South African agritech startup Livestock Wealth, once held up as a model for democratising access to agricultural assets, has reached a regulatory reckoning after years of scrutiny, investor complaints and mounting questions about its business model.
The Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) has concluded its investigation into Livestock Wealth (Pty) Ltd, its founder and CEO Ntuthuko Shezi, and an associated entity, Livestock Wealth Financial Services (Pty) Ltd. While the regulator stopped short of finding that the company operated an illegal investment scheme, it imposed administrative penalties and confirmed that the firm’s financial services licence has lapsed.
The outcome closes a long-running probe, but leaves unresolved concerns around delayed investor withdrawals and the operational sustainability of crowd-farming platforms operating at the edges of financial regulation.
FSCA: no illegal financial services, but misleading conduct
In its final enforcement notice, the FSCA said it found no evidence that Livestock Wealth conducted unregistered financial services business. The company’s offerings — including cattle, macadamia trees and other agricultural assets — do not qualify as “financial products” under South African law. As such, the platform did not require a financial services provider (FSP) licence to market them.
However, the regulator imposed administrative penalties of ZAR50,000 (€2,400) each on Livestock Wealth and Shezi for misleading representations. Livestock Wealth had displayed the FSP licence of Livestock Wealth Financial Services on its website, creating the impression that Livestock Wealth itself was a licensed financial services provider.
The FSCA said this contravened provisions of the Financial Sector Regulation Act and the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act.
The regulator also confirmed that the FSP licence of Livestock Wealth Financial Services has lapsed, after the entity remained dormant for an extended period.
While noting that the company cooperated fully with the investigation, the FSCA’s decision did not address complaints relating to delayed investor withdrawals or asset verification.
From agritech poster child to regulatory scrutiny
Founded in Johannesburg in 2015, Livestock Wealth built a following by pitching “crowd-farming” as an alternative asset class. Retail investors could fund cattle breeding, crop tunnels or tree farming through a digital platform, with the promise of returns once assets matured.
The model attracted institutional interest. In 2022, the Mineworkers Investment Company (MIC), through its Khulisani Ventures vehicle, invested ZAR10m (€480k) in the startup, describing it as an example of scalable, innovative, black-owned agribusiness. At the time, Livestock Wealth said it had enabled thousands of users to invest and managed assets exceeding ZAR100m.
The funding was intended to support growth and potential international expansion.
Two years later, the tone had shifted sharply.
Investor withdrawals stall
By early 2024, investors began publicly reporting missed and delayed withdrawals, some stretching back several months. Complaints surfaced across media outlets, online reviews and investor forums, with users alleging repeated postponements and inconsistent communication.
Several investors said withdrawal requests submitted in the first half of 2024 had still not been processed by November. Others claimed they were told delays were caused by unrelated investors failing to meet obligations — explanations that raised concerns about cash flow and fund segregation.
The situation appeared particularly acute for stokvels — collective savings groups common in South Africa. One such group said it was owed nearly ZAR140,000, despite receiving written repayment commitments from the company.
Livestock Wealth has not published up-to-date financial statements, making it difficult for investors to assess the company’s liquidity position.
Legal structure under pressure
Livestock Wealth’s terms and conditions state that all investments are agreements between investors and independent farmers, with the platform acting only as a limited intermediary. Multiple clauses disclaim liability for farmer performance, investment outcomes or losses, and explicitly distance the company from responsibility for disputes.
Investors, however, dispute that characterisation. Several say they dealt exclusively with Livestock Wealth, received no direct farmer details, and relied on the platform’s wallet system and asset IDs to track ownership and returns.
Some investors have raised concerns that funds may not have been managed on a strictly product-by-product basis, though no regulatory finding has been made on this point.
Quiet end to a public defence
During earlier stages of the FSCA probe, Shezi publicly released correspondence suggesting the regulator had previously indicated that the platform did not require licensing. As scrutiny intensified, communication became more limited.
In mid-2024, Shezi said the company was awaiting final regulatory clarity. That clarity has now arrived — without findings of unlawful financial activity, but with penalties for misleading conduct and confirmation that the group no longer holds an active FSP licence.
The FSCA decision does not mandate restitution or address investor liquidity, leaving affected users to pursue complaints through other channels.
Livestock Wealth’s rise and decline highlights the fragile boundary between agritech innovation and financial intermediation. While crowd-farming platforms may fall outside traditional licensing regimes, they remain exposed to operational risks once retail investors expect liquidity, transparency and timely payouts.
For regulators, the case underscores the limits of existing frameworks. For investors, it serves as a reminder that assets framed as “not financial products” can still carry financial risk.
And for Africa’s startup ecosystem, Livestock Wealth stands as a cautionary example: regulatory compliance may be necessary — but it is not sufficient to sustain trust once growth gives way to exits.