Nigeria’s corporate bond market has received a costly reminder that a strong credit rating is not the same as cash in the bank.
Geregu Power Plc, an investment-grade-rated electricity generator, has defaulted on its N40.09 billion Series 1 senior unsecured bond, exposing a risk investors can easily overlook: a company can remain fundamentally viable, own valuable assets and even be profitable, yet still run out of cash when debt payments fall due.
FMDQ Securities Exchange classified the bond as being in “credit default” after Geregu missed its eighth coupon payment and fourth scheduled principal repayment. Issued in July 2022 at a fixed 14.50 percent coupon, the seven-year bond was rated A(NG) by GCR, which reaffirmed the rating in July 2025 and revised its outlook to Positive.
That makes the episode bigger than one company. For Nigerian investors increasingly drawn to corporate bonds, commercial paper and fixed-income funds because of attractive yields, Geregu demonstrates why credit analysis cannot stop at a rating, reported profit or the headline coupon.
Cash flow matters more than profit
The first warning is cash flow.
Geregu’s revenue for the six months to June 2026 fell 78.7 percent to about N18.65 billion from N87.63 billion a year earlier, while profit after tax plunged 88 percent to N2.54 billion from N20.27 billion. The deterioration followed a major turbine maintenance programme that constrained generation and reduced electricity available for sale.
The result was a classic liquidity squeeze: debt obligations remained fixed while operating cash generation weakened sharply.
Bondholders are not paid with future potential. They are paid with cash.
That distinction becomes even more important when receivables are examined. Geregu reported Trade and other receivables of about N106.9 billion at June 2026, with more than N69 billion aged beyond six months.
For a credit investor, that can be more revealing than the profit figure.
A receivable is an asset on the balance sheet, but it cannot pay a coupon until it is collected. In Nigeria’s electricity market, where payment and settlement problems continue to affect the power value chain, the ability to convert earnings into cash is a central credit question.
This is the difference between profitability, solvency and liquidity.
A company may have a viable long-term business, valuable physical assets and positive earnings and still face a short-term liquidity crisis. Geregu’s turbine maintenance may ultimately improve the company’s generating capacity, but bondholders have to survive the period in which revenue is depressed while debt obligations continue to fall due.
A rating is a starting point, not a guarantee
Geregu’s default should not automatically be taken as proof that its credit rating was wrong.
Credit ratings are assessments based on information, assumptions and forecasts available when they are issued or reviewed. Operating conditions can change quickly, particularly when an unexpected disruption creates a large gap between projected and actual cash generation.
GCR had affirmed Geregu’s A(NG) issuer and bond ratings in July 2025, with a Positive outlook.
The lesson for investors is therefore not to abandon ratings, but to use them properly.
A rating should begin the analysis, not end it.
Before buying a corporate bond because its yield looks attractive, investors should ask how the issuer will generate the cash required to repay them. That means examining operating cash flow, interest coverage, receivables quality, debt maturities, customer concentration, leverage, refinancing needs and the resilience of the underlying business.
A 20 percent yield may look compelling beside a 15 percent government security. But the additional five percentage points exist for a reason: the investor is being paid to accept additional risk.
Ownership changes should trigger another credit review
Geregu also highlights another issue that fixed-income investors sometimes underestimate: changes in ownership.
In December 2025, MA’AM Energy Limited acquired a 95 percent stake in Amperion Power Distribution Company Limited, the vehicle through which Femi Otedola previously held an indirect controlling interest in Geregu. The transaction transferred ultimate beneficial control and was valued at about $750 million.
The timing of the transaction, just months before the bond default, warrants scrutiny. But timing alone does not establish a causal link between the ownership change and the missed payments.
For investors, the more important lesson is procedural: A change in control should trigger another credit assessment.
Investors should reassess the company’s capital structure, leverage, guarantees, related-party exposures, governance, refinancing requirements and the new owners’ financial priorities.
A bond bought in 2022 is not necessarily the same credit in 2026.
What investors should watch now
Geregu’s bond is senior unsecured. Unlike a secured instrument, it does not give investors direct claims over specific collateral. Recovery will therefore depend heavily on the company’s overall asset position, creditor ranking and the precise terms of the bond.
Investors should also distinguish between a default and a permanent loss.
A missed payment begins a credit process; it does not, by itself, determine how much investors will eventually recover. The applicable cure period, trustee powers, enforcement provisions and any proposed repayment plan must be assessed against the bond documentation rather than assumed.
For Geregu, the immediate questions are straightforward: how quickly can generating capacity recover? How much of its outstanding receivables can be converted into cash? Can power-sector arrears translate into actual liquidity? And when will the missed obligations be cured?
Those answers will matter more to bondholders than the company’s long-term growth story.
The lesson for Nigerian fixed-income investors
Nigeria’s corporate bond market offers investors higher yields partly because it carries greater credit risk. That risk is easy to overlook when inflation is high and investors are searching for instruments that can protect purchasing power.
But a bond paying 22 percent is not automatically a better investment than one paying 17 percent.
The extra yield has value only if the issuer can deliver the promised cash flows.
For asset…
