Latvia vs Singapore: Provisions to nonperforming loans
Provisions to nonperforming loans over time
- Latvia
- Singapore
How they compare
Latvia currently reports 40.3% against 38.9% in Singapore, a difference of 1.4%.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 20 shared years of data; in 1999 it was Singapore ahead.
Latvia ranks 119th and Singapore ranks 120th of 140 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Latvia averaged higher in 2 and Singapore in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Latvia | Singapore | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 79.3% | 86.2% | 6.9% | Singapore |
| 2000s | 83.6% | 51.4% | 32.2% | Latvia |
| 2010s | 58.0% | 36.1% | 21.8% | Latvia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher provisions to nonperforming loans, Latvia or Singapore?
- Latvia, at 40.3% against 38.9% in Singapore as of 2020.
- What is the difference in provisions to nonperforming loans between Latvia and Singapore?
- 1.4%, with Latvia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Singapore?
- 20 years are reported by both, from 1999 to 2019.
- How do Latvia and Singapore rank globally for provisions to nonperforming loans?
- Latvia ranks 119th and Singapore ranks 120th 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.