natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This conscious economic calculation by the Land as (joint) owner also enabled the Landesbank to seize future market opportunities in its competitive business.
Ta zavestni ekonomski izračun dežele kot (so)lastnice je deželni banki omogočil, da tudi v prihodnosti izkorišča tržne priložnosti na področju konkurenčnih dejavnosti.
The ‘emergency provision’ of institutional liability is not applicable to such a normal economic decision by the Land.
„Zasilni predpis“ programa pomoči Anstaltslast pa ne velja za tako običajno ekonomsko odločitev dežele kot (so)lastnice.
Since no other existing aid scheme under Articles 87(1) and 88(1) of the EC Treaty is applicable, the capital injection ranks as new aid within the meaning of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty and must be investigated accordingly.
Ob odsotnosti drugega uporabnega obstoječega programa pomoči v skladu s členoma 87(1) in 88(1) Pogodbe ES se mora vloga kapitala označiti kot nova pomoč v smislu členov 87(1) in 88(3) Pogodbe ter ustrezno preučiti.
The Commission finds that the Federal Republic of Germany has unlawfully implemented the aid in question contrary to Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Nemčija odobrila zadevni ukrep pomoči na nezakonit način in ob kršitvi člena 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
The aid cannot be regarded as compatible under either Article 87(2) or (3) or under any other provision of the Treaty.
Pomoč se niti v skladu s členom 87(2) ali (3) niti v skladu s katero koli drugo določbo Pogodbe ES ne more obravnavati kot združljiva s skupnim trgom.
The aid is therefore declared incompatible with the common market and must be discontinued, and the aid element of the measure illegally put into effect must be recovered by the German Government,
V skladu s tem se spozna za nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom in element pomoči nezakonitega ukrepa mora Nemčija zahtevati nazaj –
The state aid which Germany has implemented for Bayerische Landesbank — Girozentrale, amounting to EUR 260479690 in the period from 31 December 1994 to 5 March 2004 is incompatible with the common market.
Državna pomoč v višini 260479690 EUR, ki jo je Nemčija v času od 31. decembra 1994 do 5. marca 2004 odobrila v korist Bayerischen Landesbank – Girozentrale, ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
Germany shall take all necessary measures to discontinue and recover from the beneficiary the aid referred to in Article 1 and unlawfully made available to it.
Nemčija sprejme vse potrebne ukrepe, da prejemnica vrne pomoč, navedeno v členu 1 in dano na razpolago nezakonito.
Germany shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures which were taken and which it intends to take in order to meet the commitments described in this Decision.
Nemčija obvesti Komisijo v dveh mesecih po objavi te odločbe z izpolnitvijo vprašalnika, prikazanega v Prilogi, o ukrepih, sprejetih za izvajanje te odločbe.
Brussels, 20 October 2004.
V Bruslju, 20 . oktober 2004.
OJ C 81, 4.4.2003, p. 13.
UL C 81, 4.4.2003, str. 13
OJ C 140, 5.5.1998, p. 9 (opening decision).
UL C 140, 5.5.1998, str. 9 (odločitev o začetku postopka).
OJ L 150, 23.6.2000, p. 1; actions challenging that decision have been brought by Germany (before the Court of Justice, Case C-376/99), by North Rhine-Westphalia (before the Court of First Instance, Case T-233/99) and by WestLB (before the Court of First Instance, Case T-228/99). The Commission has also brought proceedings for infringement of the Treaty (before the Court of Justice, Case C-209/00).
UL L 150, 23.6.2000, str. 1; proti tej odločbi so vložili tožbo Nemčija (Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti, primer C 376/99), dežela Severno Porenje-Vestfalija (Sodišče prve stopnje, primer T-233/99) in WestLB (Sodišče prve stopnje, primer T 228/99); Komisija pa je začela postopek glede kršitev Pogodbe (Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti, C 209/00).
Joined Cases T-228/99 and T-233/99 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Commission [2003] ECR II-435.
