natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It already made clear in its WestLB decision of 1999 that a comparison between the Wfa's assets, which were also recognised as core capital, and hybrid equity instruments that were recognised only as additional capital, such as profit participation certificates and non-voting preference shares, cannot serve as a basis for determining the appropriate remuneration for the transferred capital (Decision 2000/392/EC, paragraph 199).
Že v svoji Odločbi 2000/392/ES glede primera WestLB iz leta 1999 (odstavek 199) je pojasnila, da primerjava sredstev Wfa, ki so prav tako priznana kot temeljni kapital, in hibridnih instrumentov lastnega kapitala, ki so bila priznana le kot dodatni kapital, kot so potrdila o udeležbi pri dobičku in neglasovalne prednostne delnice, ne more služiti kot podlaga za določitev primernega nadomestila za prenesen kapital.
Core capital is of much greater use to an undertaking 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.
Temeljni kapital je podjetju v večjo korist, saj si slednje lahko z njim priskrbi dodatna lastna sredstva (kot na primer potrdila o udeležbi pri dobičku) do enakega obsega z namenom povečanja lastnega kapitala.
For the capital provided to be recognised as original own funds, there must be greater exposure to risk, which as a general rule is also reflected in a higher market remuneration for such instruments.
Da se razpoložljiv kapital prizna kot temeljni kapital, je potrebna večja izpostavljenost tveganju, ki se načeloma izraža tudi v večjem tržnem nadomestilu za take instrumente.
Any point of comparison with ‘additional funds’ that offer only limited scope for use in business expansion can therefore be ruled out from the outset.
Primerljivost s tako imenovanimi dodatnimi sredstvi, ki se lahko le v omejenem obsegu uporabljajo za širjenje dejavnosti, se torej lahko izključi že na začetku.
The Commission also considers that the comparison made by Germany and BayernLB with silent partnerships within the meaning of Article 10(4) of the Banking Act, i.e. the silent partnerships of the Bavarian savings banks and other institutional investors which the bank has obtained since the beginning of 1991, is not a suitable basis for determining the appropriate remuneration for the special-purpose reserve.
Komisija nadalje menim, da primerjava z vložki tihe družbe, ki sta jo Nemčija in BayernLB naredili v smislu člena 10(4) KWG oziroma vložki tihe družbe s strani bavarskih hranilnic in drugih institucionalnih vlagateljev, ki jih je banka pridobila od začetka leta 1991, ne predstavljajo ustrezne osnove za določitev primernega nadomestila za rezervo za posebne namene.
Instead the transfer of the special-purpose assets is comparable to a share-capital injection into BayernLB.
Prenos posebnih namenskih sredstev je zato najbolje primerljiv z naložbo v osnovni kapital BayernLB.
The Commission feels it is significant here that the housing-promotion assets were transferred not in the form of a silent partnership contribution but by establishing an ordinary reserve, even though, at the time both tranches were transferred, BayernLB had already obtained significant volumes of silent partnerships and was familiar with that method of building up equity capital.
Pomemben vidik za Komisijo predstavlja dejstvo, da prenos sredstev ha pospeševanje ni potekal v pravni obliki vložka tihe družbe, temveč z oblikovanjem rezerve, čeprav je v času prenosa obeh tranš BayernLB že v znatnem obsegu pridobila vložke tihe družbe in bila seznanjena s tem načinom povečanja lastnega kapitala.
As evidenced by the decisions supplied to the Commission, BAKred too considered the special-purpose reserve not as a silent partnership within the meaning of Article 10(4) of the Banking Act, but as a reserve (‘Rücklage’) within the meaning of point 5 of the first sentence of Article 10(2) and the second sentence of Article 10(3) of that Act.
Kot je razvidno iz odločb posredovanih Komisiji, tudi BAKred rezerve za posebne namene ni priznal kot vložek tihe družbe v smislu člena 10(4) KWG, temveč kot rezervo v skladu s pomenom točke 5 prvega stavka člena 10(2) in drugega stavka člena 10(3) KWG.
