natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It should be borne in mind that the instruments used for the comparison by Germany normally provide a bank with only a very limited part of own funds.
Treba je upoštevati, da instrumenti, ki jih je Nemčija uporabila za primerjavo, banki praviloma zagotavljajo le zelo omejen del njenih lastnih virov sredstev.
They are additional instruments, supplementing the ‘basic equity capital’, which consists mainly of share capital and open reserves.
Gre za dodatne instrumente, ki dopolnjujejo „temeljni lastni kapital“, ki je sestavljen predvsem iz osnovnega kapitala in odprtih rezerv.
By contrast, Wfa's capital boosted WestLB's own funds for solvency purposes from DEM 5090 million (EUR 2600 million) to DEM 9090 million (EUR 4650 million), i.e. by 80 %.
S prenosom sredstev Wfa pa so bila lastna sredstva WestLB povečana za potrebe solventnosti s 5,09 milijarde DEM (2,6 milijarde EUR) na 9,09 milijarde DEM (4,65 milijarde EUR), t.j. za 80 %.
Taking into account only the increase of DEM 2500 million (EUR 1280 million) usable by WestLB to underpin its commercial business, this still represents an increase of 50 %.
Tudi če upoštevamo zgolj povečanje za 2,5 milijarde DEM (1,28 milijarde EUR), ki jih WestLB lahko uporabi za kritje njenih poslovnih dejavnosti, pomeni to še vedno dokapitalizacijo lastnih sredstev za 50 %.
Hybrid instruments were usually issued up to a maximum of 20 %.
Hibridni instrumenti so se takrat ponavadi izvajali za deleže do največ 20 %.
It would not have been possible to increase WestLB's capital in the same way — and on a permanent basis — by one of the instruments compared.
Z nobenim izmed primerljivih instrumentov ne bi bilo mogoče, da bi se kapital WestLB povečal na enak način in na trajni osnovi.
It should also be noted that rating agencies pressed for some sort of ‘voluntary restriction’ to be applied regarding the share of equity from hybrid instruments, which they monitored closely.
Med drugim je treba opozoriti na to, da so tudi rating agencije izvajale pritisk, da se v zvezi z lastnimi sredstvi izvršuje neke vrste „prostovoljno samoomejevanje“ teh instrumentov, medtem ko so agencije ta delež skrbno opazovale.
In this connection, it should be stressed that the relatively wide range of hybrid equity instruments now available to credit institutions in several countries for use as original own funds and additional own funds did not exist in Germany back in 1991, when the transfer of Wfa was decided, or in 1993, when WestLB had to comply with new, stricter capital requirements.
V povezavi s tem je treba poudariti, da relativno široka paleta hibridnih lastnih kapitalskih instrumentov temeljnih lastnih virov sredstev in dodatnih lastnih sredstev, ki so sedaj kreditnim institucijam na voljo v več državah, v Nemčiji še niso obstajali, ko je bil leta 1991 sklenjen prenos Wfa na WestLB in ko je morala WestLB leta 1993 izpolniti strožje kapitalske zahteve, ki so začele veljati v tistem času.
Some of these instruments were developed in the meantime, while others already existed but were not accepted in Germany.
Nekateri od teh instrumentov so se razvili šele kasneje, nekateri pa so že obstajali, vendar v Nemčiji še niso bili priznani.
In practice, the main instruments which were available and used were profit participation certificates and subordinated loans (both of which are additional own funds, the latter being accepted only since 1993).
Instrumenti, ki so v praksi bili na voljo in se v glavnem tudi uporabljali, so bila potrdila o udeležbi pri dobičku in podrejena posojila (obakrat gre za dodatni lastni vir sredstev, drugi instrument pa je bil priznan šele leta 1993).
It is therefore, inappropriate to compare Wfa's capital to such hybrid instruments, most of which have been developed in the meantime and some of which are available only in other countries.
Tako primerjava kapitala Wfa s takšnimi hibridnimi instrumenti, ki so bili večinoma razviti šele kasneje in so deloma na voljo samo v drugih državah, ni primerna.
Germany itself also (indirectly) rejects such a comparison, claiming that the Commission must examine the case on the basis of the facts available at the time of the decision at the end of 1991.
Dejansko tudi Nemčija sama zavrača (posredno) tako primerjavo, s tem ko od Komisije zahteva, naj primer presoja na podlagi danih razmer v času odločitve o prenosu konec leta 1991.
Germany's studies claim that, in the case of WestLB, the likelihood of bankruptcy is so low that it could, in fact, be practically disregarded.
V izvedenskih mnenjih Nemčije je navedeno, da je stečaj WestLB tako zelo neverjeten, da se lahko to tveganje praktično zanemari.
