Hong Kong, China vs Saudi Arabia: Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets
Hong Kong, China
20.7%
in 2020
Saudi Arabia
20.3%
in 2020
Hong Kong, China rank
41st
Saudi Arabia rank
42nd
Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets over time
- Hong Kong, China
- Saudi Arabia
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 20.7% against 20.3% in Saudi Arabia, a difference of 0.4%.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 23 shared years of data; in 1998 it was Saudi Arabia ahead.
Hong Kong, China ranks 41st and Saudi Arabia ranks 42nd of 141 countries.
Across the 4 decades both report, Hong Kong, China averaged higher in 1 and Saudi Arabia in 3.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hong Kong, China | Saudi Arabia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 18.6% | 21.2% | 2.6% | Saudi Arabia |
| 2000s | 15.6% | 19.3% | 3.7% | Saudi Arabia |
| 2010s | 17.8% | 18.7% | 0.9% | Saudi Arabia |
| 2020s | 20.7% | 20.3% | 0.4% | Hong Kong, China |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets, Hong Kong, China or Saudi Arabia?
- Hong Kong, China, at 20.7% against 20.3% in Saudi Arabia as of 2020.
- What is the difference in bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets between Hong Kong, China and Saudi Arabia?
- 0.4%, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Saudi Arabia?
- 23 years are reported by both, from 1998 to 2020.
- How do Hong Kong, China and Saudi Arabia rank globally for bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 41st and Saudi Arabia ranks 42nd of 141 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Financial Soundness Indicators Database (fsi.imf.org), International Monetary Fund (IMF), published as Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets (%). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Reported by IMF staff. Note that due to differences in national accounting, taxation, and supervisory regimes, these data are not strictly comparable across countries.