15:55 Nov 16, 2010 |
French to English translations [PRO] Bus/Financial - Finance (general) / Secteur bancaire / immobilier | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: rkillings United States Local time: 15:01 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
5 | set up a provision |
| ||
4 +1 | to provision (v.) x% of the value … |
| ||
3 | assign x% to reserves |
|
assign x% to reserves Explanation: I think here the report is talking about banks holding a certain amount of their assets in reserves in order to be able to withstand the negative effects of bad debt provision - which is precisely what banks were not doing in the run up to the current international banking crisis |
| ||
Notes to answerer
| |||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
set up a provision Explanation: Assign is not precise enough here. The amount would be contained in a "provision" account in the balance sheet. My suggestion is: "requires the bank to set up a provision amounting to 10% of the value of the real estate assets." |
| ||
Notes to answerer
| |||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
to provision (v.) x% of the value … Explanation: Same construction as in French. The action noun is 'provisioning'. Or, if you want to sound more British, say 'provision for'. Example: "May 24, 2010 ... Against that context, the Spanish banking industry is only provisioning for an average 13 per cent of the value of total loans to developers ..." (FT Alphaville blog. Paywall prevents linking.) And for a bank, you can say this *even if* the provisioning entails recognising impairment on the asset side of the balance sheet -- rather than provisions on the liability and equity side (per IASB terminology). The Basel committee and banking supervisors generally have never bought into the IASB's decision to appropriate the term 'provision' for liabilities only, and probably never will. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 14 hrs (2010-11-17 06:02:15 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- The (v.) above means 'verb'. If you accept that the noun here has already been verbed in English (as it has been, in fairly wide usage), you may as well grant it transitivity, too. Otherwise, go back to the traditional 'provide for' in the meaning of 'set up a provision for' (a usage that still appears in the FT). Why the Alphaville blogger is willing to verb it but not willing to let it take a direct object is a mystery. :-) |
| ||
Notes to answerer
| |||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.