However, if this argument were followed strictly, it would mean that an investor should not require any top-up on the rate of return on risk-free government bonds when investing in companies considered as safe investments.
Vendar pa bi, strogo gledano, na podlagi tega argumenta pomenilo, da vlagatelj za naložbo v podjetje, ki velja za varno, ne bi smel zahtevati nikakršne premije tveganja na donos netveganih državnih obveznic.
This certainly does not correspond to market reality.
To pa nikakor ne ustreza danostim na trgu.
Even though the risk of bankruptcy might be low in the case of a particular investment, it is taken into account by a market-economy investor, who will demand a significant top-up for such investment in banks, as in the case of any other ‘safe’ equity investment.
Tudi če je stečajno tveganje pri določeni finančni naložbi zelo nizko, jo vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu kljub temu upošteva. Za tovrstne naložbe v banke, kot v primeru drugih „varnih“ udeležb, bi zahteval občuten pribitek.
As to the two instruments which, as the closest benchmarks, play the central role in the comparison undertaken by Germany, namely perpetual preferred shares and profit participation certificates, a number of specific points should be stressed.
Glede instrumentov lastnega kapitala, ki imata kot najbližji referenčni vrednosti v primerjavi Nemčije osrednjo vlogo, namreč trajne prednostne delnice in potrdila o udeležbi pri dobičku, je treba poudariti nekatere posebnosti.
Perpetual preferred shares constitute original own funds (core capital) in some countries but are still not accepted in Germany.
Trajne prednostne delnice se v nekaterih deželah štejejo kot temeljni lastni vir sredstev (temeljni kapital), vendar pa v Nemčiji kot take še naprej niso priznane.
Profit participation certificates constitute only additional own funds, whereas Wfa's capital qualifies as original own funds.
Potrdila o udeležbi pri dobičku štejejo zgolj k dodatnim lastnim virom sredstev, medtem ko ima kapital Wfa kvaliteto temeljnega lastnega vira sredstev.
The latter is therefore of much greater use to WestLB because it can be used to raise additional own funds (such as profit participation certificates) up to the same amount in order to increase the bank's own funds.
Zato ima WestLB od kapitala Wfa veliko večjo korist, saj si lahko z njim zagotovi dodatna lastna sredstva (kot na primer potrdila o udeležbi pri dobičku) do enakega obsega z namenom povečanja lastnega kapitala.
Moreover, if profitable years followed loss-making ones, profit participation certificates would be replenished before Wfa's capital.
Prav tako bi se v primeru, da po letih poslovanja z izgubo nastopijo dobičkonosna leta, najprej napolnila potrdila o udeležbi pri dobičku potem pa še kapital Wfa.
In addition, Wfa's capital is available to WestLB without any time limitation, while profit participation certificates are usually issued for a period of ten years.
Poleg tega je kapital Wfa WestLB na razpolago brez vsakršne časovne omejitve, medtem ko se potrdila o udeležbi pri dobičku ponavadi izdajo za deset let.
It is also worth recalling the enormous, atypical size of the capital injection and that the ranking in the event of losses must be seen in this context.
Nadalje je treba znova opozoriti na to, da je ogromen obseg kapitalskega vložka atipičen in da se mora v zvezi s tem upoštevati vrstni red obremenitev v primeru izgub.
Since the share of Wfa's capital is rather large, it will be used relatively quickly when major losses occur.
Ker je delež sredstev Wfa relativno velik, bo ob pojavu večjih izgub relativno hitro uporabljen.
For all these reasons, the Commission is of the opinion that, because of the peculiarities of Wfa's capital, the comparison with hybrid equity instruments submitted by Germany is not a suitable way to determine the appropriate remuneration to be paid for Wfa's capital.
Iz vseh teh razlogov je Komisija mnenja, da primerjava s hibridnimi instrumenti lastnega kapitala, ki jo je opravila Nemčija, zaradi posebnosti kapitala Wfa ni primerna, da bi služila kot osnova za določitev primernega nadomestila za kapital Wfa.
As to the relationship between Wfa's capital and other equity instruments, BdB claims that the subordination agreement in the covering agreement between WestLB's shareholders is void because it encroaches on the rights of third parties by laying down that, in the event of losses at WestLB, Wfa's special reserve can be used only subordinate to WestLB's other equity capital.
Kar zadeva razmerje med kapitalom Wfa in ostalimi instrumenti lastnega kapitala BdB trdi, da je dogovor o podrejenosti in okvirni sporazum med delničarji WestLB ničen, ker posega v pravice tretjih, s tem, ko je dogovorjeno, da se lahko posebna rezerva Wfa – v primeru izgub WestLB – zaradi podrejenosti uporabi šele po ostalem lastnem kapitalu WestLB.
