By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
Tiger Brands delivered a robust performance for the six months ended March 31, with strong volume growth, a double-digit operating income improvement and a notable return on equity (RoE) improvement.
The food producer reported revenue of R17.9 billion, while revenue grew modestly by 1.3%, the company said stronger sales volumes and better cost control helped lift profits.
Operating income rose 26.1% to R2.1 billion, helped by lower input costs in some categories, factory efficiencies and logistics improvements. The company also benefited from efforts to reduce waste, improve packaging and streamline operations.
Headline earnings per share (Heps) from total operations increased 6.5% to 1 001 cents, while continuing Heps rose marginally by 0.6% to 980 cents per share.
Tiger Brands declared an interim dividend of 430 cents per share.
Earnings per share from continuing operations fell 35% to 949 cents, mainly due to prior-year disposals, including Carozzi and Baby Wellbeing.
Gross margin improved to 32.1% from 29.8%, driven by favourable raw material costs in key categories and factory and packaging efficiencies.
Tiger Brands says the variation between earnings per share and Heps mainly relates to profit on disposal of the Randfontein operations and impairment of assets in the Beacon chocolate division of the snacks, treats and beverages division.
Return on equity improved to 26.3% from 16.3%, while return on invested capital increased to 24.9% from 19.1%.
Tiger Brands expects a tougher macroeconomic environment in the second half as geopolitical uncertainty weighs on supply chains and consumers.
“[But] Tiger Brands remains confident in our ability to deliver in line with guidance. We’re proactively managing geopolitical and trade‑related pressures through disciplined cost initiatives and targeted pricing actions, ensuring the resilience of our performance in H2 2026,” says Tjaart Kruger, CEO.
On the listeriosis class action, Tiger Brands notes that access to underlying data from the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) remains central to the case.
A high court order granted authorised the disclosure of relevant NICD information for the proceedings which should help parties to more accurately understand the potential claimant population and the nature and severity of their illness and the extent of any resultant loss.