Talk:Zimbabwean dollar

When Rhodesia changed its currenct to the R$ it was to the value of 10 shillings to the dollar not pound for pound like you say I lived there then George

Redenomination plans

Anyone got any details on that? —Nightstallion (?) 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No news from the Reserve Bank yet. However, the new Z$50,000 bearer cheques have an expiry date of 31 December 2006. (I thought that the validity of the other bearer cheques had only been extended to 30 June 2006.) Does this mean that the new currency will only take effect in 2007? By the way, Dr. Gono has said that it will be a "new currency", with a more Zimbabwean look, and not just a redenomination of the Zimbabwean Dollar. Blair 2006-02-14

The Reserve Bank issued a Z$100,000 bearer cheque on 01 June 2006 and announced a Z$1 Million bearer cheque to appear in September 2006. I have heard that they don't have enough foreign exchange to purchase banknote paper or ink for the "new currency". Blair 2006-07-05

In July, the RBZ announced that validity of all bearer cheques had been extended to 31 Dec 2006. They also announced that the "new currency" would not be introduced until inflation dropped to double digits. This does not sound like the near future to me. Blair 2006-07-20

Zimbabwe coins

For fun, I did some very rough calculations about the value of Zimbabwe coins. If we assume that a Zimbabwe 1 cent coin is the same mass as a 1 Euro cent coin, and is composed fully of steel, then its value as a legal tender coin is approximately one ten-thousandth of its value as raw steel. No wonder people prefer to use them as game tokens instead of real money... JIP | Talk 15:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There are now over 400,000 Zimbabwe cents to one US cent (500,000 per one Euro cent) . Blair 2006-07-05

Here is an interesting comparison as of mid July 2006. Three friends could go out in Harare and each order a beer. The total bill would be Zim $450 thousand (about one US dollar at the parallel rate). They decide to pay the tab with 45 million Zimbabwe cents.

The weight of the coins would be 135 tons. Based on current London metal prices, the metal value of these coins would be US $351,000 . Not bad for three beers. Blair 2006-07-10

In June 2005, the RBZ anounced plans for new Z$5,000 and Z$10,000 coins. Has anyone heard or seen anything more of these coins? click for story Blair 2006-07-10

$5,000 coins, $10,000 coins?? First I've heard of it. I say like most of the RBZ proclaimations, this one got axed (perhaps because the currency decided to start the current steep downward trend on October 28th 2005. Zimbabwean 2006-7-15

Banknote images

The banknote images linked at www.banknotes.com don't seem to be there anymore.. AnonMoos 20:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They renamed their files for Zimbabwe. The pointers have been amended to the new file name. Blair

Clean up with Banknotes of Zimbabwe?

There's too much redundancy with Banknotes of Zimbabwe. I suggest we merge the section into Banknotes of Zimbabwe and keep the most essential summary in Zimbabwean dollar. --Chochopk 06:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been done. Blair

Update to this article needed NOW

It claims, currently, that the ZWN has been used since 1980; of course, what's meant is that ZWD was used from 80 till 06, and since 06 we've had ZWN. —Nightstallion (?) 12:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The ISO officially announced ZWN as the new code and then withdrew it.
The RBZ could not handle a new currency, so the revalued dollar will have the same ISO code (ie ZWD).
The RBZ uses the term "revalued dollar" and not "new dollar".
The first part of the article has been rewritten to reflect these points.

Blair (10 SEP 2006)

They couldn't handle a currency code change? Fucking incompetent, I'd call that. —Nightstallion (?) 14:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And you couldn't tell that from their worthless currency? Ramorum (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Detail on change over

It says

Also on 1 August 2006 the Government of Zimbabwe revalued the Zimbabwean dollar vs. the US dollar at a rate of 2.5 to 1. The net effect of both actions was a revaluation of the Zimbabwean dollar vs. the US dollar at a rate of 400 to 1.

I thought just before the redenom, 1 USD = 100,000 ZWD, and after the redenom, 1 USD = 250 ZWN = 250,000 ZWD. What does the so called "net effect" mean? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You are partly correct. The ISO declared then withdrew the ZWN code. It reverted to ZWD again. So, 1 USD = 250 ZWD (REVALUED) = 250,000 ZWD (OLD).

