New Zealand has no shortage of ideas. It has founders building software for global markets, exporters with trusted products, scientists working close to commercial opportunity, and a retirement savings system in the KiwiSaver system that has become a significant pool of domestic capital.

The harder question is whether enough of that capital is reaching the places where it can lift productivity, help companies scale and create durable economic value for founders, investors and the country itself.

For Scott Weenink, the issue is not simply whether more money exists in the system. It is whether New Zealand is directing enough long-term capital towards productive businesses, technology adoption and companies capable of growing beyond, what is very small on a global level, the domestic market. In a small economy, that distinction matters. Capital that merely chases familiar and/ or safe assets may preserve wealth for some owners, but capital that helps businesses invest, hire, innovate and expand with global ambition is what changes the national trajectory.

The productivity problem is also a capital problem

New Zealand’s productivity challenge is well documented. The Treasury’s 2025 analysis on innovation and capital argued that New Zealand has not experienced the same productivity growth as comparable countries, and that the country remains, despite the KiwiSaver system, relatively capital shallow. The OECD has made a similar point, noting that deeper and more competitive capital markets, along with foreign investment, are central to lifting productivity.

Those observations can sound technical, but the practical meaning is simple. Workers become more productive when they have better tools, better systems, better infrastructure and better technology around them. A business that cannot invest in those things is unlikely to create higher-wage, higher-skill jobs at scale. A country that underinvests in productive capacity should not be surprised when growth feels harder than it ought to.

The debate is often framed as a policy question, and policy clearly matters. Tax settings, regulation, immigration, infrastructure, energy costs, competition and foreign investment rules all shape the environment in which firms make decisions. But there is also a cultural and institutional question: does New Zealand reward the patient allocation of capital to productive enterprise with significant growth potential, or does it default too quickly to assets that feel safer because they are familiar?

Why patient capital matters

Patient capital is not passive capital. It is money that is prepared to stay with a good business through the stages of growth that rarely fit neatly into a short reporting cycle. It allows a company to invest before the payoff is obvious, to hire ahead of demand, to build technology, to enter new markets and to make decisions that are right over years rather than weeks.

That distinction matters in the view of Scott Weenink because many of the businesses New Zealand most needs will not be built on short horizons. Technology companies, financial services challengers, export platforms and specialist manufacturers often require years of reinvestment before their value is fully visible. If the capital behind them is impatient, the company can be forced into smaller ambitions than it or the country actually needs.

Punakaiki Fund, who I recently joined as Chair, is an example of “patient capital” with it being an evergreen venture capital fund that focusses on investing in early-stage technology companies in New Zealand. It has an outstanding track record of supporting New Zealand technology companies to reach their potential through patient investment and support- Quantifi Photonics, Timely and Vend being obvious examples. New Zealand needs more investors and investment vehicles like this.

The point is not that every company should be funded forever, or that investors should ignore risk. Quite the opposite. Patient capital works only when it is disciplined. It still asks hard questions about governance, margins, management, market size and execution. It still expects accountability. But it understands that building enduring value is different from extracting a quick return.

From savings to ownership

One reason this question is becoming more important is the growth of KiwiSaver. The Financial Markets Authority reported that total KiwiSaver funds under management reached $123 billion in the year to March 2025, after contributions of $12.2 billion and net investment returns of $6.4 billion. That is a material pool of long-term savings in a country that has historically leaned heavily towards property as the default wealth-building vehicle.

The existence of a larger savings pool does not automatically solve the productive capital challenge. A retirement savings system like KiwiSaver can help households build security, but it also raises a wider question about ownership. If more New Zealanders are indirect owners of productive assets through diversified funds, they have a stake in the businesses, markets and governance systems that shape long-term prosperity.

That does not mean turning savers into speculators. It means treating ownership of productive enterprise as a normal part of national wealth-building. It means understanding that a share in a well-run company is not a casino ticket but a claim on future earnings, employment, innovation and service. It also means being honest that capital markets need trust. People will not commit long-term savings to systems they do not understand or institutions they do not believe are acting fairly.

Governance is where capital earns confidence

Scott Weenink’s background sits across law, private investment, financial services, governance and sport. He is a former corporate finance lawyer, a New Zealand based investor and company director, Chair of Xceda Capital Group and Punakaiki Fund, and a founding shareholder and former Chair of Generate KiwiSaver. That mix of roles gives him a practical view of how capital, governance and trust interact.

Good governance matters because patient capital cannot simply rely on optimism. Investors need to know that boards understand risk, management is being challenged constructively, incentives make sense and long-term value is being protected. For a small market like New Zealand, this is particularly important. When capital is scarce, misallocation hurts more. When trust is damaged, it is harder to rebuild.