These two factors already suggest that the capital provided was similar to share capital rather than to a silent partnership.
Oboje kaže na to, da je bil razpoložljiv kapital podoben temeljnemu kapitalu in ne vložku tihe družbe.
Although it is also true that the special-purpose assets of BayernLB have certain features that are somewhat typical of silent partnerships , the Commission considers that the risk that the transferred capital would be used, at least in part, as cover in the event of insolvency or liquidation was generally no less than would be the case for a share-capital investment.
Nadalje sicer drži, da imajo posebna namenska sredstva BayernLB nekatere značilnosti, ki so do neke mere tipične za vložke tihe družbe. Vendar pa je Komisija mnenja, da v celoti gledano tveganje, da bo vložen kapital v primeru insolventnosti ali likvidacije vsaj delno uporabljen za kritje, ni bilo nič manjše, kakor bi bilo v primeru naložbe v osnovni kapital.
The Commission cannot accept Germany's argument that the risk of loss was lower than that for a share-capital investment because BayernLB already had substantial own funds at its disposal before the special-purpose reserve was transferred and was therefore not at all dependent on that capital.
Vendar Komisija ne more sprejeti trditev Nemčije, da je tveganje izgube v primerjavi z naložbo v osnovni kapital bilo manjše, ker je BayernLB že pred prenosom posebnih namenskih sredstev razpolagala z znatnimi lastnimi sredstvi in tako sploh ni bila odvisna od tega kapitala.
Admittedly, the special-purpose reserve was actually used only once to cover risk-bearing assets and then only for a short time.
Res da je bila rezerva za posebne namene zares samo enkrat in še takrat samo za kratek čas dejansko uporabljena za kritje tvegane aktive.
However, the situation must be viewed as it appeared at the time and it was impossible to tell beforehand that the bank would not use the capital.
Vendar pa je treba situacijo oceniti z vidika takratnih razmer, ko je bilo nemogoče napovedati, da banka kapitala ne bo uporabila.
On the contrary, the need to boost Bayerische Landesbank's national and international competitiveness by building up its equity capital in order to ensure that it could carry on its successful business activities was cited as a reason for the capital injection in the grounds of the draft Special-purpose Assets Act, which was eventually adopted by the Bavarian Parliament.
Nasprotno pa je bilo v obrazložitvi osnutka zakona o posebni namenskih sredstvih, ki ga je bavarski deželni zbor kasneje sprejel, kot razlog za vlogo kapitala izrecno navedeno, da je za zagotovitev njenega nadaljnjega uspešnega poslovanja nujno povečanje nacionalne in mednarodne konkurenčnosti bavarske deželne banke s povečanjem lastnega kapitala.
It was also stated in preliminary drafts and in internal memos of the Bavarian Ministry that the declared aim of the transfer was to pave the way for an expansion of business.
Omogočanje širjenja dejavnosti je bilo navedeno kot proglašen cilj transakcije tudi v predhodnih predlogih in internih dokumentih bavarskega ministrstva.
Moreover, Germany itself has admitted that, when the first and second instalments were transferred in 1994 and 1995, the definite intention was to use the special-purpose reserve to cover risk-bearing assets .
Poleg tega je Nemčija sama navedla, da je pri prenosu prve in druge tranše v letih 1994 in 1995 vsekakor obstajal namen uporabe prenesene rezerve za posebne namene za kritje tvegane aktive.
A market-economy investor providing capital under these circumstances would accordingly have insisted on a full remuneration since he, in the first place, bore the full risk of loss and, second, the bank was free to use the entire capital, like any other capital, in its competitive business, according to its own economic calculations and discretion.
Vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki bi kapital dal na razpolago v takšnih razmerah, bi vztrajal pri polnem nadomestilu, ker je, prvič, nosil celotno breme tveganja izgube, in drugič, ker bi lahko banka celoten kapital, kot tudi preostali kapital, po svoji lastni gospodarski presoji uporabila v konkurenci z ostalimi bankami.