Please Note: These are the OFFICIAL exchange rates. Only the Government can buy USD from the RBZ at this price.
For most people and businesses, the parallel market still offers the USD for about revalued ZWD $650. On large volume purchases, the parallel rate is revalued ZWD $700 to $800 per USD.

Blair (10 Sept 2006)

Edit of section New currency (2005-6) and revaluation (2006)

This section was rewritten. Grammar and spelling was corrected. Blair (10 Sept 2006)

New table

The new table is much better! Thanks to User:Nik42. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :-) The old one had been bugging me for a while, so I finally decided to do something about it. Nik42 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:ZWD Inflation

I created the template "Template:ZWD inflation", because it was being used in other areas such as hyperinflation and it wasn't being updated frequently enough. 159753 16:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job! Copying and pasting large bulk of data (as well as code) is a bad practice. They ought to be reused as much as possible. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Inflation

I don't know anything about these things, but the 2007 inflation is stated as 9000% in the template and 4500% in the inflation-table. Which is correct?Twerbrou 10:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think 4500% is the official figure and 9000% is the estimate by non-government analysts. We should probably be using the official figure. --Tango 14:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Independent press is reporting the inflation rate to be about 15 000 % now. The inflation rate is changing on a daily basis. 76.211.6.150 16:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. The last RBZ official rate (leaked out) was 4530% for May 2007. However, the RBZ has stopped publishing the inflation figures. (We can easily guess the reasons why.) Unofficial inflation figures of 9000% to 15000% (year-over-year) come from non-government economic analysts. In the absence of any official RBZ numbers we should be using the unofficial figure, but make a note that the figures are UNOFFICIAL. --Stannard 20:58 (UTC), 10 July 2007

Split?

I think a great deal of this article refers to the current inflation in Zimbabwe, which has already enough to make a new article Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe. But I wonder if that's proper, since I'm merely a passerby. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is actually enough content to warrant a split. We should probably make the current article more concise - the tables are a little excessive. How about we reduce the exchange rate table to one rate (or a range) per month? --Tango 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked on the status of this article for a while. But I'd be against removing such data. If the inflation is hyper, then it's important to illustrate these weekly, if not daily, change. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Banknote question

Is anyone aware what the numbers 02022909 at the bottom of the banknote are for (there is already a printed serial number.) I've had a look arounf the net and all the latest bearer cheques appear to have the same number. Tarcus (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Since these are notes are "bearer cheques" and not true banknotes, this is the number of the account at the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe that these bearer cheques are charged to. (Just like your account number is on your personal cheques.) Stannard (talk) 16:07, 03 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything look familiar?

Anything look familiar on http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/jan10_2008.html#Z2 ? --Tango (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should charge them a $15 million license fee. Then we could buy one hamburger and share it between us. 8*)
--Stannard (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And here we are, 6 months later, and $15m is worth only fractions of a cent. You'd now need $15 BILLION to be able to afford a hamburger. I'd known this was a bad situation but somehow putting it in terms like this just makes it that much more salient. 159.153.138.98 (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The neutrality issues mainly consist of unsourced claims of problems. I don't doubt that there were many problems, but they need to be cited and fairly represented. For example, the "other problems included" list has 6 problems listed, without any inline citations. Then it says, "Most economists have blasted the move as merely political.", which is weasel wording because no economists are named. Later, it says point-blank, "The implements and cattle are to be used to buy votes in the 2008 election." Surely, some other sources would dispute that, and the source it's from attributes it to "unconfirmed information". In other places, it has negative tone like "started badly" or "problem-ridden", which aren't necessary; we can present the facts (with citations) and let the reader decide. Superm401 - Talk 21:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, so they should be cited of deleted. Its the other editers ball now. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Portions mentioning the "other problems included" , "Most economists have blasted the move as merely political.", and "The implements and cattle are to be used to buy votes in the 2008 election." have been deleted. [[User:Stannard|Stannard] (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Banknotes used

