Mongolia vs Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index
Mongolia
80
in 2019
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
80
in 2019
Mongolia rank
16th
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rank
16th
Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index over time
- Mongolia
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
How they compare
Mongolia currently reports 80 against 80 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, a difference of 0.
Across all 15 years both countries report, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has been ahead every year.
Mongolia ranks 16th and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ranks 16th of 191 countries.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Mongolia | Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 80 | 80 | 0 | — |
| 2010s | 80 | 80 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index, Mongolia or Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
- Mongolia, at 80 against 80 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index between Mongolia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
- 0, with Mongolia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Mongolia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Mongolia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of director liability index?
- Mongolia ranks 16th and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ranks 16th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Protecting minority investors: Extent of director liability index (0-10) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for extent of director liability index benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.