Sodba, ki se nanaša na povezana primera T-228/99 in T-233/99, Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale in dežela Severno Porenje-Vestfalija/Komisija. 2003, II-435.--
Norddeutsche Landesbank: OJ C 81, 4.4.2003, p. 2; Bayerische Landesbank: OJ C 81, 4.4.2003, p. 13; Hamburgische Landesbank: OJ C 81, 4.4.2003, p. 24; Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen: OJ C 73, 26.3.2003, p. 3 and Landesbank Schleswig-Holstein: OJ C 76, 28.3.2003, p. 2.
Norddeutsche Landesbank: UL C 81, 4.4.2003, str. 2; Bayerische Landesbank: UL C 81, 4.4.2003, str. 13; Hamburgische Landesbank: UL C 81, 4.4.2003, str. 24; Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen: UL C 73, 26.03.03, str. 3 in Landesbank Schleswig-Holstein: UL C 76, 28.03.03, str. 2.
Article 1 of the Act establishing the Bayerische Landesbank — Girozentrale (Gesetz über die Errichtung der Bayerischen Landesbank — Girozentrale).
Člen 1 zakona o ustanovitvi Bayerische Landesbank – Girozentrale.
Bavarian Official Gazette [Bayerisches Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt], No 18/1994, p. 602.
Bavarski Uradni list [Bayerisches Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt], št. 18/1994, str. 602.
Bavarian Land Parliament, 12th session, document 12/15851 of 7 June 1994.
Bavarski deželni zbor, 12. zasedanje, dokument 12/15851 z dne 7. junija 1994.
Transfer agreement between the Land of Bavaria and Bayerische Landesbank — Girozentrale of 15 December 1994.
Dogovor o prenosu sredstev med Svobodno državo Bavarsko in Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale z dne 15. decembra 1994.
Transfer agreement between the Land of Bavaria and Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale of 28 December 1995, which refers entirely to the rules of the transfer agreement of 15 December 1994.
Dogovor o prenosu sredstev za drugo tranšo med Svobodno državo Bavarsko in Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale z dne 28. decembra 1995, ki se v celoti sklicuje na določila dogovora o prenosu sredstev z dne 15. decembra 1994.
OJ L 386, 30.12.1989; repealed and replaced by European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/12/EC, OJ L 126, 26.5.2000.
UL L 386, 30.12.1989, razveljavljena in nadomeščena z Direktivo 2000/12/ES, UL L 126, 26.5.2000.
OJ L 124, 5.5.1989; repealed and replaced by Directive 2000/12/EC.
UL L 124, 5.5.89, razveljavljena in nadomeščena z Direktivo 2000/12/ES, UL L 126, 26.5.2000.
Under the Solvency Directive, credit insitutions must have own funds equivalent to at least 8 % of their risk-adjusted assets, whereas the previous German legislation required a ratio of 5,6 %; however, this ratio was based on a narrower definition of own funds than that which has applied since the entry into force of the Own Funds Directive.
Kreditne institucije morajo po Direktivi o solventnosti razpolagati z lastnimi viri sredstev v višini najmanj 8 % svoje tveganju prilagojene tehtane aktive, po stari nemški zakonodaji pa se je zahteval delež 5,6 %; ta delež je sicer temeljil na opredelitvi lastnih virov sredstev, ki je bila ožja od tiste, ki velja od začetka veljavnosti Direktive o lastnih virih sredstev.
Confidential information.
zaupna informacija
Now the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (‘BaFin’).
Sedaj Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht („BaFin“).
Letter of 20 December 1996 from BAKred.
Pismo BAKred z dne 20. decembra 1996.
As Germany has submitted, this could lower the cash value of the special-purpose assets where the average maturity was long and lead to a higher cash value where the average maturity was shorter.
Kot je Nemčija pojasnila, bi to lahko povzročilo zmanjšanje denarne vrednosti v primeru povprečno daljšega roka odplačevanja kot prvotno predvideno in povečanje denarne vrednosti v primeru povprečno krajšega roka odplačevanja.
Where the actual cash value exceeded the sum of DEM 1197 million recognised by BAKred and entered in the balance sheet, the difference was booked as a provision to offset risks arising from changes in the cash value.
V kolikor je dejanska denarna vrednost presegla znesek 1,197 milijard DEM, ki ga je BAKred priznal in vnesel v bilanco stanja, se je razlika vknjižila kot posebna rezerva za izravnavo tveganj, nastalih zaradi nihanj denarne vrednosti.