However, the argument by Germany and WestLB can be followed, namely that this agreement covers only the relationship between Wfa's special reserve and the other original own funds provided by shareholders, i.e. in practice nominal capital and reserves, but that there was no intention to make Wfa's capital subordinate to additional own funds like profit participation certificates and subordinated loans.
Vendar pa se Komisija strinja z argumenti Nemčije in WestLB, da se dogovor nanaša izključno na razmerje med posebno rezervo Wfa in temeljnimi lastnimi viri sredstev, ki so jih dali na razpolago ostali delničarji, t.j. konkretno osnovni kapital in rezerve, vendar pa ni predvideno, da bi kapital Wfa bil podrejen nasproti lastnim virom sredstev kot so potrdila o udeležbi pri dobičku in podrejena posojila.
The arguments of Germany and WestLB on the liquidity costs can, in principle, be accepted.
Argumenti Nemčije in WestLB glede stroškov zaradi likvidnosti so načeloma sprejemljivi.
A ‘normal’ capital injection into a bank provides it both with liquidity and with an own funds base which it requires for supervisory reasons to expand its activities.
„Običajni“ kapitalski vložek pri banki slednji zagotovi tako likvidnost kot obseg lastnega kapitala, ki ju banka potrebuje zaradi nadzorstva za razširitev njenih dejavnosti.
In order to use the capital in full, i.e. to expand its 100 %-risk-adjusted assets by a factor of 12,5 (i.e. 100 divided by a solvency ratio of 8) of the capital provided, the bank must refinance itself on the financial markets 11,5 times over.
Da bi kapital uporabila v celoti, t.j. razširila svojo 100 % tveganju prilagojeno tehtano aktivo s faktorjem 12,5 (t.j. 100 deljeno s stopnjo solventnosti 8 %), se mora banka 11,5-kratno refinancirati na finančnih trgih.
Since Wfa's capital does not provide WestLB with initial liquidity because the assets transferred and all the income of Wfa remain earmarked by law for housing promotion, WestLB faces additional funding costs equal to the amount of the capital if it is to raise the necessary funds on the financial markets in order to take full advantage of the business opportunities opened up by the additional capital, i.e. to expand risk-adjusted assets by 12,5 times the capital amount (or to maintain existing assets at that level).
Ker kapital Wfa WestLB sprva ni zagotovil likvidnosti, ker so prenesena sredstva in celoten donos Wfa po zakonu namenjena pospeševanju gradnje stanovanj, je imela WestLB dodatne stroške financiranja v višini kapitala, če je želela zbrati sredstva na finančnih trgih, potrebna za popolno izrabo poslovnih možnosti, ki so se ji odprle z dodatnim lastnim kapitalom, t.j. razširiti svojo tveganju prilagojeno tehtano aktivo z 12,5-kratnim zneskom kapitala (ali ohraniti obstoječa sredstva v tem obsegu).
Because of these extra costs, which do not arise in the case of normal equity capital, the appropriate remuneration must be reduced accordingly.
Zaradi teh dodatnih stroškov, ki pri običajnem kapitalu ne nastajajo, se mora primerno povračilo ustrezno znižati.
However, in the Commission's view and contrary to the opinion of WestLB and Germany, the entire refinancing interest rate does not have to be taken into account.
Za razliko od WestLB in Nemčije pa Komisija meni, da se ne upošteva celotna obrestna mera refinanciranja.
These expenses are offset in part by reduced corporation tax.
Del teh stroškov se namreč poravna z znižanim davkom od dobička pravnih oseb.
Only the net costs should be taken into account as an additional burden on WestLB because of the special nature of the capital transferred.
Samo neto stroški se upoštevajo kot dodatne obremenitve WestLB, zaradi posebnega značaja prenesenega kapitala.
Overall, the Commission accepts therefore that WestLB incurs additional ‘liquidity costs’ to the extent of ‘refinancing costs minus tax’.
Skupno Komisija torej priznava, da ima WestLB dodatne „stroške zaradi likvidnosti“ v višini „stroškov refinanciranja po odbitku davka“.
Appropriate remuneration for the amount of DEM 2500 million (EUR 1280 million)
Primerno nadomestilo za znesek 2,5 milijarde DEM (1,28 milijarde EUR)
There are no doubt different ways of calculating the appropriate remuneration for the amount of DEM 2500 million made available.
Primerno nadomestilo za znesek 2,5 milijard DEM se nedvomno lahko izračuna na več načinov.