So can we remove the issue under 1 million dollars? Given the exchange rate is 200 million to U.S.$1. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. I wouldn't be surprised if they're not still in use, in big bricks. Like this picture: http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/images/stories/bread.jpg from less than a month ago, when it was somewhere around Z$50 million to the US$, so each of the bills individually were less than a US cent. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that such bundles were still found Nik42 (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That kid was having fun, but those bundles might still be around. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we keep getting edits replacing banknotes right down to 1 cent when those are no longer valid by the expiry date printed thereon?
I know a few notes earlier on were /officially/ permitted to extend beyond their expiry date and if someone can provide a history of those, fair enough, but repeatedly listing every expired note down to 1 cent reads more as deliberate mockery of the country than a list of actual, current, valid banknotes. (If this exercise was repeated on other country's pages, could be fairly sure of a negative response, I'd've thought). Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to be mostly one or two users who keep restoring those older denominations. Nik42 (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Official exchange rates

Now the Z$ is floating, there are meaningful exchange rates posted on www.rbz.co.zw, they do seem to be slightly lower than the black market rates (which makes sense - things always sell at a premium on black markets), but they're not far off. Should we switch to reporting those rather than the black market, or a combination of the two? I'm not sure why the black market still exists... is it not possible to actually get currency on the official market? --Tango (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are restrictions on who can get foreign currency and how much you can get at any one time. Nik42 (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actual exchange rates vs. need for newspaper sources

I've been keeping tabs on http://www.siyabonga-tatenda.com/zimmoney.html to sanity-check newspaper-sourced figures, albeit the pound vs. US dollar to Zimbabwe dollar exchange rates are usually distorted in favor of the pound sterling owing to the location of the company. Unfortunately this site's page is still not archived on http://www.archive.org.
While awaiting a better (permanent) weblink I've utilised this quoted rate for the first time here, just now, as the other rate posted for today is clearly out-of-date already.
In the last few weeks, this site has provided interim steps where there are large breaks in the sequence on wikipedia, but I neglected to add those in "temporarily", albeit in retrospect those might have been useful for historical reference purposes.
Trust that makes some sense, anyhow. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a footnote to the above for future reference to clarify exchange rates from http://www.siyabonga-tatenda.com/zimmoney.html (probably just as well started using these as a matter of habit) as being derived from a UK-based company and thus slightly disadvantageous to money transfers sent in US$.

e.g. Tomorrow morning's (7th June 2008) rate is 2.601 billion ZWD per US$ vs. 5.3 billion ZWD per UK£. Applying xe.com's current "live rate" of 1.00 USD = 0.507814 GBP would yield 2.691 billion ZWD extrapolated per US$. (The "gap" has been larger than this over the past couple of weeks).

Also, aside, for future ref., the http://www.siyabonga-tatenda.com/zimmoney.html quotes are for mid-range (£50 to £1,500) transactions. d. Harami2000 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting quote, aside, albeit using the single source above for daily comparative exchange rates may have advantages at present, giving the market turbulance.
"http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/jun6b_2008.html "Zim Independent, Business. Thursday, 05 June 2008 21:59
"THE fragile Zimbabwe dollar this week crashed to a record $1 billion against the US dollar as it become apparent that the new foreign currency liberalisation regime had failed to stabilise the local currency.
Six weeks have passed since the Reserve Bank floated the exchange rate under the willing buyer, willing seller twinning arrangement.
This week all four foreign exchange markets were trading at above $1 billion dollars for one US dollar, as demand far outstripped supply in the foreign exchange-starved market.
The four markets are the Old Mutual Implied Rate (OMIR), the official interbank, the cash parallel market and Real Time Gross Settlement System (RTGS).
The OMIR rate closed Tuesday at $1 746 899 809 after having opened trading at Monday's rate of $967 480 942. The OMIR rate is used by some companies to do business transactions and track the true value of the Zimbabwean dollar.
The rate surged even further on Wednesday when it rose to an unprecedented high of $3,9 billion before registering a slight decline to close at $3 047 030 834 last night. It is expected to surge next week.
The official interbank rate surpassed a billion dollars yesterday with most banks trading slightly above the mark. ABC Bank was trading at $1,1 billion for the US dollar while ZABG and Standard Chartered were just over $1 billion.
A handful of banks were trading at slightly below the $1 billion mark by midday yesterday but were poised to exceed the barrier by close of day.
Kingdom Bank was buying the greenback at $995 million and selling at $1 099 000 000 while Stanbic was buying at $990 million and selling at $992 million.
The two thriving parallel markets could not be matched by the interbank system and still held its lead throughout the week. On the cash parallel market, dealers were buying the US dollar at rates between $1,1 billion and $1,2 billion yesterday. Parallel market dealers on the RTGS market were buying the US dollar at $1,8 billion yesterday.
The RTGS rate for Tuesday was $1,2 billion before rising to Wednesday's rate of $1,6 billion."

