Saint Kitts and Nevis vs Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Protecting minority investors: Extent of shareholder rights index
Saint Kitts and Nevis
50
in 2019
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
50
in 2019
Saint Kitts and Nevis rank
102nd
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rank
102nd
Protecting minority investors: Extent of shareholder rights index over time
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
How they compare
Saint Kitts and Nevis currently reports 50 against 50 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, a difference of 0.
Across all 7 years both countries report, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has been ahead every year.
Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 102nd and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ranks 102nd of 191 countries.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors: extent of shareholder rights index, Saint Kitts and Nevis or Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
- Saint Kitts and Nevis, at 50 against 50 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines as of 2019.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors: extent of shareholder rights index between Saint Kitts and Nevis and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
- 0, with Saint Kitts and Nevis ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Saint Kitts and Nevis and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2013 to 2019.
- How do Saint Kitts and Nevis and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines rank globally for protecting minority investors: extent of shareholder rights index?
- Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 102nd and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ranks 102nd of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Protecting minority investors: Extent of shareholder rights index (0-6) (DB15-20 methodology) - 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 shareholder rights 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, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB15-20 studies.