the company of which he is a major shareholder”.

But Wiese was a forced seller of 98.4 million shares the day before he resigned his Chairmanship, on December 14 2017. The reason provided on the Sens was “Involuntary sale of shares by funders under security arrangements”. This suggests that Wiese had not met the margin calls that were coming his way as a result of the collapse in the share price of Steinhoff. 

At least one of Wiese’s lending arrangements with respect to his Steinhoff shares was public knowledge. In exchange for vending Pepkor into Steinhoff in early 2016, Wiese received 609.1 million shares in Steinhoff valued at R57 a share for the 52% stake in Pepkor he directly controlled at the time. (He indirectly controlled another 37% of Pepkor through Brait.)

In September 2016, Wiese added to his shareholding in Steinhoff by acquiring an additional 314 million shares at a price of about €5 a share. This was funded by borrowing €1.6 billion from a consortium of some of the largest banks in the business: Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, UBS and Bank of America, to name a few.

As collateral for this non-recourse loan (a loan that prevented the banks from attaching any of Wiese’s other assets in the event of a default) he had to pledge 628 million shares in Steinhoff, amounting to two shares for every one bought with the borrowed money.

According to Bloomberg, Wiese sought to negotiate a standstill on the loan on December 11 2017, as the value of his collateral fell deep out of the money.


As can be seen from the graph above, the sum total of the shares Wiese pledged and bought in the lending transaction mentioned above, at some point fell below the value of the €1.6 billion loan (blue line falling through red line) during the course of December 6, according to our calculations and assuming no capital had been repaid up to that point. This meant that Wiese might well have begun receiving margin calls the following day – December 7. 

Following the revelations recounted to us in the meeting involving Van Zyl, we approached all parties to ascertain the accuracy thereof. Van Zyl and Booysen declined to comment. African Rainbow Capital declined to comment. Wiese denied asking the company to pay his margin call, and added that “there was no transaction to be reversed”.

Steinhoff provided the following statement:

Steinhoff did not provide any funding to Wiese-related entities in December 2017. Entities within the Steinhoff group concluded commercial agreements in October and November 2017 with Wiese-related entities. These transactions did not follow the normal governance and disclosure processes of the company. Both of the transactions were investigated (under the control of the Independent Committee of the Supervisory Board) and subsequently repayment agreements have been concluded and are currently being implemented.

Given the time the statement was received from Steinhoff on Monday evening, Moneyweb did not have the opportunity to follow up with the company regarding the transactions relating to October and November, but undoubtedly, investors will be eager to know more.

Read: Christo Wiese stands by words on margin call



Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in and an Insider Gold subscriber to comment.


Not only investors will be eager to know more….
Brilliant story – keep us up to date about what transpires.

so rumours that christ and markus borrowed eu350mil from steinhoff may be true. I wonder who signed these cheques and what athorisation did he have. Please tell me that steinhoff at least had some type of segregation of duties when it came to bank accounts

“.. asked the company to cover a margin call on his behalf..”
“..we approached all parties to ascertain the accuracy thereof..”
“..Steinhoff did not provide any funding..”

If Steinhoff did not provide any funding it still does not say whether Christo actually did ask them or not.
Question – now why would they not say whether Christo did ask them or not?
Another question – does something shines in it’s absence?

Thanks Warren – interesting but not surprising.

Wiese treated the companies he controlled as his personal property and bank account – keep on digging and you will still unearth this.

I wonder what the academics would call a business model: borrow money to obtain control of a large company and use this control to protect your interest – all ok until something goes wrong and you cant hide your shenanigans??? I don’t have a learned name for it but would call it Stupid and Underhanded.

What you describe is a crude form of what private equity firms do for a living – loans within the company fund the purchase of the company and crazily this is often tax deductible. The difference is basically that there are typically no public shareholders.

What you describe is a crude form of what private equity firms do for a living – loans within the company fund the purchase of the company and crazily this is often tax deductible. The difference is basically that there are typically no public shareholders.

“Entities within the Steinhoff group concluded commercial agreements in October and November 2017 with Wiese-related entities”

these will have to appear in the related party disclosures in next AFS

“As recounted to Moneyweb by our sources – who chose to remain anonymous given there was only a handful of guests present ”
By all means, let them remain anonymous but the reason stated for doing so is completely lame, very lame. I am sorry to say.

Think_B4U_Reply is your real name I suppose then?

The bottom line is simple.
Worthless companies purchased without proper due diligence on borrowed money against which the major players enriched themselves leaving the shareholders with the bill.
That’s the story, finished and klaar.
Christo Wiese is the beginning and end of this story, in my opinion.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely – and it’s not just politicians this applies to.
Jooste is the fall guy – he’s not bright enough to have orchestrated this.
Anyone buying Steinhoff after knowing the hisory of its largest shareholder needed their heads read.
As I said, my opinion only.

re:”Jooste is the fall guy”

There is the issue of “personality cult”. Whether or not Jooste is smart does not matter; if, for whatever reason, people believed in him then they would/could have bought to whatever he was telling them. Hence that’s how he alone (or as a main player) could have pulled this off.

I totally agree, in my opinion Wiese is the beginning and the end of the story. His appearance in Parliament and his reply to this article appears to be nothing less than a PRO exercise. Face saving is so very important to these people. Wiese paid his way out of appearing at the Tollgate Hearing years ago and will do anything to appear above board once again. Shareholder / Director Loans are an old trick. Nobody better positioned to know how to use investor money than directors. Yet our enforcement agencies do nothing. Let’s all watch Pinnacle Point Groups upcoming Directors trial .. the FD is yet another Wiese protégé. Many questionable over valuations and huge director loans appear here as well. Clearly the system works for some…

No proper accounting and using the listed vehicle as a personal bank is fraudulent.

My view from the second the Steinhoff story broke was: So many very very seasoned and respected, qualified CA’s that were caught with their knickers in a knot? How can that be possible?

Dr Steve Booysen, as chair of the Steinhoff audit committee,methinks ”doth protest too much” – but he should remember that his personal liability (together with the other directors), wont evaporate!

”The most delicious of all privileges – spending other people’s money”

John Randolph (1773-1833)

But, did Wiese not pledge his shares as surety for bank loans Steinhoff used to acquire Matress Firm?

Is this legal? Questionable definitely!

It looks as if ” witboordjiemisdaad ” is legal?

And then when he paid it back (if he paid it back)Steinhoff would book it as income!

Sounds like a palace revolution brewing in Skelmbosch. Wiese caused van Zyl, who is also not a saint, to look like a fool. Given that van Zyl played a key role in getting Sanlam and related parties involved in numerous entities associated with Wiese, one wonders where this will end….

So after all MR.”R78 million suitcase” is behind the Steinhoff scandal ?

van Zyl is running is mouth off using material non-public information which is actually hurting the company. How is he acting in the best interest of shareholders by taking about this at an intimate lunch? Price move on the day this story broke: -28% Looks like he fell on his sword today, good riddance!

End of comments.





Follow us:

Search Articles:
Click a Company: