Kiribati vs Lao People's Democratic Republic: Protecting minority investors: Extent of disclosure index
Protecting minority investors: Extent of disclosure index over time
- Kiribati
- Lao People's Democratic Republic
How they compare
Kiribati currently reports 6 0-10 against 6 0-10 in Lao People's Democratic Republic, a difference of 0 0-10.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Kiribati ahead.
Kiribati ranks 94th and Lao People's Democratic Republic ranks 94th of 191 countries.
Kiribati has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Kiribati | Lao People's Democratic Republic | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 6 0-10 | 2 0-10 | 4 0-10 | Kiribati |
| 2010s | 6 0-10 | 4.4 0-10 | 1.6 0-10 | Kiribati |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index, Kiribati or Lao People's Democratic Republic?
- Kiribati, at 6 0-10 against 6 0-10 in Lao People's Democratic Republic as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index between Kiribati and Lao People's Democratic Republic?
- 0 0-10, with Kiribati ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Kiribati and Lao People's Democratic Republic?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Kiribati and Lao People's Democratic Republic rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index?
- Kiribati ranks 94th and Lao People's Democratic Republic ranks 94th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Protecting minority investors: Extent of disclosure index (0-10). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The extent of disclosure index measures the approval and disclosure requirements of related-party transactions. It has five components: (i) whether it is the managing director alone, the board of directors, or the general meeting of shareholders the corporate body who can provide legally sufficient approval for the transaction (points are assigned depending on whether interested directors are permitted to vote or not); (ii) whether an external body (an independent auditor, for example) must review the transaction before it takes place; (iii) whether disclosure by Mr. James to the board of directors or the supervisory board is required; (iv) whether immediate disclosure of the transaction to the public, the regulator or the shareholders is required; and (v) whether disclosure in periodic filings (for example, annual reports) is required.