Who Booked the Profit? The Mauritius Conglomerate Question

The question is not whether large Mauritian conglomerates have become more profitable since 2019. The published accounts confirm that they have, substantially. The question is how. How does a corporate sector generate profit growth of that magnitude in an economy whose real GDP only recently recovered its pre-pandemic level, whose fiscal deficit has exceeded 9 percent of GDP, whose public debt has breached the statutory ceiling, and whose households are reporting sustained pressure on basic food and energy costs? The answer is not a story of exceptional management, bold investment or productive transformation. It is a story about who bears the cost of a depreciating currency and who captures its gains. Those two populations are not the same.

April 2026 Edition · The Meridian The War Economy

This article is part of The Meridian's April 2026 structural analysis series. It connects to the Import Dependency Trap framework introduced in The Egg Mauritius Never Grew, published in the same edition.

Read the Edition →

The Mauritius Commercial Bank, the country's most profitable institution and the clearest single data point available, recorded a profit after tax of Rs 15,446 million for the year ended June 2024, a year-on-year growth of 19.2 percent. For the year ended June 2025, that figure rose to Rs 17,211 million, a further increase of 11.4 percent. In 2019, MCB's profit after tax was approximately Rs 6,700 million. The cumulative increase over six years is approximately 157 percent. The nominal GDP of Mauritius grew by roughly 50 percent over the same period. MCB employs approximately 4,400 people. Its profit per employee in FY2025 was approximately Rs 3.9 million, equivalent to 18 times the minimum annual wage in Mauritius of Rs 213,000. IBL Group, the island's largest conglomerate, reported revenue of MUR 120.8 billion in FY2025, up 19 percent year-on-year, with operating profit rising 36 percent. Rogers reported net profit of Rs 3.7 billion on revenue of Rs 12.99 billion for FY2024.

These are not marginal outperformances. They are structural divergences between corporate profit growth and the economic conditions of the households that constitute the market those profits are extracted from. When profit grows at three times the rate of the nominal economy, and the nominal economy has itself been inflated by rupee depreciation rather than real output growth, the question of mechanism becomes unavoidable. Where, precisely, does that gap between economic performance and corporate profit come from?

The most original extraction layer, and the one that has received no analytical attention in the published literature, operates through the Integrated Resort Scheme. IRS villas, under regulations in force until December 2024, were sold to foreign buyers at prices denominated in hard foreign currency, with the full purchase price transferable in USD or EUR from abroad. The minimum price under the scheme is USD 500,000. The average price of a completed IRS villa has exceeded USD 1.6 million. The construction cost of that villa is paid entirely in Mauritian rupees: labour, local materials, site management and contractor fees are all denominated in rupees. The gap between the FX sale price and the rupee cost base is the developer's margin. When the rupee depreciates, that margin widens automatically, with no additional work performed and no additional value created.

The arithmetic is precise. A villa sold at USD 1.6 million generated Rs 56 million at the 2019 exchange rate of Rs 35 per dollar. The same villa, at the same USD price, at the 2025 rate of Rs 46 per dollar, generates Rs 73.6 million. The rupee revenue has increased by Rs 17.6 million per villa. The construction cost, paid in rupees, has risen modestly in nominal terms but has actually fallen in USD equivalent terms because the rupee depreciation reduces the foreign exchange cost of the rupee wages and rupee expenses. The developer has extracted an additional Rs 17.6 million per villa from the exchange rate movement alone, without raising the USD price, without improving the product, and without employing a single additional Mauritian worker.

The construction workforce that builds these villas is drawn predominantly from India, Nepal and Bangladesh. These workers are paid in Mauritian rupees. When the rupee depreciates against the Indian rupee, the Nepalese rupee and the Bangladeshi taka, the purchasing power of their wages in their home countries rises, because those currencies have not depreciated at the same rate against the US dollar. The employer pays the same nominal rupee amount. The worker's family receives more in their home currency. The employer's real labour cost in USD equivalent terms has therefore fallen. Per PWC Mauritius tax summaries, foreign workers employed in Mauritius are subject to Mauritian income tax on all income derived from employment exercised in Mauritius, regardless of nationality. At construction wage levels of Rs 15,000 to Rs 20,000 per month, most fall at or below the annual exemption threshold of Rs 390,000. Their effective tax contribution is minimal. The structural benefit to the developer, of labour whose FX-equivalent cost falls every time the rupee depreciates, is captured at zero additional tax cost.

