Lithuania vs United States of America: Protecting minority investors: Extent of disclosure index
Protecting minority investors: Extent of disclosure index over time
- Lithuania
- United States of America
How they compare
United States of America currently reports 7.4 0-10 against 7 0-10 in Lithuania, a difference of 0.4 0-10.
That makes United States of America's figure about 1.1 times Lithuania's.
Across all 15 years both countries report, United States of America has been ahead every year.
Lithuania ranks 55th and United States of America ranks 54th of 191 countries.
United States of America has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Lithuania | United States of America | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 5 0-10 | 7.4 0-10 | 2.4 0-10 | United States of America |
| 2010s | 6.8 0-10 | 7.4 0-10 | 0.6 0-10 | United States of America |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index, Lithuania or United States of America?
- United States of America, at 7.4 0-10 against 7 0-10 in Lithuania as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index between Lithuania and United States of America?
- 0.4 0-10, with United States of America ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Lithuania and United States of America?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Lithuania and United States of America rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of disclosure index?
- Lithuania ranks 55th and United States of America ranks 54th 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.