Naspers and Prosus Shares: Bargain After Sell-Off?
Updated: 9 October 2026
Are Naspers and Prosus shares worth buying after the latest sell-off? That is the central investment question in the latest Moneyweb Now discussion, which examines Prosus’ food-delivery business, the outlook for the sector and whether the market is undervaluing the two investment groups.
The episode, featuring Kea Nonyana from PrimeXBT, also explores a new report on climate risk at South Africa’s major banks and the Competition Commission’s challenge involving Premier Group and RFG Holdings.
For South African investors, the stories offer three different lessons: a falling share price does not automatically mean a stock is cheap, climate risk is becoming an important consideration in financial-sector analysis, and regulatory disputes can change the outlook for a corporate transaction.
Are Naspers and Prosus undervalued?
The investment case for Naspers and Prosus rests on the value of their underlying businesses, their ability to generate sustainable returns and the price investors are willing to pay for that exposure.
When a share price falls sharply, investors often begin looking for a buying opportunity. However, the key question is whether the decline has created a genuine gap between market price and underlying value.
A company can become cheaper without becoming undervalued. If its growth outlook deteriorates, earnings expectations fall or investors demand a higher return to compensate for risk, a lower share price may be justified.
For Naspers and Prosus, investors should examine the value of their investment portfolios, the performance of their operating businesses, capital allocation decisions and the costs associated with running a complex investment group.
What could make Naspers and Prosus attractive to investors?
A potential investment opportunity would need to be supported by evidence rather than the size of the recent price decline alone.
Investors should consider five factors:
- Underlying asset value: How does the market value of each group compare with the estimated value of its investments and operating businesses?
- Holding-company discount: Is the difference between market capitalisation and underlying asset value unusually large, and what explains it?
- Business performance: Are the underlying companies improving revenue quality, profitability and cash generation?
- Capital allocation: Are management decisions helping unlock value for shareholders over time?
- Market risks: Could weaker technology valuations, currency movements or disappointing business results put further pressure on the shares?
The distinction between a cheap share and a good investment matters. Even a company with valuable assets can deliver disappointing shareholder returns if investors pay too much or if those assets underperform.
Are Naspers and Prosus a buy right now? The latest discussion raises that question, but a responsible investment decision requires current share prices, updated financial results and a valuation based on the underlying businesses. Without that analysis, neither stock should automatically be labelled a bargain.
Prosus and food delivery: Is the sector still worth investing in?
Food delivery is another key part of the investment debate. Digital platforms can benefit from repeat customers, convenience and expanding online commerce, but those advantages do not necessarily translate into attractive profits.
The sector’s economics depend on how much it costs to acquire and retain customers, the fees paid by restaurants, delivery expenses, order frequency and competition between platforms.
Promotional discounts can help a platform attract users, but they can also put pressure on margins. Similarly, rising order volumes are not enough if the business struggles to generate sustainable cash flow.
Investors evaluating Prosus’ food-delivery exposure should look beyond headline growth and ask whether the relevant businesses can improve unit economics, strengthen customer retention and generate returns that justify the capital invested.
The key indicators to monitor include:
- Revenue growth and order volumes.
- Contribution margins and operating profitability.
- Free cash flow and cash requirements.
- Competition and customer acquisition costs.
- Management’s strategy for improving returns.
The long-term opportunity depends on whether food-delivery businesses can turn their scale into durable profitability. A growing industry can still be a poor investment if competition absorbs the financial benefits of that growth.
South African banks and climate risk: What investors need to know
The latest How Cool Is Your Bank? report from responsible-investment organisation Just Share examines how effectively South Africa’s largest banks are addressing climate risk in their financing, governance and business strategies.
The report assesses Standard Bank, FirstRand, Absa, Nedbank and Investec. Its findings point to progress in climate commitments, but also significant gaps between stated ambitions and measurable changes in financing decisions. Nedbank recorded the highest overall score at 59%, according to Just Share.
Read the 2026 How Cool Is Your Bank? report.
Why does climate risk matter to bank shareholders?
Banks are exposed to risks through the companies and projects they finance. Climate-related regulation, changing energy markets, extreme weather and the transition to lower-carbon technologies can affect borrowers’ operating costs, asset values and ability to repay debt.
This makes climate risk relevant to credit decisions, long-term portfolio quality and the management of financial risk.
The report highlights several areas investors can examine:
- Fossil-fuel exposure: How banks assess and manage financing to high-emission industries.
- Emissions disclosure: Whether reported data and targets allow progress to be measured.
- Governance: How responsibility for climate risk is built into management and board oversight.
- Transition finance: Whether funding supports credible plans to reduce emissions.
- Accountability: Whether public commitments lead to measurable changes in lending and investment.
A climate score is not, by itself, a measure of whether a bank’s shares are undervalued or likely to outperform. Investors should consider the findings alongside earnings, capital adequacy, asset quality, valuations and other conventional financial indicators.
However, climate-risk disclosures can provide additional information about how banks identify longer-term risks and manage their exposure to changing economic conditions.
Premier Group and RFG: Why the Competition Commission wants the merger reconsidered
Premier Group’s acquisition of RFG Holdings has become the focus of a regulatory dispute over the proposed closure of RFG’s Fruit Products Western Cape canning facility in Tulbagh.
The Competition Tribunal approved the merger subject to conditions on 6 March 2026. In October, the Competition Commission applied to have that approval revoked and the transaction reconsidered, or alternatively to have additional or amended conditions imposed.
The Commission’s action concerns whether information about the contemplated closure of the Tulbagh facility was adequately disclosed during the merger review. Premier disputes the Commission’s characterisation and says it intends to oppose the relief sought.
In its 8 October statement, Premier said the facility’s commercial outlook had deteriorated because of subsequent developments and that the decision was not caused by the merger. The company also said that, following consultations, 407 of 409 affected employees elected to enter into voluntary severance agreements, while two would remain employed within the group.
The Commission’s allegations are not a final ruling against Premier. The matter remains subject to the relevant legal process.
Investors can read Premier Group’s statement on the RFG transaction and follow the Competition Tribunal’s case file.
What could the Premier–RFG dispute mean for investors?
The outcome could have implications for regulatory risk, merger conditions, operational decisions and confidence in management’s handling of the transaction.
Investors following Premier should monitor the Tribunal proceedings, any changes to the merger approval, the future of the Tulbagh facility and potential consequences for the company’s operations.
The dispute also illustrates why merger approvals do not remove every future risk. Companies may face new regulatory challenges when material operational decisions raise questions about the information or commitments considered during the original approval process.
Until the proceedings are resolved, investors should distinguish between the Commission’s allegations, Premier’s response and any eventual findings by the Tribunal.
What South African investors should watch next
The Naspers and Prosus debate, the bank climate-risk report and the Premier–RFG dispute cover different parts of the investment landscape, but each reinforces the importance of examining the evidence behind a headline.
For Naspers and Prosus, the next step is to assess current valuations and underlying business performance rather than assuming a sell-off has created a bargain.
For South Africa’s banks, the question is whether climate commitments translate into measurable changes in financing and risk management.
For Premier and RFG, the focus is on the regulatory process and the potential implications for the transaction and the businesses involved.
Investors should compare these developments with financial results, company disclosures and their own investment objectives before making decisions.
Listen to the full discussion: The Moneyweb Now episode, Naspers/Prosus: ‘Steal of the century’, was published on 9 October 2026 and features Kea Nonyana from PrimeXBT, Odinakachi Okeke from Just Share and Simon Brown.
Listen to the episode on Moneyweb.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only. It is not personalised financial advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Share prices and valuations can change, and investors should conduct their own research before making investment decisions.