However, as will be shown, all the methods for calculating the remuneration for capital made available apply the same basic principles.
Vendar pa, kakor bo prikazano, vsi načini za izračunavanje nadomestila za osnovni kapital, ki je bil dan na razpolago, sledijo enakim osnovnim načelom.
Taking these basic principles, the Commission here carries out the calculation in two stages: first, it determines the minimum remuneration that an investor would expect for a (hypothetical) investment in WestLB's capital.
Na podlagi teh osnovnih načel je Komisija pričujoč izračun izvedla v naslednjih dveh korakih: Najprej določi najmanjše nadomestilo, ki bi ga vlagatelj pričakoval za (hipotetično) naložbo v osnovni kapital WestLB.
It then examines whether, in view of the particularities of the transaction at issue, the market would have agreed on a premium or a discount and, if so, whether it can produce a sufficiently robust quantification of that amount.
Nato se preveri, ali bi na trgu zaradi posebnosti zadevne transakcije prišlo do dogovora o pribitku ali odbitku, in če je tako, ali bi dobili tudi metodično dovolj robustno količinsko opredelitev tega zneska.
Determination of a likely minimum remuneration for an investment in the capital of WestLB
Določitev pričakovanega najmanjšega nadomestila za naložbo v osnovni kapital WestLB
The expected return on an investment and the risk attaching to the investment are essential determinants of the decision to invest on the part of a market-economy investor.
Pričakovan donos na naložbo in naložbeno tveganje sta dva bistvena dejavnika pri odločitvi vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu o naložbi.
In order to determine the level of these two elements, the investor takes into consideration all available company and market information.
Za ugotovitev višine teh dveh elementov bo vlagatelj upošteval vse razpoložljive tržne informacije in podatke o posameznem podjetju.
He here bases himself on historical average returns, which generally also give him an idea of what the company's future performance is likely to be, as well as — among other things — on the analysis of the company's business model for the period of the investment, the strategy and quality of its management, and the prospects for the economic sector concerned.
Pri tem se opira na zgodovinske povprečne donose, ki na splošno služijo kot izhodišče tudi za prihodnje poslovne izide podjetja, ter med drugim tudi na analizo poslovnega modela podjetja v času investicijskega obdobja, strategijo in kakovost vodenja podjetja ali relativna pričakovanja v zadevni gospodarski panogi.
A market-economy investor will invest only if the investment permits a higher return or a lower risk compared with the next-best alternative use of the capital.
Vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu se bo za naložbo odločil samo, če mu bo naložba, v primerjavi z najboljšo možno alternativno uporabo kapitala, omogočila večji donos oz. manjše tveganje.
Accordingly, an investor will not invest in a company whose expected returns are lower than the average expected returns of other companies with a similar risk profile.
Skladno s tem vlagatelj ne bo investiral v podjetje, katerega pričakovani donosi so manjši od povprečnih pričakovanih donosov drugih podjetij s primerljivim profilom tveganja.
In such a case, it can be assumed that there are sufficient alternatives to the alleged investment that promise a higher expected return with the same risk profile.
V takem primeru lahko sklepamo, da obstajajo zadostne alternative za domnevno naložbo, ki obetajo višje pričakovane donose pri enakem tveganju.
There are various methods for determining the appropriate minimum remuneration, ranging from different versions of the financing approach to the CAPM method.
Obstajajo različne metode za določitev primernega najmanjšega nadomestila. Te segajo od različnih pristopov financiranja vse do metode CAPM.
For the purpose of illustrating the different approaches, it makes sense to differentiate between two components: a risk-free return and a project-specific risk premium:
Za namen predstavitve različnih pristopov je smiselno razlikovati med dvema komponentama, netveganemu donosu in specifično premijo tveganja:
appropriate minimum return on a risky investment
primeren najmanjši donos tvegane naložbe
risk-free basic rate + risk premium for the risky investment
netvegana osnovna stopnja + premija tveganja za tvegano naložbo.
The appropriate minimum return on a risky investment is therefore the sum of the risk-free rate of return and the additional risk premium for assuming the investment risk.
Primeren najmanjši donos tvegane naložbe lahko torej opišemo kot vsoto netvegane stopnje donosa in dodatne premije tveganja za prevzem naložbenega tveganja.
Accordingly, the basis for any determination of return is the existence of a default-risk-free form of investment with an assumed risk-free return.
V skladu s tem je osnova za vsako določitev donosa obstoj oblike vloge, pri kateri ni tveganja neizplačila, z domnevno netveganim donosom.
The expected return on fixed-rate securities issued by the State is normally used to determine the risk-free basic rate (or an index based on such securities) since those constitute a similarly low-risk form of investment.
