http://blog.jaluo.com/?p=685
– – –
Date:  Sat, 10 May 2008 01:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
From:  owili nyatawo
Subject:  Re: Is Kisumu City too lucrative for illegal Asians immigrants in Kenya than other Cities?

– – – – – – – – – – –

Dear Richard and Nyatawo,

Interesting observations …. !

But before I comment, please help me with this iformation: Is there a weblink to ZIWA? If so, kindly provide it. If it doesn’t have such, then (1) how are prospective investors supposed to be aware of its existence; and (2) how do they market themselves, including to the wider potential markets?

Secondly, a new business should make itself so attractive that prospective customers/investors are NOT cajoled, seduced, or otherwise pressurised to participate in it.

Perhaps, to the extent that ZIWA directors are feeling a bit  ‘frustrated’, as you indicate below, is a measure of the falure of the investment product to develop its own momentum in terms of attracting investors based on its own attractiveness.

My humble opinion is that Luos have come a very long way, with our past littered all the way with tens and thousands of failed investments, let alone failed initiatives.

That may mean that, in a poverty-infested community such as ours – in which we have been suffering ‘credit crunch’ for the most part of the last 5 decades, long before ‘credit cruch’ became a parlance of the global finance markets as it is now – people not only tend to lack surplus funds for investments, but those who have naything to invest tend to go for secure, well-established, investment vehicles as a means of minimising investment risk.

That obviously means that it it easier for a Luo man or woman, with some spare money to invest, to gravitate towards ‘secure’ (even if low-return) investments like 90-day Treasury Bonds, IPOs, or investing in shares of listed companies like Kenya Airways, KCB, etc, etc – where the risk of absolute loss tends to zero owing to structures in place to avoid such loss.

The future of Luo-led ‘collective’ investments lies in making sure that such investment vehicles (i) demonstrate security; and (ii) guarantee acceptable minimum yield. If not, then their failure to take off is a sign of (i) lack of confidence in these investment vehicles; and, of course (ii) their inability to compete with alternative investment vehicles (like Treasury Bills, Stocks, etc) that offer greater security, guaranteed returns, and protection from loss.

Basic economics teaches that people do not likely to invest their hard-earned savings in any particular vehicle on the basis of ‘ethnicity’ or ‘patriotism’ alone. Far from it! The latter factors are what drive harambees (voluntary contributions) in community ventures, rather than the case of investments, which see greater economic rationality – as individuals weigh their anticipated minimum returns against all available investment options.

The challenge is for anyone considering initiating a community-based business venture to move away from expecting participation based purely on ‘ethnic loyalties’ (‘patriotism’) rather than demonstrated ability of the investment vehicle so formed to stand its own ground in terms of the minimum expectations in relation to investment security and yield that anyone with funds, and ample choice, would be expected to look into.

We have seen numerous initiatives, by way of proposed community based businesses, but I wonder how many survive inception stage to maturity as successful enterprises in which Joka Nyanam could feel secure investing their meagre savings?

That is our challenge, and we need to examine whether it is the lack of technical expertise, or something more cultural, that inhibits our overall success in germinating and growing successful enterprises.

Blessings.

Citizen Awuor
London   

– – –
Date:  Tue, 20 May 2008 13:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
From:  Bob Awuor
Subject:   Re: Is Kisumu City too lucrative for illegal Asians immigrants in Kenya than other Cities?