Iceland vs United States of America: Provisions to nonperforming loans
Provisions to nonperforming loans over time
- Iceland
- United States of America
How they compare
Iceland currently reports 58.3% against 57.7% in United States of America, a difference of 0.6%.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 1998 it was United States of America ahead.
Iceland ranks 75th and United States of America ranks 78th of 140 countries.
United States of America has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Iceland | United States of America | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 51.2% | 180.6% | 129.4% | United States of America |
| 2000s | 75.9% | 131.4% | 55.5% | United States of America |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher provisions to nonperforming loans, Iceland or United States of America?
- Iceland, at 58.3% against 57.7% in United States of America as of 2020.
- What is the difference in provisions to nonperforming loans between Iceland and United States of America?
- 0.6%, with Iceland ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Iceland and United States of America?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 1998 to 2009.
- How do Iceland and United States of America rank globally for provisions to nonperforming loans?
- Iceland ranks 75th and United States of America ranks 78th of 140 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Financial Soundness Indicators Database (fsi.imf.org), International Monetary Fund (IMF), published as Provisions to nonperforming loans (%). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Provisions to nonperforming loans. Nonperforming Loans are loans for which the contractual payments are delinquent, usually defined as and NPL ratio being overdue for more than a certain number of days (e.g., usually more than 90 days). Reported by IMF staff. Note that due to differences in national accounting, taxation, and supervisory regimes, these data are not strictly comparable across countries.