(aside: the very next news article on that page quotes "There are no signs of the rate stabilising and economists contend that the rate could very well be above $2 billion by June 27". Missed by a bit... :/ ) d. Harami2000 (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Siyabonga Tatenda according to their website is a small money transfer company based in a rural part of the UK (Suffolk). The rates they quote for issue of Z$ cash notes seem to be much greater than rates available from other conventional foreign exchange information sources (Reuters, Bloomberg, Oanda, XE, OMIR, etc) which is surprising given banks are free to quote non-official rates. Can we get some sort of verification that the rates quoted are genuine and publish this source on wikipedia ? It seems like wikipedia is just quoting the highest available rate each day which may not necessarily be valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.1.99 (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for additional confirmation, but contrary to the observation that their quoted rates are "much greater" than all the others including the OMIR rate, you can see in the previous (17:03, 6 June 2008) newsclip I've added above that the OMIR rate was actually /greater/ for that timeframe. Unfortunately, there is no consistent feed on OMIR data and to swap back and forward between different rates and/or uncertain newspaper clippings might possibly do more damage to retention of a permanent record here. Siyabonga-Tatenda was the "best"/"closest tracking" option I could find for real-time rates when spending a good few hours looking around for a source to use as a "sanity checker" for any other rates cited.

02c only, anyhow, and if anyone /has/ a consistent feed to a *true* market value rate on a daily basis, I'd love to know about that. Harami2000 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the Economy of Zimbabwe article uses [1]. "The Old Mutual Implied Rate ('OMIR') is a broad unofficial proxy for the value of the Zimbabwe Dollar to the US$ based on the relative values of shares on the London and Zimbabwe Stock Exchanges." I don't have any idea which is a better figure, but there should be consistency between the two articles considering the numbers quoted for parallel rate can differ by 300% or more. Goldenbarrel88 (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Valuable work-- thank you!

I've found this article incredibly useful. The money supply explosion documented here must be the prime cause of the Zimbabwean hyperinflation, a point lost or obfuscated in all too many political discussions. WP articles on Zimbabwe would benefit from more links to this article and its references. Jeremy Tobacman (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the official rate really "floating" ?

On May 6th, when the offical rate was allowed to float, the official rate was roughly equal to the free market rate (190 Mil vs. 200 Mil).

But over the course of the last weeks the difference has widend again, to a point where it is again at less than 38 % as of June 23rd (8.26 Bil vs 21.89 Bil). So can we really say in the article that the official rate is (still) "floating" ? Or was theMay 6 float just a one-off adjustment of the official rate and the government has gone back to the two tier system ? If the gap continues to grow as it has, the official rate will be less than 10 % of the free-market rate by mid-July. Passportguy (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by this as well. As I understand it, the rate is floating in that banks are allowed to match buyers and sellers at any price, but I don't understand why the official rate and the black market rate are so different. You do need to bear in mind that the rates we're reporting for the black market include commission, the official rates might not. You never get the official exchange rate for any currency when you visit a Bureau de change - there is either a percentage commission, or they change the exchange rates in their favour (they have to make a profit, after all). I'm not sure that can account for 38%, though! --Tango (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, there are restrictions on who can access foreign currency from the RBZ, and how much one can get, so that some people can *only* get foreign currency on the black market, which makes it profitable to sell foreign currency there at rates above the official rate. Nik42 (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. But that is a sure sign that the currency is not fully convertible, and rates thus not floating but rather state controlled. Passportguy (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliablity of http://www.siyabonga-tatenda.com/zimmoney.html

