I was in a discussion about the collapse of Nakumatt I mused about the fact that Nakumatt owned nothing. Nothing at all. Not a pencil nor a shoe. Nothing. Neither did their owners and that's part of the reasons creditors couldn't get anything back and that got me thinking...
How were they allowed to operate that way and how would entities at that size, supermarkets be allowed to operate that way?
When we talk about regulatory interventions, shouldn't this include protections for creditors and stakeholders at large?
When we talk about regulatory interventions, shouldn't this include protections for creditors and stakeholders at large?
Speaking from a layman's perspective, can't laws and regulations be created around asset ownership for large corporates at that size by category, because they honestly sound like a fly by night org if they can get away with leasing everything and owning nothing...
and being able to walk away from all of that in an instant and having no consequences, nothing to auction, nothing to hold as a form of compensation in case of collapse etc
How does a regulatory loophole that large exist?
How does a regulatory loophole that large exist?
I honestly don't get it. The Nakumatt people are living their best lives with billions in assets abroad while they left a trail of destruction in their wake and there are other organisations operating with the same model which will collapse leaving the same problem
One of the arguments forwarded was to entice investors but I call BS on that. You don't structure your economy for the benefit of external investors. That leads to a lot of the problem with the Kenyan economy- it's not built for you and I. We have no protection.
And investors still invest in countries with strict regulatory environments, nonetheless, as long as there's money.
Arguably regulations do change the structures of full industries but there's nothing to preserve about our current environment which benefits corporate fat cats.
Arguably regulations do change the structures of full industries but there's nothing to preserve about our current environment which benefits corporate fat cats.
Are we waiting for the next big collapse before we talk about regulations?
Supermarkets don't have to have deposits as security anywhere, don't have to own any assets-fixed or current, don't have any protections against fraud and don't protect their suppliers who usually take on debt to supply them on their extended credit periods
