I sincerely wish to commend the Finance Minister Larry Howai on his decision not to purchase shares in the controversial First Citizens IPO in order to avoid a perceived conflict of interest where he, as Corporation Sole (in charge of a state enterprise like First Citizens), would be purchasing the same shares he was effectively selling.
However, I am sorry but I am not buying his explanation that allocating shares to pension plans, mutual funds, the Unit Trust Corporation and credit unions is the same as allocating shares to the patriot flesh and blood citizens of this country.If one reads the subtext, isn't Mr Howai really saying that he has no confidence in the average citizen to own more than 50 shares valued at $1,100 in his/her own name?
Isn't it implicit in what he is also saying, there is a place for everyone in the First Citizens family but everyone must know their place?
In other words, the average citizen should be content to be relegated to the role of customer (or consumer of the banks products and services) and should leave the cloistered and profitable business of share ownership to others. It therefore begs the question, based on the First Citizens allotment formula approved by the minister, isn't this IPO just a well-orchestrated farce designed to make citizens believe that they are really being given an opportunity to own shares in the bank when in a real sense they're not?
Accordingly, I wish to remind Mr Howai that this is not the 1950s and 1960s; not only have the times changed but so, too, the educational and economic profile of our citizens and as a consequence, their expectations and tolerance level for nonsense have changed as well.
Peter Permell
via e-mail