On 6 December 2024, Cabinet approved amendments to the IRS regulations requiring 85 percent of the purchase price to be paid in Mauritius rupees, with only 15 percent payable in foreign currency. This partial correction is itself confirmation that the full FX mechanism was operating until that date and had been operating since the scheme's inception in 2002. The amendment closes part of the arbitrage window. It does not address the underlying labour cost mechanism, the rupee depreciation effect on construction input costs, or the MIC capital layer described below.

The same conglomerate groups that develop IRS villas control the dominant supermarket and retail chains in Mauritius. IBL operates Winners and other retail formats. Rogers controls logistics and distribution networks. The retail arms of these groups import food, household goods and consumer products at contracted foreign currency prices. When the rupee depreciates, two things happen simultaneously. First, the USD cost of importing goods rises, so the cost of restocking the shelves increases in rupee terms. Second, the retail price rises to reflect the new FX rate, sometimes ahead of the restocking cost through forward pricing. The margin between the old contracted import price and the new retail price, in the window between the depreciation event and the next restocking cycle, is pure rupee depreciation profit. The conglomerate captures it. The household pays it.

There is a further amplification that operates through the VAT system. Every price increase at the supermarket shelf increases the VAT collected on that transaction at the standard rate of 15 percent. The government receives more VAT revenue on the same physical unit of goods. The household pays more for the same tin of tuna. The fiscal system amplifies imported inflation into government revenue while simultaneously suppressing household purchasing power. The government describes this as revenue growth. The household experiences it as the cost of living. Both characterisations are accurate. Neither addresses the structural cause.

During the COVID-19 period, the Bank of Mauritius deployed Rs 80 billion through the Mauritius Investment Corporation to private sector entities, including hotel groups and conglomerate structures. Independent economists confirmed this capital was deployed at fixed rates below the prevailing inflation rate. The former Governor of the Bank of Mauritius, Ramesh Basant Roi, warned in a 2021 interview that the government's balance sheet, if it were a private company, would have been placed in receivership. He described the true fiscal deficit as an outsized hippopotamus under the murky water, concealed by cosmetic budget presentations. He also warned that money printing by the Bank of Mauritius would intensify pressure on a weakening rupee and aggravate inflation. Every element of that warning has since been confirmed by the National Audit Office: the fiscal deficit reached 9.3 percent of GDP in FY2024-25, and public debt exceeded the statutory 80 percent ceiling at 86.5 percent of GDP.

The value created by MIC capital was not taxed at the point of creation and has not been taxed proportionately to the structural benefit received. A hotel group receiving Rs 500 million in MIC convertible bonds at 3 percent fixed rate, when inflation was running at 7 percent, received a structural subsidy of 4 percent per year on that capital. Over three years, that represents Rs 60 million in interest subsidy on this tranche alone. When the hotel's USD-denominated room revenues then inflated in rupee terms as the currency depreciated, the combined benefit of below-inflation crisis capital and currency depreciation on USD revenue flowed directly to the shareholder. The debt the MIC incurred to deploy this capital now sits on the Bank of Mauritius balance sheet. It is being passed progressively to the taxpayer through diluted reserves and the continued depreciation of the currency that the original money creation helped to produce. The taxpayer funded the capital. The capital created the value. The value was retained privately. The debt was socialised publicly.

The fourth extraction layer is the least visible and the most embedded in normal commercial practice. Large conglomerate entities, through their banking relationships with the island's major institutions, access foreign exchange at interbank rates or negotiated corporate rates that are substantially better than the retail rates available to ordinary Mauritians or small and medium enterprises. When a conglomerate pays a foreign supplier in USD, it converts rupees to dollars at a rate that may be 1 to 2 percent better than the retail market rate on the same transaction. Across the volume of FX transactions that a major importing conglomerate executes in a year, this differential compounds to a material competitive advantage over any domestic producer or smaller importer attempting to compete in the same market.

