Lithuania vs Norway: Memorandum items, Securities lent and on repo, lent or repoed and

Lithuania
-263.67 million
in 2024
Norway
-355.75 million
in 2025
Lithuania rank
32nd
Norway rank
34th

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

  • Lithuania
  • Norway
-30.0B-20.0B-10.0B0200020122025

How they compare

Lithuania currently reports -263.67 million against -355.75 million in Norway, a difference of 92.08 million.

The two have swapped places 4 times across 19 shared years of data; in 2004 it was Lithuania ahead.

Lithuania ranks 32nd and Norway ranks 34th of 49 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Lithuania Norway Difference Ahead
2000s -67.18 million -16.78 billion 16.71 billion Lithuania
2010s -272.83 million -1.57 billion 1.30 billion Lithuania
2020s -324.53 million -402.43 million 77.89 million Lithuania

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, Lithuania or Norway?
Lithuania, at -263.67 million against -355.75 million in Norway as of 2024.
What is the difference in memorandum items, securities lent and on repo, lent or repoed and between Lithuania and Norway?
92.08 million, with Lithuania ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Lithuania and Norway?
19 years are reported by both, from 2004 to 2024.
How do Lithuania and Norway rank globally for memorandum items, securities lent and on repo, lent or repoed and?
Lithuania ranks 32nd and Norway ranks 34th 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

Lithuania vs Norway: Memorandum items, Securities lent and on repo, lent or repoed and. Statizoid, drawing on International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 14 September 2026, from https://financial-sector.statizoid.com/compare/memorandum-items-securities-lent-and-on-repo-lent-or-repoed-and-included-in-section-i/lithuania/norway/

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/lithuania/norway/">Lithuania vs Norway: 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.