Is the above site really realiable ?? After they started warning of a "slow-down" in rates over the last few days I began to become suspicious that something was going on, other than pure reporting of rates. Today the ZIM$ fell by around 10 % against the dollar according to the official rate published by RBZ, yet it even supposedly rose (!) slightly in value against the Euro according to Siyabonga. I can think of no logical reason why the black market should suddenly regain confidence in the ZIM$ with the offcial rate in free fall and the political situaton the way it is. According to a site posted by a another user [2] the ZIM$ fell from 34 Billion to 78 Billion overnight, which is steep, but somehow more believable. All in all the following makes be suspicious about Siyabonga's rates :

• The rates are clearly approximations. They are based on a rounded figure (45 Billion, 40 Billion) etc. against the GBP and don't seem to be calculated based on any real data.
• It seems highly unlikely that the ZIM$ would suddenly rise in value or remain stable without any reason, especially with the offcial rates still falling dramatically.
• Other sites paint a completly different picture.
• As a money transfer company, Siyabonga has a vested interest to overstate the value of the ZIM$ - the less ZIM$ they have to pay out per unit of foreign currency the better for them.

Wondered if anyone else has an opinion on this. (Cross-posted on Talk:Least valued currency unit) Passportguy (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable with using their rates, either. The rates given in news articles seem a better option, they're just rather infrequent. With the rates moving extremely fast at the moment one or two reports a week isn't really enough. Could we switch to reporting to OMIR instead? --Tango (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to quantify things. The website we're currently using reports a rate of $45 billion to £1, a UK broadsheet today reported a rate of $40 billion to £1 [3]. Given how quickly things move, they're pretty much in agreement. I also note that the site has a comment in the sidebar saying to email them about a better rate for transactions over £1,500. Without knowing what sized transactions the $40 billion figure is for, it's difficult to compare. --Tango (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Several companies' shares can be bought both on the Zimbabwean stock exchange and on exchanges overseas. As the shares as such as of equal value, they are a fairly good indicator of what the real value of the ZIM$ is. E.g. if one share of Old Mutual Plc trades for 1 GBP in London, for 15.80 rand in Johannesburg and for 154 Billion ZIM$ in Harare, then is it is fair to asume the real rate of GBP ro ZIM$ is 1:154 Billion. There will be minimal discrepancies between rates, but if the index is calculated with a basket of companies their effect is minimal. And out comes a very reliable indicator of the true value of a currency. Passportguy (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A Western world example of the same thing :

Shell RDA A shares trade for € 25.33 in Amsterdam and 19.98 GBP in London today.

Gives you a rate of 1 GBP = 1.26777 €. Today's currency rate according to xe.com is 1.26401 (Minor differences are due to the fact that all of these rates change by the minute). Passportguy (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the principle behind the OMIR. Is there a site that gives historical OMIRs? --Tango (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find an online site with complete data. There are a few sites that list past OMIR rates for specific dates. Until very recently the OMIR rate and the cash parallel rate were very similar, it seems that only in the last few weeks has this discrepancy appeared to the rates published by Siyabonga. The OMIR rate has quadrupled over the last few days alone,as the ZIM$ has apparently gone into freefall. Passportguy (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The official rate fell by almost 10 % today, while Siyabonga rates once again remained at 45 Billion to the pound. With all the talk about supposed wiring problems on their page, it seems that the rates a no longer being updated on the site, at least for the time being. Another reason may be that Siyabonga is taking a massive premium to work around these problem, thus leading to their wiring rate no longer being a true reflection of the actual value of the currency. I'll see what the OMIR rate does today. As I see it, we will have to update the page with those rates in the future as the Siyabonga rates will be wildly out-of date in a matter of days. Passportguy (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest switching to OMIR from now on, possibly in a new column (the table will need tidying up to make it fit, though), and find as many past data points as possible. Historic stock prices are usually easy enough to find, so perhaps we can calculate it ourselves for missing dates? --Tango (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it for a while now, and I don't think either represents an adequate or completely accurate picture of what the $ZIM actually trades at. As for Siyabonga, they probably use round figures like that to make person-to-person transactions more convenient to some extent. When it takes thousands or tens of thousands of bills to satisfy a single transaction, it would save a lot of time and effort to not break bundles of notes. As far as the official rate goes, it's clear it's still being manipulated, and not very convincingly at all. If you figure up the inflation rate trading day to trading day, it behaves more like a mutant crawling peg.

