Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Czechia
Czechia: Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets was 22.1% in 2020. ▲ Rising
Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Czechia, 1998–2020
Source: Financial Soundness Indicators Database (fsi.imf.org), International Monetary Fund (IMF). Measured in %.
Analysis
Czechia recorded 22.1% for bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in 2020. That is the highest value across all 23 years on record.
That represents a change of up 12.3% on the previous year and up 44.8% over ten years.
Over the whole period, bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Czechia peaked at 22.1% in 2020 and was at its lowest, 11.1%, in 2007.
That places Czechia 33rd out of 141 countries with data for 2020, putting it in the top quarter.
The long-run direction has been consistently rising across the 23 years of available data.
Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Czechia, year by year
| Year | % | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 12.0% | — |
| 1999 | 13.2% | +10.0% |
| 2000 | 17.4% | +31.8% |
| 2001 | 15.0% | -13.8% |
| 2002 | 14.3% | -4.7% |
| 2003 | 14.5% | +1.4% |
| 2004 | 12.5% | -13.8% |
| 2005 | 11.9% | -4.8% |
| 2006 | 11.4% | -4.2% |
| 2007 | 11.1% | -2.6% |
| 2008 | 11.6% | +4.5% |
| 2009 | 14.0% | +20.7% |
| 2010 | 15.3% | +9.1% |
| 2011 | 15.0% | -2.0% |
| 2012 | 15.6% | +4.3% |
| 2013 | 16.5% | +5.8% |
| 2014 | 17.0% | +2.8% |
| 2015 | 17.6% | +3.5% |
| 2016 | 17.7% | +0.5% |
| 2017 | 18.1% | +2.3% |
| 2018 | 18.3% | +1.2% |
| 2019 | 19.7% | +7.6% |
| 2020 | 22.1% | +12.3% |
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 12.6% | 12.0% | 13.2% | 2 |
| 2000s | 13.4% | 11.1% | 17.4% | 10 |
| 2010s | 17.1% | 15.0% | 19.7% | 10 |
| 2020s | 22.1% | 22.1% | 22.1% | 1 |
Countries ranked near Czechia
More financial sector data for Czechia
- Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar, annual growth rate 3.88 % change on previous year (2025)
- Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar, per unit of GDP 0.002 units per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar, per capita 71.12 units per person (2025)
- Reserve position in the IMF, SDR, annual growth rate -1.07 % change on previous year (2025)
- Reserve position in the IMF, SDR, per unit of GDP 0.0014 units per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Reserve position in the IMF, SDR, per capita 51.93 units per person (2025)
- Reserve tranche position, US dollar, annual growth rate 3.88 % change on previous year (2025)
- Reserve tranche position, US dollar, per unit of GDP 0.002 units per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Reserve tranche position, US dollar, per capita 71.12 units per person (2025)
- Reserve tranche position, SDR, annual growth rate -1.07 % change on previous year (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Czechia?
- Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Czechia was 22.1% 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 Czechia?
- The highest recorded value was 22.1% in 2020.
- What is the lowest bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets recorded in Czechia?
- The lowest recorded value was 11.1% in 2007.
- How does Czechia rank for bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets?
- Czechia ranks 33rd out of 141 countries with data for 2020.
- Is bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets rising or falling in Czechia?
- Over the last ten years it is up 44.8%. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.
- Where does this Czechia 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.