If you missed last week’s Notadeepdive, catch up here and here.
TOGETHER WITH CREDIT DIRECT
You shouldn’t have to choose between high returns and access to your funds.
Let’s prove it to you.
Break-even*
In late 2022, there were few jobs with a clearer KPI than running Jumia. Co-CEOs Jeremy Hodara and Sacha Poignonnec had just left after three years of promising and failing to deliver on profitability.
Profitability offered Jumia the best route to repairing the “Amazon of Africa” narrative after fraud allegations damaged its credibility in 2019. It did not come close, not even during the COVID-19-fueled e-commerce boom.
In 2021, after Jumia’s share price unexpectedly spiked to $65, it sold into the enthusiasm, raising $573 million across two share sales, more than twice what it had raised around its IPO.
Suddenly flush with cash, Jumia decided to spend its way to the customer and order growth shareholders wanted to see.
Sure enough, it grew active customers and the number of orders, but it was a pyrrhic victory. Operating loss reached $240.9 million in 2021, and its net loss in 2022 was $238.3 million.
I wrote in July 2026:
“There is a pattern here of Jumia becoming disciplined when its back is against the wall. When money is scarce, it cuts employees, closes businesses, exits markets and discovers efficiency. When money is abundant, it has historically found new ways to spend it. That is the context in which Dufay’s latest profitability promise should be understood.”
On this week’s second-quarter earnings call, Francis Dufay, who took the KPI-heavy job in November 2022, reiterated the promise of “Q4 breakeven” six times.
He also highlighted an important decision:
“We deliberately chose to protect our margins and unit economics in this uncertain environment rather than chase GMV at the expense of profitability.”
On the equity fundraise, he shared:
“We also chose not to go for crazy amounts, right? I think the $50 million amount is useful for us. It strengthens the balance sheet. But we also try to be mindful of dilution for our shareholders.”
A better Jumia
Jumia employed 1,770 people at the end of June, down 59% from 4,318 when Dufay arrived. In Q2, technology costs fell 2%, while general and administrative expenses excluding share-based compensation fell 5%.
This is not merely a smaller Jumia. Revenue grew 14% to $52 million while operating loss narrowed 25% to $12.4 million.
After fulfilment, sales and advertising costs, Jumia retained approximately $1.98 per order, up from $1.79 a year ago. That still had to cover $9 million in technology costs and $15.2 million in general and administrative expenses. Breakeven will happen when the contribution from millions of orders can carry those largely fixed costs.
Doorstep delivery remains a minority service, with 75% of shipped packages fulfilled through pickup stations. Increasingly, Jumia looks like someone in Okene or Abakaliki ordering online, waiting a few days and collecting the package from a pickup station. As one Notadeepdive reader put it, Jumia is inventing post offices from first principles.
Advertising revenue, historically pitiable, rose 88% to $3.5 million; food delivery players must be on the sidelines taking notes.
Chinese and Turkish sellers sold 5.8 million items through Jumia during the quarter. They paid commissions and bought services such as warehousing, helping Jumia generate another $1.9 million in value-added services revenue.
Adding customers will not be enough. Jumia increasingly needs advertising, warehousing, and other marketplace services to become serious revenue engines.
THE REAL ORIGIN OF INTERSWITCH
In 2002, Nigeria had roughly 90 banks. 7 of them offered ATM services. The whole country had 68 ATMs and about 1,800 POS terminals for 120 million people, and a transfer took three days to settle.
In the third episode of Africa Built, we discuss the origins of Interswitch. This episode traces the company from the engineers who built Nigeria’s first bank networks in the 1980s to the December 2010 exit of the founding consortium.
Shifting the goalposts
Until February, Jumia’s published promise was loss-before-income-tax breakeven in Q4 2026, followed by full-year profitability in 2027.
It then made adjusted EBITDA its “primary profitability metric for guidance.” Q4 breakeven now means adjusted EBITDA breakeven; 2027 profitability means full-year adjusted EBITDA profitability. Jumia also added explicit positive-cash-flow targets for both periods.
The accounting hurdle became easier, and the cash-flow promise restores some of the rigour.
The distinction is worth $9.3 million; Jumia’s H1 2026 adjusted EBITDA loss was $19.4 million, against a $28.7 million loss before tax.
Jumia can therefore reach adjusted EBITDA breakeven while still reporting a statutory loss. The achievement would matter, but it would not be profit.
The profitability target was not the only one to move. Jumia cut its full-year GMV growth guidance from 27%–32% to 20%–30%, largely due to phones and electronics.
Phones account for 10%–20% of GMV, while other electronics account for slightly more than 20%.
A global shortage of memory chips and CPUs, compounded by disrupted Gulf air freight, has squeezed the roughly $100 smartphones common in Jumia’s markets and kept prices high. The old Jumia might have subsidised those phones to keep GMV looking good.
Phones and electronics are also among Jumia’s worst categories. Its take rate on smartphones is only 4%–6%, so a $200 phone produces very little revenue.
Twenty $10 household orders produce the same GMV, but more marketplace fees, advertising demand and opportunities for repeat purchases. The guidance cut exposes how much of Jumia’s historical scale came from a middling category.
The $50 million question
Jumia ended June with $48.3 million in liquidity after burning $14.3 million during the quarter. At that rate, it had approximately three and a half quarters of liquidity left. Current liabilities exceeded current assets by $11.6 million, while shareholders’ equity had fallen from $25.7 million in December to just $367,000.
Jumia was not out of cash, but it had little room for another bad quarter.
Jumia therefore agreed to sell 9.1 million new ADSs for $50 million. At $5.52 each, they were priced below the stock’s previous 52-week low. IFC supplied half the money; existing shareholder Axian and other investors supplied the rest.
The new shares dilute existing holders by approximately 7% and roughly double Jumia’s liquidity before fees and Q3 cash consumption.
Dufay said Jumia did not need the money to reach breakeven. It would use the additional room for inventory, selected categories and marketing.
Dufay has passed this test once. Jumia raised $94.7 million in August 2024 without returning to its old habits, and its operating cash outflow fell the following year. The $50 million gives him another chance to show that Jumia can remain disciplined on its path to adjusted EBITDA breakeven and positive cash flow. If both arrive in Q4, Jumia will have earned the asterisk in the headline. Profit will still have to wait.
See you on Sunday!
really interesting read. we'll see what happens by the end of q4.
Q4 will be interesting but asides increasing warehouses how else do u think jumia can grow again