Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets (%) in Eswatini
Eswatini: Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets (%) was 17.0% in 2020. ▬ Flat
Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Eswatini, 2003–2020
Source: Financial Soundness Indicators Database (fsi.imf.org), International Monetary Fund (IMF). Measured in %.
Analysis
Eswatini recorded 17.0% for bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in 2020.
The figure is down 6.5% on the previous year and down 26.2% over ten years.
Over the whole period, bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Eswatini peaked at 33.8% in 2008 and was at its lowest, 14.0%, in 2003.
That places Eswatini 91st out of 141 countries with data for 2020, putting it in the middle of the range.
Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets (%) in Eswatini, year by year
| Year | % | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 14.0% | — |
| 2004 | 15.5% | +10.7% |
| 2005 | 17.3% | +11.6% |
| 2006 | 26.3% | +52.0% |
| 2007 | 23.6% | -10.3% |
| 2008 | 33.8% | +43.2% |
| 2009 | 28.4% | -16.0% |
| 2010 | 23.0% | -19.0% |
| 2011 | 20.6% | -10.3% |
| 2012 | 21.1% | +2.1% |
| 2013 | 22.2% | +5.6% |
| 2014 | 24.9% | +11.9% |
| 2015 | 22.5% | -9.7% |
| 2016 | 22.2% | -1.2% |
| 2017 | 23.2% | +4.4% |
| 2018 | 18.8% | -19.1% |
| 2019 | 18.2% | -3.2% |
| 2020 | 17.0% | -6.5% |
Eswatini compared with similar countries
- Eswatini's 17.0% is above the median for lower middle income countries, which is 15.9%, 1.1× the median. (32 countries reporting)
- Eswatini's 17.0% is below the median for Sub-Saharan Africa, which is 19.7%, 86% of the median. (29 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 22.7% | 14.0% | 33.8% | 7 |
| 2010s | 21.7% | 18.2% | 24.9% | 10 |
| 2020s | 17.0% | 17.0% | 17.0% | 1 |
Countries ranked near Eswatini
More financial sector data for Eswatini
- Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar, annual growth rate 5.01 % change on previous year (2025)
- Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar, per unit of GDP 0.0017 units per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Reserve position in the IMF, US dollar, per capita 7.15 units per person (2025)
- Reserve position in the IMF, SDR, annual growth rate 0 % 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 5.22 units per person (2025)
- Reserve tranche position, US dollar, annual growth rate 5.01 % change on previous year (2025)
- Reserve tranche position, US dollar, per unit of GDP 0.0017 units per US$ of GDP (2025)
- Reserve tranche position, US dollar, per capita 7.15 units per person (2025)
- Reserve tranche position, SDR, annual growth rate 0 % change on previous year (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Eswatini?
- Bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets in Eswatini was 17.0% 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 Eswatini?
- The highest recorded value was 33.8% in 2008.
- What is the lowest bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets recorded in Eswatini?
- The lowest recorded value was 14.0% in 2003.
- How does Eswatini rank for bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets?
- Eswatini ranks 91st out of 141 countries with data for 2020.
- Is bank regulatory capital to risk-weighted assets rising or falling in Eswatini?
- Over the last ten years it is down 26.2%. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Eswatini 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 — 18 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.