This is where the conversation about productivity connects to the conversation about boards. Capital is not productive because it has been raised. It becomes productive when it is allocated well, governed well and used to build something with a future. A business with patient investors but weak governance can still destroy value. A business with strong governance but insufficient growth capital can remain smaller than it should. The best outcomes require both.

The small-country advantage

New Zealand’s size is often treated as a constraint, but it can also be an advantage. Smaller markets can build trust quickly. Networks are tighter, reputations travel faster and capable people often operate across several sectors in a way that creates useful cross-pollination. A director who has be involved in a broad range of sectors, and a broad range of markets, may bring a broader lens than a career spent inside one narrow lane.

The risk is that small markets also become too comfortable. Familiarity can make capital conservative in the wrong way. It can lead investors towards the same assets, the same people and the same assumptions. It can make new sectors look riskier simply because they are less well understood. For Weenink, one of the tests for New Zealand is whether it can combine the prudence of a small country with the ambition of a country that knows it must, and can, compete globally.

That will require better bridges between savings, private capital, public markets and growing companies. It will also require more respect for the difficult middle stage of business building, after a company has proved an idea but before it has become obvious that it will be successful. That is often where good companies either become serious or quietly stall. It is also where patient capital can have the greatest effect.

A broader definition of national wealth

The national conversation about wealth still tilts heavily towards what people own personally: houses, deposits, retirement balances, investment portfolios. Those things matter. But a country also needs to ask what it is building collectively. Are there more export-capable companies? Are younger workers seeing careers with a future in New Zealand? Are domestic firms adopting technology quickly enough? Are boards taking the right risks for long-term value rather than simply defending what already exists?

These questions are not separate. A country with deeper productive investment tends to create more capable firms. More capable firms create better jobs, stronger tax bases, larger pools of expertise and more examples of success for the next generation to copy. The benefit of patient capital is therefore not only financial. It is institutional and cultural as well.

For Scott Weenink, New Zealand’s challenge is to become more deliberate about where ambition meets capital. The country does not need reckless risk-taking, and it does not need growth stories built on slogans. It needs disciplined investors, competent boards and leaders willing to build beyond the limits of the local market. If more capital moves towards productive enterprise, and if that capital is matched by governance capable of stewarding it well, New Zealand will give itself a better chance of turning its ideas into companies, jobs and long-term national wealth.

Author bio

Scott Weenink is a New Zealand based investor, company director and former corporate finance lawyer. He is Chair of Xceda Capital Group and Punakaiki Fund, and a founding shareholder and former Chair of Generate KiwiSaver, with experience across finance, governance, technology, sport and international business.

Billionaire Sports Direct founder Mike Ashley has criticised recent cost of living and retail policies from Andy Burnham as “populist reactions”.

In a letter to the prime minister, the entrepreneur accused him of “jumping on ‘everyday fixes’ or bandwagons”, while “disastrous” business rates policies and increases to the cost of employing workers were causing businesses to struggle.

He also described a previous proposal of increasing business rates on large warehouses to help reduce them for pubs and clubs as “delusional”.

A Downing Street spokesperson said Burnham would “build a new economy that backs British business, delivers growth in every postcode and ensures the essentials in life – like energy, water and housing – are affordable again.”

Promises including cutting VAT from household electricity bills and reducing business rates for some firms is “just the start”, they added.

Earlier this month, Burnham promised to revitalise Britain’s “hollowed out” high streets by helping councils block new vaping and betting shops.

He also brought forward a plan to end subscription traps and ban shops using misleading recommended retail prices, which can make it seem like discounts are larger than they really are.

In Ashley’s letter, seen by the BBC and first reported by the Financial Times,, external he hit out at announcements made since Burnham succeeded Sir Keir Starmer as prime minister.

The businessman called on Burnham to use his first Budget, scheduled for 27 October, to lower costs for employers and change the government’s position on business rates.

Pubs, social clubs and live music venues will get a 20% business rates cut from April, while a review has been launched into how the tax, which high street firms have long called for reform to, is calculated.

“Shortsighted or populist reactions to underlying business challenges are not the answer,” Ashley said in the letter.

Ashley has repeatedly called for a fundamental overhaul of the tax, including levelling the playing field between High Street retailers and online rivals.

“If your answer is to tax larger retailers even more, through hiking business rates on retailer owned or third-party warehouses whilst reducing rates for pubs and clubs, then that is simply delusional,” he wrote.

Burnham previously said before he was prime minister that cuts for pubs, clubs and music venues could be paid for by higher levies on warehouses operated by online firms such as Amazon, and targeting the owners of empty high street properties.