The only reason why this fall of DEM […] brought the cash value to a level that was only DEM […] million below the upper limit recognised for supervisory purposes (DEM 1197 million) was the (chance) circumstance that the cash value had exceeded that upper limit in 1997.
Da z zmanjšanjem za [...] DEM ni bil dosežen znesek 1,197 milijard DEM, priznan za potrebe nadzora kot zgornja meja samo za [...] DEM, gre pripisati okoliščini, da je denarna vrednost prekoračila to zgornjo mejo v letu 1997.
Transfer agreement of 15 December 1994, Section 4(3).
Dogovor o prenosu z dne 15. decembra 1994, poglavje 4(3).
Transfer agreement of 15 December 1994, Section 4(1).
Dogovor o prenosu z dne 15. decembra 1994, poglavje 4(1).
Transfer agreement of 15 December 1994, Section 2(1).
Dogovor o prenosu z dne 15. decembra 1994, poglavje 2(1).
See explanatory memorandum to Article 3, on the default guarantee, of the Act of 23 July 1994 on the formation of special-purpose assets through the transfer of trustee claims belonging to the Land of Bavaria to the liable equity capital of Bayerische Landesbank — Girozentrale (Bavarian Land Parliament, document 12/15851).
Glej obrazložitev člena 3 „Zakon o ustanovitvi posebnih namenskih sredstev s prenosom fiduciarnih zahtev Svobodne države Bavarske v rizični lastni kapital Bayerische Landesbank –Girozentrale“ z dne 23. julija 1994 (bavarski deželni zbor, dokument 12/15851).
Germany also argues that, without the guarantee, the assets would have been given a 100 % weighting in accordance with Principle 1 of the German Banking Act and would in principle have had to have been covered by 8 % of equity capital.
Nemčija nadalje navaja, da bi bilo treba brez jamstva sredstva v skladu z načelom 1 KWG ponderirati z 100 % in jih načeloma kriti z 8 % lastnega kapitala.
The loan claims did not meet the particularly favourable conditions for a weighting as real-estate loans within the meaning of the Act.
Terjatve iz posojil namreč niso izpolnile posebnih privilegiranih pogojev za ponderiranje kot nepremičninske kredite v smislu zakona KWG.
The transferred lending volumes would accordingly have had to be covered by some DEM 400 million in equity capital and would have reduced the recognised amount by the same figure.
Prenesen obsega posojil bi bilo treba skladno s tem kriti s približno 400 milijoni DEM lastnih sredstev, kar bi zmanjšalo priznan znesek za približno 400 milijonov DEM.
At the end of 1995, when the second instalment was transferred, the figure was already DEM 1100 million, according to the information in the Commission's possession.
Konec leta 1995 – za časa prenosa druge tranše – so ta sredstva po podatkih, ki so na razpolago Komisiji, znašala že 1,1 milijarde DEM.
Moreover, a risk or liability premium was paid primarily because of the risk of loss in the event of insolvency.
Sicer se premija tveganja oz jamstva v prvi vrsti plačuje, zaradi tveganja izgube v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti.
If this were to happen, the capital would be irretrievably lost.
Če bi to tega prišlo, bi bil kapital nenadomestljivo izgubljen.
In the event of ongoing (partial) losses, i.e. outside insolvency, there was always a chance that the equity capital might be replenished through profits.
V primeru tekočih (delnih) izgub, tj. izven plačilne nesposobnosti, še vedno obstaja možnost, da se lastni kapital zagotovi z dobičkom.
Then, to estimate the long-term risk-free base rate, the estimated figure for average long-term inflation expectations (3,60 %) is added to the ‘real base rate’ at the time in question.
Za oceno dolgoročne netvegane temeljne obrestne mere se nato „dejanski temeljni obrestni meri“ v času obravnave doda ocena pričakovane povprečne dolgoročne inflacije v višini 3,60 %.
For the purposes of comparison, the BdB also gives the theoretical beta values calculated using the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), which, as it indicates, differ very little from the empirically determined values.
