Equatorial Guinea vs Lithuania: Protecting minority investors: Extent of disclosure index (0-10)
Equatorial Guinea
70
in 2019
Lithuania
70
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea rank
55th
Lithuania rank
55th
Protecting minority investors: Extent of disclosure index (0-10) over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Lithuania
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 70 against 70 in Lithuania, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 55th and Lithuania ranks 55th of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Equatorial Guinea averaged higher in 1 and Lithuania in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Equatorial Guinea | Lithuania | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 60 | 50 | 10 | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 66 | 68 | 2 | Lithuania |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index (0-10), Equatorial Guinea or Lithuania?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 70 against 70 in Lithuania as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index (0-10) between Equatorial Guinea and Lithuania?
- 0, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Lithuania?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Lithuania rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index (0-10)?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 55th and Lithuania ranks 55th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Protecting minority investors: Extent of disclosure 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 disclosure 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.