The banking sector profits from both sides of this dynamic. MCB's non-interest income reached Rs 12.8 billion in FY2025, rising 19.3 percent year-on-year, with foreign exchange trading activities specifically cited in the financial statements as a driver of that growth. The bank processes the FX transactions of the conglomerate clients whose import and export flows create the FX demand. It earns the spread on each transaction. The corporate client receives preferential rates; the bank books the spread; the retail customer and the SME sector pay the residual cost of a market in which scale determines access to the best pricing. This is legal, commercially rational and structurally extractive from the perspective of the broader economy.

The political argument for a windfall tax on abnormal conglomerate profits is structurally correct in its diagnosis and structurally insufficient in its prescription. It is correct that the profit growth documented above is not the product of innovation, productivity or skill enhancement. It is correct that a society in which corporate profits grow at three times the rate of the nominal economy, while household purchasing power falls in real terms, has a distribution problem that the tax system should address. The argument for intervention is sound. The instrument proposed is inadequate.

A windfall tax collected in Mauritian rupees and recycled through the domestic fiscal system is itself trapped within the Import Dependency Trap. The rupee is not buying what the structural transformation of this economy requires. A fertiliser blending facility costs USD 5 to 15 million. A utility-scale solar installation costs USD 0.20 per watt, requiring tens of millions of dollars for meaningful capacity. Semiconductor equipment, agricultural machinery, cold chain infrastructure, renewable energy storage -- all of these inputs are priced in currencies that the windfall tax, collected in rupees, cannot directly purchase. The tax money arrives in rupees. The transformation requires foreign exchange. Unless the windfall tax is structured as a mandatory FX-denominated investment obligation, requiring conglomerates to deploy a percentage of their profit growth into specific domestic productive infrastructure in hard currency terms, the rupee collected will be recycled within the same loop that generated the profit in the first place.

There is a second reason the windfall tax will not achieve its structural purpose, which is that it will not be passed. The political economy of Mauritius, across every government of every party since independence, has consistently protected the conglomerate distribution model from the structural reforms that would threaten it. The elastic political cycle that this publication documented in WP-2026-01 ensures that reform pressure is absorbed without structural correction. A windfall tax announced in a budget is not the same as a windfall tax implemented, enforced and sustained across electoral cycles. The history of Mauritius provides no example of a reform that materially redistributed returns from the conglomerate sector to the domestic productive economy. It provides many examples of reforms announced and deferred.

There is one input to the conglomerate profit model that does not appear on any balance sheet and is not priced into any transaction. It is the social stability of the population whose purchasing power is being systematically compressed by the four extraction layers described above. A hotel group cannot operate during civil unrest. An offshore financial centre loses its clients when institutional credibility is questioned. An IRS villa development cannot sell to foreign buyers when the island is associated with social instability. The supermarket chain whose margins depend on household spending cannot book that revenue when the household has exhausted its capacity to spend.

The Sri Lanka comparison is the documented case study of what happens when the import dependency loop reaches its terminal condition in a small island economy. The government, unable to pay simultaneously for food and fuel imports with exhausted foreign exchange reserves, triggered power cuts of 13 hours per day, food shortages and the most significant popular uprising in post-independence South Asian history. The president fled the country. The conditions that produced that crisis are present in Mauritius in attenuated form. The word attenuated is important. It does not mean absent. The fiscal deficit at 9.3 percent of GDP, the public debt exceeding the statutory ceiling, the rupee at its weakest sustained level in modern history, the household food import bill at USD 1.6 billion annually, and the political system's demonstrated inability to deliver structural reform across six decades -- these are the same structural conditions, operating at lower intensity.

The conglomerates that have booked the profits described in this article require the stability of the society they extract from. They require the road infrastructure, the port logistics, the electricity grid, the educated workforce, the institutional credibility and the social peace that allow their operations to function. Most of those public goods are funded by the same taxpayer whose purchasing power has been compressed by the extraction mechanism. The household paying Rs 12 for an imported egg, bought at a conglomerate supermarket, transported by a conglomerate logistics arm, financed by a conglomerate bank, built on a former sugar estate owned by a conglomerate group, is also the household whose patience sustains the social conditions in which the conglomerate operates. That patience has a limit. The trend is documented. The precedent is verified. The government walking on a thin thread today is doing so on the same thread that every government before it has walked on, slightly thinner each time the loop completes.