Hong Kong, China vs New Zealand: Protecting minority investors: Extent of disclosure index (0-10)
Hong Kong, China
100
in 2019
New Zealand
100
in 2019
Hong Kong, China rank
1st
New Zealand rank
1st
Protecting minority investors: Extent of disclosure index (0-10) over time
- Hong Kong, China
- New Zealand
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 100 against 100 in New Zealand, a difference of 0.
Across all 15 years both countries report, New Zealand has been ahead every year.
Hong Kong, China ranks 1st and New Zealand ranks 1st of 191 countries.
New Zealand has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hong Kong, China | New Zealand | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 90 | 100 | 10 | New Zealand |
| 2010s | 96 | 100 | 4 | New Zealand |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index (0-10), Hong Kong, China or New Zealand?
- Hong Kong, China, at 100 against 100 in New Zealand as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index (0-10) between Hong Kong, China and New Zealand?
- 0, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and New Zealand?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong, China and New Zealand rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index (0-10)?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 1st and New Zealand ranks 1st 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.