May: 6-10.8% 7-1.8% 8-5.8% 9-4.4%

12-2.9% 13-3.8% 14-5.3% 15-4.1% 16-3.8%

19-7.6% 20-10.3% 21-11.1% 22-9.6% 23-9.8%

27-7.0% 28-12.0% 29-8.8% 30-9.7%

June: 2-11.6% 3-10.9% 4-17.5% 5-14.9% 6-14.1%

9-23.4% 10-23.1% 11-28.0% 12-35.1% 13-21.4%

16-21.3% 17-15.8% 18-17.5% 19-15.5% 20-10.7%

23-11.1% 24-9.0% 25-8.8%

It looks like whoever is controlling it sets a range for it to fall in value in. But as the value decreases, that range becomes smaller as a percentage. Then there's a correction period in the range and so on. Plus, those percentages are from trading day to trading day. Why would prices go up 10.7% from the 19th to the 20th, but only 11.1% from the 20th to the 23rd? The rate has to be falling as steadily over the weekends as it does during weekdays.

I think Siyabonga is somewhat opposite of that. Their rates were probably very close to the real thing until this last week's developments with the presidential election. Now it's certain there's almost no hope for even a relatively peaceful outcome. Mugabe will stay in power until he dies, there will be a civil war, outside miliary intervention, or a some combination of those three things. At that point rates probably started dropping at an even more accelerated rate. Siyabonga had it posted that rates would probably moderate or even improve in the coming week for several days, then when the presidential election went awry, they added that the elections were still technically scheduled for the 27th. What I'm not sure of is if they're profit taking or just trying not to look stupid as a result of a horrible prediction or both. Either way I do agree that their posted rates seem to have diverged from the actual rates this week.

OMIR might be a better gauge of long term developments, but in on shorter time scales I think it's even worse. It's rate is based on stock prices and the free market forces exterted on them, but right now the market forces in Zimbabwe are so distorted and amplified it's hard to tell what's going on day to day. In a stable environment, a stock or currency usually overreacts to news then yo-yos a little bit until it finds the proper trading range. But with Zimbabwe there are several problems with that. The hyperinflation doesn't help. It's been in recession for a decade or more. With how dangerous things have gotten, most people are likely dumping investments there and only a select few people are left trading the stocks. The resultant extremely low volumes are probably why the OMIR rate goes up extremely sharply then falls a little bit for two or three days then repeats the same pattern.

So in my opinion we should keep daily records of each price (official, Siyabonga, & OMIR) on the $Zim page. With the least valued currency page it's my opinion we should either keep using the Siyabonga rate or a 50/50 average between Siyabonga and OMIR. Goldenbarrel88 (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeping daily records of each rate (official, Siyabonga, & OMIR) sounds like the best option, IMHO, since the OMIR rate is /not/ a free-market rate but, as stated, a proxy rate totally unavailable "on the street". What is interesting is that the Siyabonga rate (which has been by far the most reliable indication for over a month given the large gaps in any newspaper-published sources - many of which are /well/ out of date - e.g. $7bn is actually more widely quoted within the last day or two vs. $40bn in other sources) has over the past week or two tended to converge with the OMIR rate, judging by the historical graphs on the site for the latter (for which link, many thanks). This may be potentially "interesting" for any researcher into hyperinflation investigating cause-effect and what factors might lead or trail.

