Ghana’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) risks imposing multiple regulatory charges on the same underlying investment capital. This practice could significantly reduce investor returns, even when portfolios are experiencing losses, according to William Mensah, Executive Director of Bora Capital Advisors.
Mr. Mensah has become a prominent critic of the SEC’s new asset-based levy framework. He highlights the most impactful aspect as the 0.225% and 0.10% levies. These charges are deducted directly from client investment portfolios, not just from market operators’ annual licence fees. His primary concern is that the same capital could incur regulatory charges at multiple points. This includes when securities are purchased, while they remain under management, and again if assets must be sold.
This situation presents a significant challenge for Ghana’s economic landscape. The nation aims to deepen its capital markets to attract long-term funding for businesses and infrastructure projects. Such levies, if perceived as burdensome, could deter the household savings needed for this growth. The criticism underscores a crucial distinction between institutional licence fees and portfolio-based charges. While companies formally bear licence fees, asset-based levies directly diminish an investor's portfolio value.
“To me, the most problematic of this directive is this 0.225% and 0.1 percent, the one that is supposed to be paid directly by the client,” Mr. Mensah stated. He made these remarks during a special edition of the NorvanReports Economic Governance Platform. The programme, held on Sunday, August 16, 2026, discussed whether the SEC’s new levies constitute regulation or overcharging.
The implications for investors are substantial. Under this structure, investors may bear regulatory costs regardless of their portfolio’s income generation. Mr. Mensah illustrated this with an equity portfolio. Shares are bought, incurring transaction-related regulatory charges. If these shares yield no dividend and their value declines, the portfolio still attracts the asset-based levy. This charge is calculated against assets under management, not against investment profits. This means a charge can potentially worsen a portfolio loss.
The problem intensifies if a portfolio holds assets but lacks sufficient cash to cover the levy. A fund manager might need to liquidate part of the investment. This action generates the cash required for the regulatory obligation. However, it also exposes the client to another transaction and potentially further charges. “When you sell part of the shares just to raise money to pay the regulator, you are going to pay the same regulator fees for selling that shares,” Mr. Mensah explained. He described this as a “crazy scenario” for a market trying to expand retail participation.
This criticism targets the economic design of asset-based regulation. Unlike charges linked to profits or dividends, an Assets Under Management (AUM) levy remains payable even during periods of negative investment performance. While this offers predictable revenue for regulators, it means investors face charges that can reduce capital even without distributable income. Mr. Mensah emphasized that Ghana’s market struggles with participation. He added that “investment capital is what helps develop countries.” Deeper pools of household and institutional savings are vital for providing long-term capital to the economy.