@Yowel, kama huna jibu, dont expose your ignorance. Post #1522 does not answer my question. Let me give you another chance to answer the question. Go ahead, give it a shot, sio mtihani . . . nkt.

Nakumatt has expanded because shylock banks were willing to loan based on poorly done risk assessment. In return, Nakumatt has withheld payments to suppliers running to billions of shillings so as to meet interest payments. Suppliers are forced to borrow from same shylock banks to meet basic running expenses. Then someone tells me rate cap is the cause of Nakumatts problems. Give me a break.

The so called credit crunch is a manipulation by the banks, trying to cause organised chaos. They can only be the losers. The winners are those banks that will put in proper risk assessment policies and follow them.

Case in point, a bank has given me a mortgage on a property outside nairobi. Now, post rate caps, while attempting to refinance with another bank, bank 2 tells me it will be tricky because the property is outside Nairobi. Not my ability to repay, not value of the property vis a vis refinance sort, but, location of property. Thats nonsense in my opinion.

@Mainat, the reality will only sink in when the economy takes his job

To be honest, the pro and anti-cap debate is not new and is as old as economics theory has been around. What I know is this. A bank’s primary role in an economy is to take credit risk in exchange for interest rate payment. Unless you as GoK think you have a better understanding of credit risk, you should stay out.
Even an idiot, can see what uhuruto did was a populist move which has no in place in the proper functioning of an economy.

And none of their economics/finance/treasury guys supported them. They ALL actually opposed the idea!!! The decision was as political as they come.