I have confirmed by email that the Siyabonga rate is genuine and has been for the duration of its use here. It would certainly be easier to record and "see what happens", possibly adding a retrospective "health warning" if required rather than trying to back-fill at a later date, given the current short-term context.

Regards & Best wishes, David.87.240.133.36 (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Where's this historical graph? I can't see the link you're thanking someone for... --Tango (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

=> http://www.zimbabweanequities.com/ - unfortunately, the scale has been somewhat compressed by the OMIR figure going ballistic these past 3-4 days (= implicit "market panic"? understandable, if so). 87.240.133.36 (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Taking an average of the rates is a bad idea. Unless we can show that someone else is using that averaged rate for something, we're probably in the realms of original research. Otherwise, I agree with pretty much everything. --Tango (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that taking a average isn't the way to go. (Although I have to admit I was tempted at first). But taking just taking widely different rates and combining them won't really produce trustworthy results either. As for which rate we should use : Siyabonga's rates are clearly influenced by other factors than pure reporting of rates. The more they overstate the value of the ZIM$ (i.e the lower their rate of the pound against the Z$ is), the less Z$ do they have to pay for the foreign currency that people wiring money to Zimbabwe pay them, i.e. the hire their profits are. Now - don't get me wrong, the mayhem in the Zimbabwe baking system and the amount of work it takes to work around that may warrant a premium, but it distorts the rate. Their rate is now no longer the rate you'd get in Zimbabwe but rather a special rate for people wiring money in.

OMIR : Clearly this rate is much more volatile than any rate a bank would offer a customer. However it is also clear that with the current political climate such volatility is to be expected. The fact that the two oher rates (Siyabonag & Official) are rather stable doesn't vouch for their reliabilty, rather the opposite. The caveat, as stated rightly above, is that it is based on stock trades that are taking place in very low volumes, i.e. single trades have the theoretical potential to distort the value. However this effect is somewhat limited by the fact the OMIR is based on a comparison of same-company stock prices in London, Johannesburg & Harare. If the difference were to become too great, traders move in buying cheap shares in Harare and selling them immediately in London, leading to a convergence of prices. I would say that the current high volatility is more likely the result of panic in the market due to the (quasi)canceled election rather than low/high volume stock trades. The biggest problem I see with the OMIR is that there seem to be next to no sources for past rates. The http://www.zimbabweanequities.com/#c1 site only has current rates, the graph shown past ones isn't much of a source of information.

I agree that for the moment we should monitor all three. However in the medium term we need to find a better source for the ZIM$ rates. Surely there must be other sources ?? I can't believe that the only source available to Zimbabweans is the site of an internet money wiring service ?? Passportguy (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I kind of wonder about the usefulness of the OMIR rate since it's more than double the value reported by the Siyabonag and that it's not really the value that's being exchanged on the streets of Zimbabwe. Although I don't mind having it tracked with the un/official rate. Although I'd like to see some of their rates backed up from articles like from Zimbabwe Situation (if possible) which was pretty much the source of unofficial rate prior to Siyabonag Ruby Cored (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OMIR is indeed not the rate you get on the street.

Almost invaribly, rates posted/used on pages like Highest valued currency unit are not street/private bank rates (like Siyabonga's), as these vary greatly from bank to bank depending on their profit margins. Normally interbank rates are used as reference, which are not available to the private customer at the teller. The only reason we post additional private rates for the Z$ is because the official interbank rates are grossly distorted in value by the Zimbabwean government and are not a true reflection of the value of the currency. Passportguy (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone make heads or tails of this: [4]? Bloomberg claims the official interbank rate is 91,800,000,000 and the parallel rate is 100,000,000,000 to the USD as of yesterday. Do they know something we don't??? Goldenbarrel88 (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange... the RBZ are reporting today's official rate at $10.5 billion. Either Bloomberg have simply miscounted the 0's, or something very interesting is going on. Could the RBZ site simply be lying? It wouldn't surprise me. It would also explain why the rate is meant to be floating but is so unrealistic - the actual rate is floating and is realistic, the central bank are just lying about what it is. The $100 billion figure is probably trustworthy though, we can report that in the article. --Tango (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)