According to Germany and BayernLB, there was an understanding that BayernLB would cover the capital requirements for expanding its commercial activities largely by accepting silent partnership contributions from institutional investors. It must be said that this intention was not specifically expressed either in the relevant clauses of the transfer agreement or in the Act relating to the transfer.
V kolikor je bilo po navedbah Nemčije in BayernLB dogovorjeno, da bo BayernLB potrebe po kapitalu za širitev svoje komercialne poslovne dejavnosti krila v glavnem s sprejetjem vložkov tihe družbe institucionalnih vlagateljev, je treba reči, da ta namera ni bila posebej izražena niti v ustreznih pogodbenih določilih niti v zakonu o prenosu.
Consequently, a private investor would not have been confident that his capital would not be used.
Posledično zasebni vlagatelj ne bi imel zaupanja, da njegov kapital ne bo uporabljen za kritje.
The fact that there was also an understanding that BayernLB would draw on the special-purpose reserve to cover risk-bearing assets only after using the other equity capital available does not stand in the way of the present risk analysis either, if it is assumed that the intention to use the funds to cover risk-bearing assets did exist.
Dejstvo, da je obstajal dogovor o tem, da bo BayernLB rezervo za posebne namene za kritje tvegane aktive uporabil šele po izrabi vsega ostalega razpoložljivega lastnega kapitala, prav tako ni v nasprotju s pričujočo analizo tveganja, če izhajamo iz tega, da je v vsakem primeru obstajal namen uporabe kapitala za kritje tvegane aktive.
In the Commission's view, neither of these two factors prove that the risk of loss in insolvency or liquidation was qualitatively lower than for share capital.
Po mnenju Komisije noben od teh dveh vidikov ne dokazuje, da je bilo tveganje izgube v insolventnosti oz. likvidaciji kvalitativno manjše kot pri osnovnem kapitalu.
Germany points out that, pursuant to Section 2 of the agreement between the Land of Bavaria and the Bavarian Sparkassenverband of 15 December 1994, the Sparkassenverband was required, as second shareholder, to bear half of any loss suffered by BayernLB in the event of the special-purpose reserve being depleted or used by BayernLB's creditors to cover losses. However, this did not eliminate the risk that at least part of the special-purpose reserve might be lost in the event of insolvency or liquidation, as it meant that the reserve was to be replenished only proportionally.
Nemčija poudarja, da dejstvo, da je bil Sparkassenverband Bayern kot drugi delničar v skladu s poglavjem 2 pogodbe med Svobodno državo Bavarsko in bavarskim združenjem hranilnic (Sparkassenverband Bayern) z dne 15. decembra 1994 dolžan financirati polovico izgub BayernLB, ki bi nastale v primeru, da bi se posebna namenska sredstva izčrpala ali da bi jih upniki BayernLB uporabili za kritje izgub, prav tako ni odpravilo tveganja, da bi se rezerva za posebne namene v primeru insolventnosti ali likvidacije lahko vsaj delno izgubila, saj bi to pomenilo le sorazmerno dopolnitev rezerve za posebne namene.
Moreover, the arrangement between the shareholders did not reduce the use which BayernLB could make of the capital, so that this circumstance cannot diminish the overall remuneration payable by BayernLB.
Poleg tega ta dogovor med delničarji ne zmanjša koristi BayernLB iz kapitala, tako da takšna okoliščina ne more zmanjšati nadomestila, ki ga mora skupno plačati BayernLB.
It was inconceivable that BayernLB would have paid no more at all if the Bavarian Sparkassenverband had, for example, committed itself vis-à-vis the Land of Bavaria to bear the entire loss.
Tako ne bi bilo mogoče, da BayernLB ne bi plačala nič, če bi se Sparkassenverband Bayern nasproti Svobodne države Bavarske obvezal, da prevzame breme celotnega tveganja.
At most the arrangement could have led to the Land compensating the Sparkassenverband internally for assuming this additional risk. However, no such agreement was concluded and the matter is irrelevant for the purposes of this proceeding.