BdB za namene primerjave navaja tudi teoretične beta vrednosti, izračunane z Modelom vrednotenja dolgoročnih naložb (CAPM), ki se, kakor ugotavlja, le malo razlikujejo od empirično določenih vrednosti.
See footnote 4.
Sodba, ki se nanaša na povezana primera T-228/99 in T-233/99, Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale in dežela Severno Porenje-Vestfalija/Komisija. 2003, II-435.
Commission communication to the Member States: Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty and of Article 5 of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC to public undertakings in the manufacturing sector (OJ C 307, 13.11.1993, p. 3; see paragraph 11.
Sporočilo Komisije državam članicam o uporabi členov 92 in 93 Pogodbe ES in člena 5 Direktive Komisije 80/723/EGS o javnih podjetjih v predelovalni industriji (UL C 307 z dne 13.11.1993, str. 3, glej točko 11).
Although this communication deals expressly with manufacturing, the principle doubtless applies likewise to all other sectors of the economy.
V tem sporočilu gre sicer izključno za predelovalno industrijo, vendar se lahko načelo nedvomno na enak način uporablja v drugih gospodarskih panogah.
As regards financial services, this approach was confirmed by a number of Commission decisions, e.g. in Crédit Lyonnais (OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 28) and GAN (OJ L 78, 16.3.1998, p. 1).
Kar zadeva finančne storitve, je bilo to potrjeno s številnimi odločbami Komisije, na primer v primerih Crédit Lyonnais (UL L 221, 8.8.1998, str. 28) in GAN (UL L 78, 16.3.1998, str. 1).
Public authorities' holdings in company capital — Commission position (Bull.-EC 9-1984, pp.93-95).
Deleži javnega sektorja v kapitalu podjetij – mnenje Komisije, Bilten ES 9-1984, str. 93 sled..
See footnote 4 and paragraphs 206 et seq of the judgment.
Sodba z dne 6. marca 2003 v združenih primerih T-228/99 in T-233/99, Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale in dežela Severno Porenje-Vestfalija/Komisija, PSES 2003, II-435., odstavek 206 isl.
See footnote 4 and paragraphs 241, 314 of the judgment.
Sodba Evropskega sodišča prve stopnje z dne 6. marca 2003 v združenih primerih T-228/99 in T-233/99, Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale in dežela Severno Porenje-Vestfalija/Komisija, PSES 2003, II-435., odstavek 241, 314.
See footnote 4 and paragraphs 320 and 335 of the judgment.
Sodba Evropskega sodišča prve stopnje z dne 6. marca 2003 v združenih primerih T-228/99 in T-233/99, Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale in dežela Severno Porenje-Vestfalija/Komisija, PSES 2003, II-435., odstavek 320, 335.
Nor can this be inferred from the law or the by-laws, which merely state that the ‘share capital’ is to be supplied by the two shareholders or — in the case of the Sparkassenverband — by the savings banks themselves.
To ni razvidno niti iz zakona ali predpisov. V njih je zgolj navedeno, da morata „osnovni kapital“ zagotoviti oba lastnika oz. – v primeru združenja Sparkassenverband – same hranilnice.
Judgment given on 12 December 2000 in Case T-296/97 [2000] ECR II 3871.
Sodba z dne 12. decembra 2000, T-296/97.
See footnote 4 and paragraph 316.
Sodba z dne 6. marca 2003 v združenih primerih T-228/99 in T-233/99, Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale in dežela Severno Porenje-Vestfalija/Komisija, PSES 2003, II-435., odstavek 316.
Contrast this with the WestLB case, in which only part of the established cash value of the housing-promotion assets shown in the balance sheet as own funds was recognised as equity capital for supervisory purposes.
Zadevni primer se tako razlikuje od primera WestLB, v katerem je bil le del denarne vrednosti sredstev za pospeševanje gradnje stanovanj, določene in v bilanci stanja vknjižene kot lastni vir sredstev, za potrebe nadzora priznan kot lastni kapital.
Moreover, where the cash value of the special-purpose reserve exceeded the value recognised for supervisory purposes, the difference was entered as a provision under liabilities so that none of BayernLB's equity capital was entered on the liabilities side either in terms of commercial law or for supervisory purposes.