Ashley built Frasers Group from a single Sports Direct store in Maidenhead in 1982 to a sprawling empire of dozens of brands employing 30,000 people.

The billionaire has frequently attracted controversy from investors and the media, with accusations over the years of building success by exploiting workers.

In 2016, Ashley admitted to MPs that workers at his Derbyshire warehouse had been paid below the minimum wage and a policy of fining staff for being late was unacceptable.

The business, still owned by Ashley but run by his son-in-law Michael Murray, this month bought luxury department store Harvey Nichols and promised a “significant restructuring” of the business.

Ashley also used his letter to ask Burnham how the prime minister intends to revive Harvey Nichols, which has faced financial challenges in recent years.

Referencing comments by Tory peer and former Marks & Spencer boss Lord Rose, who called the announcements “hot air”, Ashley said “I agree with him”.

“It is the disastrous business rates position (which I have raised many times over the years) and the dramatically increasing cost of employing people that are really causing business to struggle,” Ashley said.

“You have the chance to make a difference or get it horribly wrong,” he added.

Ashley said the High Street will be “further devastated” without major reforms, and warned Burnham’s suggestion he will consider further business rates changes in the coming Budget are “too little, too late”.

He also used the letter to attack Burnham’s plans to clamp down on the use of recommended retail prices, saying instead the real issue is “price fixing in sporting goods and other markets” – where he cited the rising cost of official football merchandise.

Most connected services start with a narrow business problem. A manufacturer may add remote monitoring to reduce support calls, give customers better visibility into equipment or help service teams diagnose problems without visiting a site.

At that stage, the scope is usually manageable: one business model, a relatively simple customer structure and a narrow set of technical requirements.

A year or two later, that picture can look very different. The same company may want to introduce paid service tiers, give distributors access to customer fleets, add another equipment line or sell the service to a new type of buyer. These are ordinary growth decisions, not edge cases. What matters is whether the technology underneath the service can change with the business — or whether every commercial shift triggers another costly development project.

The first launch is rarely the expensive part

When companies assess a connected-service initiative, the first questions are usually practical: how long will it take to launch, what will it cost, and can the proposed system support the current use case? Those questions matter, but they say little about what the platform will cost to change.

A system that handles the first product, customer group and workflow perfectly may still be difficult to change. Scaling from 1,000 devices to 5,000 might be relatively straightforward. Changing who can access those devices, how customers are charged, which partners participate in the service or how the platform connects to the rest of the business can be much more disruptive.

The cost of change becomes visible when a commercial decision turns into a redevelopment project. The consequences then extend beyond the engineering budget. Product decisions take longer, opportunities have to wait for technical work, and the business becomes increasingly dependent on the people who understand the existing system or the supplier that built it.

A platform can therefore be inexpensive to launch and still become expensive to own. For a growing SME, the more useful question is not simply whether the first version works, but how much friction the technology will create when the business needs the second, third and fourth versions of the service.

Connected services evolve as the business evolves

Connected services rarely stay in their original shape. An equipment manufacturer might launch a customer portal simply to show machine status. Later, service teams want to use the same data for maintenance plans, distributors need access to selected fleets, and another product range has to fit into the same environment. What began as a straightforward operational tool can gradually become part of the commercial offer.

None of this means the original product was badly planned. It means the business has learned something: which customers matter most, how the service is actually used and where additional value exists. The problem starts when the technology assumes that the first customer structure, pricing model or hardware portfolio will remain permanent.

At that point, business workflows matter as much as device counts. Supporting more devices is one kind of growth; supporting different roles, partner relationships, service tiers and customer journeys is another. A platform that copes well with the first but not the second can quietly narrow the company’s options just as the business is ready to expand them.

SMEs rarely need a five-year service model locked down on day one. They do need enough flexibility to change direction without turning every new commercial idea into a fresh technology project.

Where platform lock-in becomes a business problem

For an SME, vendor lock-in is less about whether the technology is proprietary than about what happens when the business needs to change it. If a strategically important change becomes slow or expensive to implement, or possible only on someone else’s terms, that dependency has become a commercial problem.

One form of lock-in appears when important changes depend entirely on a supplier’s roadmap or willingness to undertake custom work. The company may technically be able to add a new integration, customer role or service model, but only on terms and timelines it does not control. That leaves the business with less negotiating power and can put commercial decisions on somebody else’s timetable.

Lock-in can also accumulate one customer exception at a time. Creating a separate variation for a major client can help close an early deal, but repeating the practice often enough produces several versions of what was supposed to be one service. Updates become harder to coordinate, support effort grows and the next change has to account for an increasing number of exceptions.

