Nairobi — Back in the days when investment was worthwhile, people with little money to spare used to buy shares as a way of saving for old age.

Even though the prices of their stocks would rise with the tide, the long-term shareholders did not sell because they knew that true wealth arises from delayed gratification as Manyara Karago used to teach us.

What kept the shareholders going was the knowledge that at the end of every financial year they would get a reasonable, if not handsome return, in the form of dividends.

However, if recent trends are anything to go by, all they are likely to get will be a branded umbrella of dubious quality and lunch if they are really lucky.

Over the years, the most visible faces at any annual general meeting of publicly listed companies have been those of elderly men and women, who have travelled long distances from their rural homes, solely for the purpose of approving the payment of, say, a Sh5 dividend for every share they hold.

And if one has about 10,000 shares, such a dividend would be enough to guarantee them a reasonable level of comfort for a few months bearing in mind the low cost of living in rural areas.

But it appears those days are gone and the faithful shareholder has little incentive to hold on to his stocks, especially if they were counting on the dividend to supplement their pension.

Though more companies, particularly banks, are posting bigger profits, their shareholders have nothing to show for it.

One would expect a company posting a profit of about Sh7 billion to give a generous payout to its shareholders as dividends and to its staff as bonuses.

Instead, what the CEOs of such firms are telling shareholders is that they will get about Sh1 per share, sometimes less, either because the companies want to use the money for expansion into Rwanda and Southern Sudan or because they want to buy some asset that will increase payouts in future. But is that not the same thing they said last year?

And for how long will the elderly shareholders keep waiting for the elusive fat returns? Is this not the time for them to earn their dividend as they enjoy their sunset days?

Let us, for a moment, contextualise just how much money the listed companies are earning in profit. Environment minister John Michuki once said that if one started counting non-stop the moment one is born, one would be 35 years old by the time one counts to a billion.

I am not sure whether he is also the one who said that a billion grains of sand would make a truckload. Now, replace the grains of sand with Sh1 coins and you will understand just how much money listed companies are making annually. Now, compare that with what they are paying out as dividends to their long-suffering shareholders. From where I sit, I would say there is a big disconnect. Nay, huge; in fact, humongous. Yet that is not the worst scenario.

One company recently said that in future it would convert dividends into equity "to save on the huge amounts" spent on sending cheques to its large number of shareholders. In other words, the company is pained by the amount it spends to pay dividends to the investors who capitalised it. If this sounds like gibberish, it probably is.

But in simple terms, what this means is that instead of paying you a dividend like every good company should, that firm will sell you more shares instead. Well, there are those who will argue that this is a good thing because share prices usually rise over time.

But what will happen when the stock market remains depressed for three years? And what if - due to market correction, political instability or any other reason - the share prices plummet as has happened on some counters in the recent past? Why not allow shareholders to decide whether to take the dividend and run or to re-invest it? Is our free market economy not based on the freedom of choice any more?

By the way, what comes to your mind when you hear the word "impunity"? UN staff can still ask for transfers if all they want are allowances

Dear UN staff,

Kindly pass on this open letter to your colleagues who are planning to lobby for the downgrading of Nairobi from a Class B station, which the International Civil Service Commission granted in January.

As you may know, the city was downgraded to category C in 2001 because the commission was at the time not satisfied with the level of security and health services on offer. That the commission has now reclassified the city's status means some things have changed. And change does not always favour everyone.

Evidently, Nairobi has come a long way in sprucing up its image though there is still more that needs to be done before it can compete favourably with other capitals in the world. Top of the list, of course, remains modernising the mass transport system. But then again, this is a service that your anonymous colleagues are unlikely to need in the foreseeable future.

And if I may ask, is it possible for them to apply for transfers to Kandahar, Baghdad, Niamey (Niger), Yamoussoukro (Cote d'Ivoire) and such other stations where they can earn more if all they want are heftier allowances? That way, they would not need to take a pay cut and those of you who wish to remain with the people of Nairobi can do so in a class B station on the move. The last time I checked, that was called a "win-win" situation, or as we would say in Kenya a "Yes-Yes" vote.

By the way, I have been hearing claims that there are attempts to move the UNEP headquarters to South Africa, where, according to reports, crime remains one of the biggest challenges confronting the ANC government. Is there any chance that some of your colleagues are behind these murmurs? Just curious.

I suspect that Kenya is proud to host the United Nations Environmental Programme though I was once told that the entire UN budget is much smaller than that of Hiroshima Prefecture in Japan. I must confess that I have been unable to verify this independently. But since Kenya is the only developing nation with the honour of hosting a UN agency, such a comparison is neither here nor there. However, I doubt that Kenyans would be willing to have the esteem of their capital reduced to please a handful of international civil servants whose views may not necessarily reflect the wishes of their employer.

It is regrettable that the improvements that Nairobi has seen in recent years have reduced their allowances. But they should be patient because 2012 is not very far off and they could get their money back ... if Kenyans fail to fix their politics.

It would appear that the way for Africa to make its mark on the global stage is through collaboration among its peoples in different regions.

This dawned on me on Sunday when I read in the Sunday Nation that a book written by a Nigerian and published in Kenya has been nominated to compete for the best book to have been published in the Commonwealth last year.

Eyo, which tells the story of a girl who is subjected to child prostitution was published by WorldAlive, a relatively new player on Kenya's publishing scene. And about two weeks ago, it was voted the best book in the Africa region of the Commonwealth.

Winning accolades

The same newspaper also reported that Soul Boy, a film shot in Kibera by an artiste of mixed Ghanaian and Kenyan roots, has been winning accolades globally, the most recent being voted as the audience's choice at the Rotterdam Film Festival.

What these two unrelated incidents demonstrate is that the collaboration of the arts holds the key to success, not just for individual countries, but for the entire continent, for it shows that there is more to be achieved by working together.

It is, however, to be lamented that such winning works are not as readily available on African soil as they should. For instance, how many movie lovers have watched Soul Boy? And how many avid readers have walked into their nearest bookshop to find Eyo prominently displayed on the shelves?

The lesson for me, from these successes, is that we need to celebrate these achievers at home as well so that we are not caught offguard when the rest of the world fetes them.