V kolikor je denarna vrednost rezerve za posebne namene prekoračila vrednost, priznano s strani nadzorstva, se je razlika vnesla kot posebna rezerva, tako da se lastni kapital BayernLB ni povečal niti na ravni trgovskega prava niti za potrebe nadzora.
In the course of the procedure, Germany even felt that a further flat-rate reduction of 25 % should be made to the cash value recognised by BAKred.
Nemčija je celo med postopkom zastopala mnenje, da se mora za denarno vrednost, ki jo je BAKred priznal, opraviti pavšalni odbitek varnostne rezerve v višini 25 %.
After examining this argument, the Commission concluded that a drastic reduction in the cash value was unlikely, given the close cooperation between the Land and the bank.
Komisija je po oceni tega argumenta prišla do zaključka, da takšno drastično zmanjšanje denarne vrednosti, zaradi tesnega sodelovanja med banko in Bavarsko, ni bilo zelo verjetno.
Against this background it seems justified to take account only of the actual shortfalls below the recognised cash value.
Zato se zdi ob upoštevanju tega upravičeno, da se upoštevajo samo dejansko nedoseganje denarne vrednosti.
In relation to the guarantee function, what matters is not the date when the balance sheet was established (31 December of the relevant business year), but the date when the actual transfer was made.
Pri tem glede funkcije jamstva ni pomemben trenutek potrditve bilance stanja dne 31. decembra za posamezno obračunsko leto. Odločilen je predvsem dejanski prenos.
It can be assumed that a bank would have informed its creditors of a capital injection, at least in the case of a large transaction.
Treba je izhajati iz tega, da banka svoje upnike informira vsaj glede večjih transakcij o vlogah kapitala.
The Commission therefore considers that the guarantee function comes into play as soon as the balance sheet takes effect.
Po mnenju Komisije tako že dejanska veljavnost bilance stanje sproži funkcijo jamstva.
Letter from the Federal Government of 3 July 2001, p. 9.
Pismo Nemčije z dne 3. julija 2001, str. 9.
Letter from the Federal Government of 3 July 2001, p. 10.
Pismo Nemčije z dne 3. julija 2001, str. 10.
For example the agreement on an ‘additional payment claim’ if the guarantee commission were not paid in a particular business year, as this would lead to a net loss (see Section 3 of the transfer agreement).
Npr. Dogovor o t.i. pravici do povračila v primeru, da nadomestilo v enem poslovnem letu ne bo plačano, ker bi to privedlo do bilančne izgube (glej § 3 dogovora o prenosu).
Letter from Germany of 3 July 2001, p. 11.
Pismo Nemčije z dne 3. julija 2001, str. 11.
As confirmed by the European Court of First Instance in WestLB, paragraphs 321-331 (see footnote 4).
Kar je bilo potrjeno s sodbo Evropskega sodišča prve stopnje z dne 6. marca 2003, ki se nanaša na povezana primera T-228/99 in T-233/99, odstavki 321 do 331.
According to documents submitted by the German Government, the corporation tax rate was 42 % in 1995 and 1996. To this must be added the solidarity surcharge of 7,5 % (making 49,5 % in total).
Na podlagi dokumentacije, ki jo je Nemčija predložila, je davek od dobička pravnih oseb leta 1995 in 1996 znašal 42 %, h kateremu se je prištel še solidarnostni pribitek v višini 7,5 % (skupno torej 49,5 %).
The overall tax rate came down to 47,5 % in 1998.
Celotna stopnja obdavčitve se je leta 1998 zmanjšala na 47,5 %.
Only as of 2001 did it fall to 30,5 %.
Šele od leta 2001 je celotna stopnja obdavčitve znašala le še 30,5 %.
Decision 2000/392/EC.
Odločba 2000/392/ES.
As already explained above, the key point in time for the guarantee function is not when the balance sheet was established (31 December of the business year concerned), but the date of the transfer (see footnote 41).
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno že zgoraj, glede funkcije jamstva ni pomemben trenutek potrditve bilance stanja dne 31. decembra za posamezno obračunsko leto. Odločilen je predvsem dejanski prenos (glej opombo 41).
See footnote 49.
Glej zgornjo opombo 49.
