Czechia vs Poland: Memorandum items, Securities lent and on repo, lent or repoed and

Czechia
-4.86 billion
in 2025
Poland
-11.10 billion
in 2025
Czechia rank
41st
Poland rank
42nd

Memorandum items, Securities lent and on repo, lent or repoed and over time

  • Czechia
  • Poland
-20.0B-15.0B-10.0B-5.0B0200020122025

How they compare

Czechia currently reports -4.86 billion against -11.10 billion in Poland, a difference of 6.24 billion.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 16 shared years of data; in 2000 it was Czechia ahead.

Czechia ranks 41st and Poland ranks 42nd of 49 countries.

Czechia has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Czechia Poland Difference Ahead
2000s -244.62 million -260.43 million 15.80 million Czechia
2010s -558.71 million -9.13 billion 8.57 billion Czechia
2020s -4.58 billion -12.95 billion 8.37 billion Czechia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher memorandum items, securities lent and on repo, lent or repoed and, Czechia or Poland?
Czechia, at -4.86 billion against -11.10 billion in Poland as of 2025.
What is the difference in memorandum items, securities lent and on repo, lent or repoed and between Czechia and Poland?
6.24 billion, with Czechia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Czechia and Poland?
16 years are reported by both, from 2000 to 2025.
How do Czechia and Poland rank globally for memorandum items, securities lent and on repo, lent or repoed and?
Czechia ranks 41st and Poland ranks 42nd of 49 countries.
Where does this data come from?
International Monetary Fund, published as Memorandum items, Securities lent and on repo, lent or repoed and included in section I (International Reserves and Foreign Currency Liquidity: Guidelines for a Data Template 2013 (IRFCL 2013), Monetary Authorities and Central Government excluding Social Security). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Czechia vs Poland: Memorandum items, Securities lent and on repo, lent or repoed and. Statizoid, drawing on International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 16 September 2026, from https://financial-sector.statizoid.com/compare/memorandum-items-securities-lent-and-on-repo-lent-or-repoed-and-included-in-section-i/czechia/poland/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under IMF Terms and Conditions (attribution required); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://financial-sector.statizoid.com/compare/memorandum-items-securities-lent-and-on-repo-lent-or-repoed-and-included-in-section-i/czechia/poland/">Czechia vs Poland: Memorandum items, Securities lent and on repo, lent or repoed and</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Memorandum items, Securities lent and on repo, lent or repoed and included in section I (International Reserves and Foreign Currency Liquidity: Guidelines for a Data Template 2013 (IRFCL 2013), Monetary Authorities and Central Government excluding Social Security)
Source
International Monetary Fund
Licence
IMF Terms and Conditions (attribution required)
Coverage
51 places, 1,065 data points, 1999–2025
Last refreshed

The International Reserves and Foreign Currency Liquidity (IRFCL, or the “Reserves Data Template”) dataset includes data on the amount and composition of countries’ official reserve assets, other foreign currency assets held by monetary authorities and central governments, and short-term foreign currency obligations and related activities of monetary authorities and central governments that can lead to drains on official reserves and other foreign currency assets. This website re-disseminates IMF member countries' data on international reserves and foreign currency liquidity in a common template and in a common currency (the U.S. dollar). Historical data by country are also available. Please note that the re-dissemination of the template data by the Fund does not constitute endorsement of the quality of the data by the Fund.