Migration creates a similar problem. Data may be difficult to move, integrations may have to be rebuilt, or critical workflows may exist only inside the current provider’s environment. In such cases, leaving is theoretically possible but commercially unattractive.

For an SME, that is the lock-in that really matters. The question is not simply whether it can change supplier or platform. It is whether the cost of doing so — or even of changing the current platform substantially — becomes high enough to remove otherwise sensible business options.

Ownership is really about keeping options open

For an SME, platform ownership does not necessarily mean running every server internally or maintaining every line of software with an in-house team. What matters is having enough control to make important business decisions without discovering that the technology has already narrowed the available options.

Data is an obvious place to start. A company should know whether it can access and reuse the operational and customer information generated by its service, rather than leaving that value trapped inside a particular interface or provider. The same applies to business workflows: customer roles, approval processes and service journeys may need to change as the organisation grows.

Integrations deserve the same scrutiny. A CRM, billing system or support platform that fits today may not be the one the business uses three years from now. Deployment requirements can change too, particularly when larger customers, new markets or regulatory expectations enter the picture.

In practice, ownership is about preserving choices, not controlling technology for its own sake. The more strategically important a connected service becomes, the more valuable it is to know that its data, workflows, integrations and operating model can evolve with the company without constraining its roadmap.

The platform should make the next business model easier, not harder

By the time a connected service is established, the next request is rarely “just add more devices”. It might be a distributor portal, a new equipment range, a premium service tier or different business workflows for a new customer segment. These are changes to the business around the platform, not reasons to replace the platform itself.

The challenge changes when connected services have to support the next version of the business rather than simply more devices. An enterprise IoT platform built around a reusable foundation can accommodate that kind of change without forcing a rebuild, keeping standard platform capabilities separate from the business logic and integrations that evolve with the company.

There is little business value in rebuilding common platform mechanics. What sets the service apart is the customer experience, pricing logic, partner processes, industry-specific functionality and the way those elements work together. A reusable core lets the company put more of its investment into those areas.

This is where platform ownership becomes useful rather than theoretical. Future requirements will still call for custom work, but a new commercial model, a new integration or a change in deployment requirements should be treated as an extension of the existing service rather than the start of another platform project. Integration flexibility and scalability then become business advantages rather than abstract technical qualities.

Questions SMEs should ask before committing to a platform

A practical way to assess a platform is to ask how much disruption a plausible change would cause.

Before committing, SMEs should ask:

• Can we change how the service is priced or packaged without redesigning the platform?
• Can we add another product or equipment line without creating a separate system?
• Can distributors or other partners receive their own access without duplicating customer environments?
• Can we export and reuse the operational and customer data generated by the service?
• Can important integrations be added or replaced as our wider technology stack changes?
• What happens if our deployment requirements change because of a major customer, new market or internal policy?
• If we change supplier or operating model later, what exactly would have to be rebuilt?

None of these questions produces a simple pass-or-fail answer. Some businesses may reasonably accept greater dependence on a provider in exchange for speed or lower initial cost. Others may need stronger control from the beginning because the connected service is expected to become core infrastructure.

Those trade-offs are easier to accept when they are understood upfront than after they have become expensive to reverse. A platform should be assessed not only against today’s feature list but against plausible changes in commercial model, partner structure, deployment and integrations. That makes the future cost of change part of the original business decision rather than an unpleasant discovery later.

Build for change, not for a perfect forecast

Growing businesses are supposed to change. Customer segments shift, pricing evolves, new partners appear and services that began as supporting features can become important parts of the commercial offer. Trying to predict all of that in advance would be both expensive and unrealistic.

The goal is simpler: avoid hard-coding today’s assumptions into tomorrow’s constraints. A sound technology foundation should let a company keep what already works while changing the parts that genuinely need to evolve.

That does not mean there will be no further development. New business models will still require new logic, integrations and customer experiences. The difference is whether those changes extend an existing platform or force the business to rebuild its foundation each time.

For SMEs, that distinction can determine whether technology remains an asset as the company grows or gradually becomes a source of delay and technical debt. The best platform decision is not the one that predicts the next business model perfectly. It is the one that leaves the business enough room to choose it.

Conference Call Participants

Gianmarco Conti – Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division

Presentation

Question-and-Answer Session

SANTA CLARA, Calif. — Nvidia shares climbed sharply Thursday, rising as much as 7.59% to $225.56, after the chipmaker reported record quarterly revenue that topped Wall Street expectations and issued a stronger-than-anticipated sales forecast for the current quarter, easing investor concerns about the durability of the artificial intelligence spending boom.