Ta dogovor bi lahko kvečjemu v internem razmerju privedel do nadomestila za Sparkassenverband Bayern s strani Svobodne države Bavarske za prevzem tega dodatnega tveganja, kar pa ni bilo dogovorjeno in zato v zadevnem postopku ne igra nobene vloge.
Nor is the Commission convinced by the argument that in this case the special-purpose reserve made up around 8 % of total capital at the time of the transfer and that the risk of loss was therefore considerably smaller than in the WestLB case, where Wfa's assets accounted for nearly 50 % of the bank's equity capital.
Nazadnje ne prepriča niti ugovor, da je v tem primeru za časa prenosa delež rezerve za posebne namene predstavljal 8 % celotnega kapitala in da je s tem bilo tveganje izgube znatno nižje kot v primeru WestLB, kjer so sredstva Wfa predstavljala skoraj 50 % lastnega kapitala banke.
In the WestLB case the large volume of capital injected was an indication of its similarity with share capital but not the only decisive factor in adopting that comparison.
V primeru WestLB je bil velik obseg vloženega kapitala pokazatelj, ni pa sam po sebi odločilen pri domnevi o podobnosti osnovnemu kapitalu.
After taking a comprehensive view of the case, the Commission also came to the conclusion in its WestLB decision that the similarity of the transaction in question to a share-capital investment outweighed other considerations
Tudi v Odločbi glede WestLB je Komisija na podlagi celovite ocene ugotovila, da je bila podobnost obravnavane transakcije z naložbo v osnovni kapital prevladujoča.
Given the above views, notably regarding an analysis of the risk incurred by an investor in carrying out the transaction at issue, the Commission concludes that the starting point for calculating the appropriate remuneration for the transfer of the housing-promotion assets is the remuneration for the share capital made available to BayernLB.
Na podlagi navedenih stališč, zlasti analize tveganja, ki bi ga vlagatelj prevzel v primeru obravnavane transakcije, je Komisija prišla do zaključka, da je izhodišče za določitev primernega nadomestila za posebna namenska sredstva, nadomestilo za osnovni kapital, ki je na razpolago BayernLB.
In the understanding submitted to the Commission on 24 September 2004, the parties also adopted the share-capital approach as a basis for the proposed remuneration.
Tudi stranke dogovora, ki je bil predložen Komisiji 24. septembra 2004, so v svojem predlogu za nadomestilo izhajale iz obravnave osnovnega kapitala.
Liquidity costs
Stroški zaradi likvidnosti
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), 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.
Put simply, the difference between 12,5 times the interest received and 11,5 times the interest paid minus other costs of the bank (e.g. administration) gives the profit on the equity .
Če poenostavimo, pomeni razlika med 12,5-kratnimi prejetimi obrestmi in 11,5-kratnimi plačanimi obrestmi minus drugi stroški banke (na primer za upravljanje) dobiček na lastni kapital.
Since the housing-promotion assets do not provide BayernLB with initial liquidity because they and all the income from them remain earmarked by law for housing promotion, BayernLB faced additional funding costs equal to the amount of the capital if it was to raise the necessary funds on the financial markets to take full advantage of the business 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 sredstva za pospeševanje BayernLB sprva niso zagotovila likvidnosti, ker so bila prenesena sredstva in celoten donos na sredstva za pospeševanje po zakonu namenjena pospeševanju gradnje stanovanj, je imel BayernLB 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 likvidnem lastnem kapitalu ne nastajajo, se mora primerno povračilo ustrezno znižati.
However, the Commission does not believe that the entire refinancing interest rate has to be taken into account.
Vendar pa Komisija meni, da se ne upošteva celotna obrestna mera refinanciranja.
Only the net costs should be taken into account as an additional burden on BayernLB because of the special nature of the capital transferred.
Samo neto stroški se upoštevajo kot dodatne obremenitve BayernLB, zaradi posebnega značaja prenesenega kapitala.
The Commission therefore accepts that BayernLB incurs additional ‘liquidity costs’ to the extent of ‘refinancing costs minus tax.’