The Commission is aware that the amount of the capital available for guarantee purposes, which was cited in the WestLB decision as further grounds for an increase, is lower in the BayernLB case and hence of less importance here.
Komisija se zaveda, da je višina zneska, ki je na razpolago za namene jamstva, ki je bila v Odločbi glede WestLB 2000/392/ES navedena kot dodaten razlog za zvišanje, v primeru BayernLB nižja in zato manj pomembna.
As of 2001 it fell to only 30,5 %.
Od leta 2001 pa je celotna stopnja obdavčitve znašala le še 30,5 %.
(‘BdB’), an association representing private banks established in Germany, informed the Commission among other things that, under a law adopted on 23 July 1994, housing-promotion loans had been transferred to the liable equity capital of BayernLB.
(„BdB“), združenje, ki predstavlja zasebne banke s sedežem v Nemčiji, je v pismih z dne 31. maja in 21. decembra 1994 Komisijo med drugim obvestilo o tem, da so bila posojila za pospeševanje gradnje stanovanj, v skladu z zakonom z dne 23. julija 1994, prenesena v rizični lastni kapital BayernLB.
This increased the own funds at BayernLB's disposal and, in the BdB's view, distorted competition in its favour since the parties had not agreed remuneration consistent with the market-economy investor principle.
To je povečalo lastna sredstva BayernLB, kar je po mnenju BdB izkrivilo konkurenco v njen prid, saj se stranke niso dogovorile o nadomestilu, ki bi bilo skladno z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
It was not defensible in economic terms to reduce this rate by the tax savings since the pricing of capital market instruments was independent of the tax situation.
V gospodarskem smislu znižanje te stopnje zaradi prihranka pri davku ni opravičljivo, saj vrednotenje instrumentov na trgu kapitala ni odvisno od davčnega položaja.
This was also confirmed in a statement by BAFin dated 2 September 2004 which Germany submitted to the Commission.
To je v svojem mnenju z dne 2. septembra 2004, ki ga je Nemčija posredovala Komisiji, potrdil tudi BAFin.
In the Commission's view, it has therefore been proven that the guarantee fee is also directly linked to the business-expansion function of the liable equity capital, for which remuneration was due, and must therefore be recognised as a element of remuneration.
Komisija meni, da je bilo s tem dokazano, da je provizija za jamstvo neposredno povezana s širjenjem dejavnosti kot funkcijo rizičnega lastnega kapitala, ki se mora nadomestiti, in kot taka priznati kot del nadomestila.
The arguments of Germany and BayernLB regarding the liquidity costs can in principle be accepted.
Argumenti Nemčije in BayernLB glede stroškov zaradi likvidnosti so načeloma sprejemljivi.
A ‘normal’ capital injection into a bank supplies it both with liquidity and with an own funds base which it requires for supervisory reasons to expand its activities.
„Običajna“ vloga kapitala pri banki slednji zagotovi tako likvidnost kot obseg lastnega kapitala, ki ju banka potrebuje zaradi nadzorstva za širjenje svojih dejavnosti.
Various methods exist for determining the minimum appropriate remuneration.
Obstajajo različne metode za določitev primernega najmanjšega nadomestila.
They range from differing variants of the financing approach to the CAPM method.
Te segajo od različnih pristopov financiranja vse do metode CAPM.
The parties thus decided not to use a risk-free rate obtaining on the market at the time of the capital injection for a fixed investment period (e.g. 10-year return on government bonds), since such an approach would disregard the reinvestment risk, i.e. the risk that it would not be possible to invest again at the level of the risk-free interest rate once the investment period had expired.
Stranke torej za fiksno investicijsko obdobje (npr. 10-letni donosi za državne obveznice) niso uporabile netveganega donosa, ki smo ga na trgu lahko opazovali v času prenosa, ker takšno opazovanje ne bi upoštevalo tveganja reinvestiranja, t.j. tveganje po koncu investicijskega obdobja, da kapitala ni mogoče ponovno investirati na ravni netvegane obrestne mere.
In the view of the parties, a total return index was the best way of taking the investment risk into account.
Po mnenju strank se naložbeno tveganje najbolje upošteva z uporabo indeksa skupnega donosa „Total Return Index“.