Ponavadi se za določitev netvegane osnovne stopnje uporabi pričakovan donos fiksno obrestovanih vrednostnih papirjev, ki jih držav izdaja država (oziroma indeks, ki temelji na takšnih vrednostnih papirjih), ker predstavljajo obliko vloge s primerljivo nizkim tveganjem.
The risk premium, however, is determined differently depending on the method used:
Vendar pa med metodami obstajajo razlike glede določitve premije tveganja:
Financing approach: from the point of view of the bank using the capital, an investor's expected return on capital represents future financing costs.
Pristop financiranja: Pričakovan donos na lastni kapital vlagatelja predstavlja z vidika banke, ki kapital uporablja, prihodnje stroške financiranja.
Under this approach, the historical capital costs incurred by comparable banks are first determined.
Pri tem pristopu se najprej določijo zgodovinski stroški lastnega kapitala, nastali v bankah, ki so primerljive z zadevno banko.
The arithmetic average of the historical capital costs is then compared with the future expected equity capital costs and thus with the investor's requirement as to the expected return.
Aritmetično povprečje zgodovinskih stroškov kapitala se nato enači s prihodnjimi pričakovanimi stroški lastnega kapitala in s tem s pričakovano zahtevo donosnosti s strani vlagatelja.
Financing approach with the compound annual growth rate: At the heart of this approach stands the use of the geometric rather than the arithmetic mean value (compound annual growth rate).
Pristop financiranja s sestavljeno letno rastjo „Compound Annual Growth Rate“: V središču tega pristopa je uporaba geometrične namesto aritmetične srednje vrednosti (Compound Annual Growth Rate).
Capital asset pricing model (CAPM): The CAPM is the best-known and most frequently tested model of modern financial economics, by which the return expected by an investor can be determined using the following formula:
Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM): CAPM je najbolj znan in najbolj preizkušen model sodobnega finančnega gospodarstva, s katerim se lahko pričakovan donos vlagatelja določi z naslednjo formulo:
minimum return on capital
najmanjši donos
risk-free basic rate + (market risk premium × beta)
netvegana osnovna stopnja + (tržna premija tveganja × beta)
The risk premium for the equity investment is obtained by multiplying the risk premium on the market by the beta factor (market risk premium × beta).
Premijo tveganja za naložbo v lastni kapital dobimo z množenjem tržne premije tveganja z beta faktorjem (tržna premija tveganja × beta).
The beta factor is used to quantify the risk of a company relative to the overall risk of all companies.
Beta faktor se uporablja za količinsko opredelitev tveganja enega podjetja glede na celotno tveganje vseh podjetij.
The CAPM is the predominant method of calculating investment returns in the case of large listed companies.
CAPM je prevladujoča metoda za izračun investicijskih donosov za velika podjetja, ki kotirajo na borzi.
However, since WestLB is not a listed company, it is not possible to derive its beta value directly.
Ker WestLB ni podjetje, ki bi kotiralo na borzi, njegove beta vrednosti ni mogoče izpeljati neposredno.
The CAPM can be used therefore only on the basis of an estimation of the beta factor.
Uporaba metode CAPM je zato možna samo na podlagi ocene beta faktorja.
The Commission possesses six expert reports in which the risk premium and the minimum return on capital were calculated using different approaches, with all of them calculating the risk premium for the transfer of Wfa's capital to WestLB not directly but on the basis of a (hypothetical) investment in WestLB's capital.
Komisija ima šest izvedenskih mnenj, v katerih sta premija tveganja oz. skupen donos naložbe izračunana na podlagi različnih pristopov, pri čemer vsa izvedenska mnenja premije tveganja za vključitev Wfa v WestLB ne računajo neposredno, temveč na podlagi (hipotetične) naložbe v osnovni kapital WestLB.
Ernst&Young studies of 11 September 1995 and 28 August 1997: In the Ernst&Young studies (1995), which apply the financing approach, the actual capital costs stemming from changes in last-trading-day prices (gains and losses) and dividends paid (dividend returns) are determined for the period 1982-92.
Mnenji Ernst&Young z dne 11. septembra 1995/28. avgusta 1997: v mnenjih Ernst&Young (1995), ki sledijo pristopu financiranja, se dejanski stroški kapitala za obdobje 1982-1992 določijo na podlagi sprememb cen zadnjega tečaja (tečajni dobički in izgube) in izplačanih dividend.
The arithmetic average of the historical capital costs is then compared to the investor's requirement as to the expected return.
Aritmetično povprečje zgodovinskih stroškov kapitala se nato enači s pričakovano zahtevo donosnosti s strani vlagatelja.