The stock gained $15.90 in Thursday’s trading, extending gains that began after the company released its fiscal second-quarter results Wednesday evening. Nvidia’s report served as a keystone moment for a broader wave of strong technology earnings this week, lifting shares of other software and chip companies alongside its own.

Record revenue tops estimates

Nvidia reported revenue of $96.2 billion for the second quarter, ended July 26, 2026, up 18% from the previous quarter and up 106% from a year earlier, according to the company’s official earnings release. The figure comfortably exceeded analyst consensus forecasts of roughly $92.27 billion.

Data center revenue, the company’s largest and most closely watched business segment, reached a record $89 billion, up 117% from a year ago, topping analyst estimates of $85.4 billion. Nvidia attributed the growth to the ramp-up of its Blackwell Ultra infrastructure, with hyperscale revenue more than doubling year over year and increasing 13% sequentially.

Adjusted earnings per share came in at $2.22, ahead of the $2.09 analysts had expected and up 111.4% from $1.05 a year earlier. GAAP and non-GAAP gross margins both reached 75.0%, up from 72.7% in the same quarter last year, a notably strong figure for a hardware company even as rising costs for components like memory chips and wafers continue to pressure margins industrywide.

A bullish forecast drives the rally

Perhaps more significant to investors than the quarterly beat itself was Nvidia’s forward guidance. The company said it expects revenue of $108 billion for the current quarter, plus or minus 2%, well above the $103.9 billion analysts had projected. That outlook does not include any data center sales from China, according to the company.

Nvidia founder and Chief Executive Jensen Huang framed the results as evidence that the broader AI industry has moved from speculative investment to tangible returns. “AI has reached its inflection point. It’s doing useful work,” Huang said in the company’s official earnings release.

Hyperscaler spending shows no signs of slowing

A key theme underpinning Nvidia’s results was continued heavy spending from the handful of massive technology companies, known as hyperscalers, that account for an outsized share of the company’s revenue. Nvidia Chief Financial Officer Colette Kress said capital expenditures among the top five hyperscalers are expected to rise to $1.3 trillion next year, up from $800 billion in 2026, according to CNBC.

That continued spending was underscored by a new deal announced alongside the earnings report: Amazon Web Services agreed to purchase 2 million Nvidia graphics processing units and adopt the company’s new Vera CPU, with some units expected to be integrated with Nvidia’s forthcoming Rubin AI chip and others deployed as standalone systems. The agreement offered fresh evidence that major cloud providers continue to invest aggressively in AI infrastructure despite periodic investor concerns that spending might be nearing its peak.

Margins face pressure ahead

Despite the strong results, Nvidia signaled that some cost pressures are beginning to show up in its outlook. The company said it expects gross margin to slip slightly to 74% in the current quarter, down from the 75% reported in the just-completed period, reflecting rising costs for memory and other components across the semiconductor industry.

Returning capital to shareholders

Nvidia also highlighted a substantial return of capital to investors during the quarter. The company returned approximately $26 billion to shareholders through share repurchases and cash dividends, and reported roughly $99 billion remaining under its existing share repurchase authorization as of the end of the quarter. Nvidia said it will pay its next quarterly dividend of 25 cents per share on Oct. 1, 2026, to shareholders of record as of Sept. 10.

A shifting customer base

Huang also pointed to a broadening customer base as a sign of the AI industry’s maturing structure. Where a single company had driven much of the AI infrastructure buildout a year earlier, Huang said the current environment reflects far greater diversity of demand. “This time last year, one lab alone was driving the buildout; today, we have a golden age of new AI labs and startups, multiple frontier labs scaling in parallel,” Huang said, according to the company’s earnings release, pointing to strength across the broader AI ecosystem beyond its largest customers.

Part of a broader market rally

Nvidia’s results helped fuel a broader rally across technology stocks Thursday. Software and cybersecurity companies including Salesforce, CrowdStrike and Okta also posted strong earnings the same evening, with their shares climbing by double digits in premarket trading Thursday, according to Yahoo Finance. Nvidia’s own after-hours gains built momentum into the regular Thursday trading session as investors digested the full scope of the week’s earnings reports.

With Nvidia now guiding toward $108 billion in revenue for the current quarter and continuing to report gross margins near historic highs for a hardware company, attention turns to whether the company’s next report can sustain the pace of growth that has defined its performance throughout the AI boom. Analysts will also be watching closely for any updates on Nvidia’s access to the Chinese market, an area the company’s current guidance continues to exclude entirely, as well as continued signs of hyperscaler capital spending translating directly into chip demand in the quarters ahead.