The Central Bank of Kenya last week published for the their ended in June 2008(PDF)
Notes
Return to profitability
- Had a net foreign exchange gain of Kshs. 54 million, compared to a loss of Kshs. 9.3 billion in 2007. This changed the profit picture and enabled the bank to post a profit of Kshs. 8,995 million [9 billion or ~$123 million compared to a loss of 386 million in 2007
- Total income of was Kshs. 14 billion, up from 5 billion. Barclays, Kenya’s largest bank had total income of Kshs. 18.9 billion) up from 5 billion the year before
- Will pay Kshs. 4 billion dividend to the government
Other
- Had staff costs of Kshs. 3. 3 billion (which would be third after KCB and Barclays if compared to commercial banks)
- Commission on sale of government securities dropped to Kshs. 3.1 billion (from 5.2b in ’07)
- Kenya has Kshs. 100 billion (~~1.37 billion) worth of currency circulating, compared to 90 billion in 2007
Vindicates Kimunya
- Currency printing expenses were Kshs. 403 million (down from 1.25 billion in 2007) and something which the former finance minister was crucified for in dealing with De La Rue
- Mentions the $45 million sale of the grand regency for which the payment is tallied
LinkWithin
2 comments:
Very Interesting about De La Rue. Anyone, is it possible to give me a quick summary on the saga. I'm in the U.S and I think I missed the crux of the issue.
De LaRue: No... it does NOT vindicate kimunya.
Old generation notes have more flaws.
1) False economy. It's like buying a chinese truck vs a Mercedes truck! Read how the army bought the cheaper chinese trucks that flip vs the preferred but pricier Renaults.
Singapore & Australia have 'plastic' currency notes that does not tear or wear out as fast as our paper/cloth currency.
2) Also the new currency would have been harder to forge. Thus it would REDUCE the long-term cost.
3) Also the new notes pick up fewer germs thus 'healthier'!
Post a Comment