PeakMetrics / Fact Checks
Economy & business fact checks
Explore claims publishers have checked about economy & business. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.
Search fact checks
Search by text or image7,103 published reviews in this topic
Senate agrees to Sh316.5 billion revenue share for counties
Publisher’s rating: TRUE
Meru Liquor Board suspends issuance of license to dealers
Publisher’s rating: TRUE
“1996-ci ildə həkimlərin aylıq maaşı 6,5 dollar idi”
Publisher’s rating: yarı doğru
Claim Ravish Kumar contradicting statements on Indian GDP
Publisher’s rating: FALSE
இந்தியாவில் அதிக மினரல் வாட்டர் ஆலைகளை கொண்ட முதல் மூன்று மாநிலங்களில் பட்டியலில் தமிழ்நாடு முதலிடம்.
Publisher’s rating: True
During UPA government’s tenure, the unemployment rate was 2.2% while under NDA government, the unemployment rate is 7.9%.
Publisher’s rating: PARTLY TRUE
The sales of cars grew by 7.92% under UPA government’s term whereas under the current NDA government, it has fallen by 36%.
Publisher’s rating: UNVERIFIED
ரஷ்யாவின் வளர்ச்சிக்காக 1 பில்லியன் டாலர் நிதி கொடுத்து உதவுகிறது இந்தியா.
Publisher’s rating: True
GDP growth rate was 8.02% during the UPA government’s tenure while it is only 5% under NDA government.
Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING
Urbancroptc.org Central government jobs
Publisher’s rating: FALSE
The review examined a purported offer letter from Urbancroptc.org, which claimed that jobs were available through the Agriculture Ministry and a central-government employment scheme. The investigation began after FACTLY received a screenshot of the letter and a separate screenshot of an applicant’s complaint that he had paid the organization and then could not reach it. The review’s central finding was that the scheme named in the offer did not exist under that name, and that the real scheme it resembled did not support the advertised jobs. The letter referred to the “Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Scheme” and promised salaries and benefits for fourteen years. The review said no scheme had that name. It identified the similar real scheme as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, which it said falls under the Ministry of Rural Development, not Agriculture, and guarantees unskilled work for at least 100 days in a financial year—not employment for fourteen years. The review also noted that the offer letter’s ministry name did not match the formal name it gave for the department: “Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare.” The review also reported checking the organization’s registration details and website information. It said a search of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website for “urbancroptc” found no such company, and described spelling and grammatical errors in the letter and website, nonworking phone numbers and social-media links, and an office address it said did not exist. It further said FACTLY had sent the letter screenshots to relevant ministry officials, but that the article would be updated if they responded. These points support the review’s conclusion that the advertised government jobs were not genuine; the excerpt does not provide a response from the officials.
சுவிஸ் வங்கியின் அறிக்கை ! இந்திய அரசாங்கத்திற்கு சுவிஸ் வங்கி அனுப்பிய இந்தியர்களின் பட்டியல்.
Publisher’s rating: Fake
Modi government loans from the World Bank.
Publisher’s rating: FALSE
The Facebook post examined by FACTLY claimed that the Manmohan Singh government had borrowed from the World Bank but that the Modi government was running India without taking any such loans. FACTLY checked the World Bank website for lending to India during 2014–2019, including loans made through the Bank’s IBRD and IDA arms. The review reports that the World Bank lent India $21,750 million over that period for different categories and projects across the country. It also points to a specific agreement: a $400 million loan signed by the World Bank and the Government of India in June 2019 for the Program Towards Elimination of Tuberculosis. Those figures contradict the post’s claim of zero World Bank loans under the Modi government.
“We have taken in tens of billions of dollars in tariffs from China. Prices have not gone up, or they’ve gone up very little. China has paid for most of that, and I say paid for all of it. China has now had the worst year they’ve had in 57 years.”
Publisher’s rating: False.
LLos catalanes somos los que pagamos más IRPF en el tramo autonómico
Publisher’s rating: Engañoso
Nestlé Nigeria Plc is Nigeria’s highest-earning company as at the first half of 2019.
Publisher’s rating: False
The claim concerned Nestlé Nigeria Plc’s first-half 2019 earnings and described it as Nigeria’s highest-earning company. DUBAWA distinguished overall company profits from profits within the consumer-goods sector: it found Nestlé was the most profitable consumer-goods company, but not the most profitable company overall. The review states that at least seven other companies reported greater profits during the same six-month period. [S1: “There are at least 7 companies listed on other sectors of the NSE that reported higher profits than Nestlé Nigeria in the first six months of the year.”] To make the comparison, the review examined Nestlé’s half-year financial results and compared them with results filed by other listed companies after the deadline for unaudited accounts had passed. It reports that Nestlé’s after-tax profit rose to N26.24 billion, while MTN Nigeria reported N98 billion in profit for January through June 2019. It also lists six banks with higher profits, including Guaranty Trust Bank at N99 billion and Zenith Bank at N88 billion. [S1: “after-tax profit accounted for 22.3 percent increment. The result was an obvious shift to N26.24 billion”; “Nigeria’s largest telecommunications company posted a profit of N98 billion between January and June, 2019.”; “Namely Guaranty Trust Bank, Zenith Bank, United Bank for Africa, First Bank of Nigeria Holdings, Ecobank Transnational Incorporated, and Stanbic IBTC Holdings; posted N99 billion, N88 billion, N56 billion, N31 billion, N59 billion and N36 billion, respectively.”] The review’s key qualification is that Nestlé’s leading position applied only to consumer-goods companies. Its conclusion was based on reported company profits, not on a claim that Nestlé lacked strong results: the article says its sales and after-tax profit increased, but the cross-sector comparison placed several companies above it. [S1: “While Nestlé Nigeria Plc is Nigeria’s most profitable CONSUMER GOODS company, it is not the most profitable company.”]