Skupno Komisija torej priznava, da ima BayernLB dodatne „stroške zaradi likvidnosti“ v višini „stroškov refinanciranja minus davek od dobička“.
The Commission likewise cannot accept Germany's argument that a private investor would have been unable to deduct net refinancing costs alone because the capital transferred to BayernLB accounted for only 8 % of own resources, and not almost 50 % as in the WestLB case.
Komisija se prav tako ne strinja s trditvijo Nemčije, da zasebni vlagatelj, na podlagi dejstva, da je kapital vložen v BayernLB predstavljal samo 8 % lastnih sredstev, in ne 50 % kot v primeru WestLB, ne bi mogel sam doseči odbitka neto stroškov refinanciranja.
This argument is not convincing.
Ta argument ne prepriča.
The only decisive factor is the fact that BayernLB could have offset the refinancing costs as operating expenses against tax and thus obtained an advantage which, from the point of view of the EU state aid rules, has to be taken into consideration irrespective of the volume of the capital made available.
Pomembno je samo to, da bi BayernLB stroške refinanciranja lahko uveljavljala kot davčno olajšavo in s tem pridobila prednost, ki se mora z vidika evropskih pravil o državni pomoči upoštevati ne glede na obseg razpoložljivega kapitala.
Appropriate remuneration for the amount of DEM 1197 million
Primerno nadomestilo za znesek 1,197 milijard DEM
There are no doubt different ways of calculating the appropriate remuneration for the amount of DEM 1197 million.
Primerno nadomestilo za znesek 1,197 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 follow the same basic principles.
Vendar pa, kakor bo prikazano, vsi načini za izračunavanje nadomestila za razpoložljiv osnovni kapital sledijo enakim osnovnim načelom.
Taking these basic principles, the Commission here does the calculation in two steps: first, it determines the minimum remuneration that an investor would expect for a (hypothetical) investment in the capital of BayernLB.
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 BayernLB.
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 dovolj robustno količinsko opredelitev tega zneska.
Determination of a likely minimum remuneration for an investment in the capital of BayernLB
Določitev pričakovanega najmanjšega nadomestila za naložbo v osnovni kapital BayernLB
The expected return on an investment and the investment risk are key determinants in the decision of a market-economy investor to invest.
Pričakovan donos na naložbo in naložbeno tveganje sta dva bistvena dejavnika pri odločitvi vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu o naložbi.
In order to determine their level, the investor incorporates all available firm-related and market-related information into his calculation.
Za ugotovitev višine teh dveh elementov bo vlagatelj upošteval vse razpoložljive tržne informacije in podatke o posameznem podjetju.
He bases himself on historical average rates, which, generally speaking, are also a point of reference for a firm's future efficiency, and inter alia on an analysis of the company's business model for the investment period in question, the strategy and quality of management or the relative prospects for the sector in question..
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 undertake an investment only if it produces a higher return or a lower risk than the next-best alternative use of his 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.
Similarly, he will not invest in a company whose expected return is lower than the average return expected for 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.
It can be assumed in the present case that there are sufficient alternatives to the assumed investment project that promise a higher expected return with the same risk.
V takem primeru lahko sklepamo, da obstajajo zadostne alternative za domnevno naložbo, ki obetajo višje pričakovane donose pri enakem tveganju.
In describing the various approaches, it makes sense to distinguish between two components, viz. 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:
minimum appropriate return on a risky investment
primeren najmanjši donos tvegane naložbe
risk-free base rate + risk premium for the risky investment.
netvegana osnovna stopnja + premija tveganja za tvegano naložbo.
Consequently, the minimum appropriate remuneration for a risky investment can be described as the sum of the risk-free rate of return and the additional risk premium for assuming the investment-specific risk.
Primeren najmanjši donos tvegane naložbe lahko torej opišemo kot vsoto netvegane stopnje donosa in dodatne premije tveganja za prevzem naložbenega tveganja.
The basis for any determination of return is thus 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.