Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Brazil
Brazil: Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets was 16.8% in 2020. ▲ Rising
Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Brazil, 1998–2020
Source: Financial Soundness Indicators Database (fsi.imf.org), International Monetary Fund (IMF). Measured in %.
Analysis
In 2020, bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Brazil stood at 16.8%.
Compared with earlier readings it is down 1.6% on the previous year and down 0.3% over ten years.
Over the whole period, bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Brazil peaked at 19.0% in 2006 and was at its lowest, 13.8%, in 2000.
That places Brazil 96th out of 141 countries with data for 2020, putting it in the middle of the range.
The long-run direction has been consistently rising across the 23 years of available data.
Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Brazil, year by year
| Year | % | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 15.6% | — |
| 1999 | 15.5% | -0.6% |
| 2000 | 13.8% | -11.0% |
| 2001 | 14.8% | +7.2% |
| 2002 | 16.6% | +12.2% |
| 2003 | 18.8% | +13.3% |
| 2004 | 18.6% | -1.1% |
| 2005 | 17.9% | -3.8% |
| 2006 | 19.0% | +6.1% |
| 2007 | 18.8% | -1.1% |
| 2008 | 17.7% | -5.9% |
| 2009 | 18.7% | +5.6% |
| 2010 | 16.9% | -9.7% |
| 2011 | 16.3% | -3.3% |
| 2012 | 16.4% | +0.6% |
| 2013 | 16.1% | -1.9% |
| 2014 | 16.7% | +3.5% |
| 2015 | 16.4% | -1.9% |
| 2016 | 17.2% | +4.8% |
| 2017 | 18.1% | +5.8% |
| 2018 | 18.0% | -1.0% |
| 2019 | 17.1% | -4.7% |
| 2020 | 16.8% | -1.6% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 15.6% | 15.5% | 15.6% | 2 |
| 2000s | 17.5% | 13.8% | 19.0% | 10 |
| 2010s | 16.9% | 16.1% | 18.1% | 10 |
| 2020s | 16.8% | 16.8% | 16.8% | 1 |
Countries ranked near Brazil
More financial sector data for Brazil
- Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar, annual growth rate 11.88 % change on previous year (2025)
- Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar, per unit of GDP 0.0018 units per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar, per capita 18.99 units per person (2025)
- Reserve position in the IMF, SDR, annual growth rate 6.54 % change on previous year (2025)
- Reserve position in the IMF, SDR, per unit of GDP 0.0013 units per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Reserve position in the IMF, SDR, per capita 13.87 units per person (2025)
- Reserve tranche position, US dollar, annual growth rate 11.88 % change on previous year (2025)
- Reserve tranche position, US dollar, per unit of GDP 0.0018 units per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Reserve tranche position, US dollar, per capita 18.99 units per person (2025)
- Reserve tranche position, SDR, annual growth rate 6.54 % change on previous year (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Brazil?
- Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Brazil was 16.8% in 2020, according to Financial Soundness Indicators Database (fsi.imf.org), International Monetary Fund (IMF).
- What is the highest bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets recorded in Brazil?
- The highest recorded value was 19.0% in 2006.
- What is the lowest bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets recorded in Brazil?
- The lowest recorded value was 13.8% in 2000.
- How does Brazil rank for bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets?
- Brazil ranks 96th out of 141 countries with data for 2020.
- Is bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets rising or falling in Brazil?
- Over the last ten years it is down 0.3%. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.
- Where does this Brazil data come from?
- The figures come from Financial Soundness Indicators Database (fsi.imf.org), International Monetary Fund (IMF), published as part of Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets (%). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 23 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
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.