Financial Translation: Quality counts !
The handling of financial information requires accuracy, reliability and discretion shall be permitted no mistake, there may also have a wrong number only serious consequences for the results of a bank or financial institution. Similarly precise must therefore be the translation of financial documents.
To provide an optimal product to one with the same level of terminology in the main text, special skills are required. These are – how much is believed to often – and not just merely linguistic, but also concern, in particular the deeper understanding the source text. Many translation agencies namely, a tendency to entrust such work translators who have does have certain language skills, but in most cases have no knowledge of economic and financial relationships and therefore are unable to understand the main texts.
The necessary knowledge to quality produce high-quality financial translations, which are tailored to the needs of the readership includes not only terminological skills that can be appropriated by a series of glossaries and regular consultation with relevant sources, but also a heuristic knowledge of the financial world as well as whose products and markets. It is not enough here to know “how to translate a particular word, you have to know is how in the industry” thinks “and” speaks “.
In addition to the translation of financial documents, as far as possible the continuous development of the financial sector, financial markets and the specific needs of the institutions that are active in these markets reflect. The translation work for banks and financial service providers must never be static but should evolve as this constant evolution.
Another aspect that remains all too often missing is the “customer focus”, ie the account of the target audience, which is in effect, read the text. For example, consider the case of a market report, which is read depending on the situation of the retail customers of a bank or from a group Finanzanalisten: the former often have limited financial knowledge and therefore need a translation, the understanding of the source text is not unnecessarily complicated and too many requires knowledge, while in the second case, high precision and an exact reproduction of the original text are necessary.
Hence the need of a growing number of financial institutions to entrust such specialized work language translators who know the financial and banking system and really understand. It is ideally to graduate economists who deal extensively with the industry and if possible can demonstrate several years of experience in the financial sector.
Only then is it possible to provide a precise, accurate and the target audience absolutely understandable translation, while the “end users” of these translations to provide that security and reliability of feeling, which is for every bank and every financial company one of the most important pillars of success.
Citigroup: $ 12.3 billion for U.S. taxpayers
Despite all the cries of ferrets that have surrounded the activities of the United States in the rescue of their banks, we must recognize that it was not money to fund lost. If Citigroup is exemplary.We all remember the difficulties of the Bush administration to obtain the agreement of the Republicans … 750 billion fund called TARP (Trouble Asset Relief Program). It was during the election campaign: it is at this precise moment that the hysterical reaction of John McCain contrasted with the leadership of Barack Obama. This was the turning point of the campaign.
Besides this amount was used not only to banks but to other industries, the conditions were were far from easy and, è s the beginning, the U.S. Treasury wanted to structure its operations on a model which provided that sooner or later he would be reimbursed.
The intervention took place in Citigroup quite dramatically at the end of 2008: in total, the Treasury has injected 45 billion dollars in a bank in which nobody believed. Vikram Pandit, a veteran of Morgan Stanley replaced Chuck Prince, a lawyer whose management of Citigroup had been disastrous.
Vikram Pandit has taken the problem head on. In spite of invective from some quarters in Washington, he enjoyed such support from the principal shareholder of the group, Prince Al Waleed of Saudi Arabia. It was established with the support of Bob Rubin, Treasury Secretary for Bill Clinton.
In several installments, the U.S. State emerged from these positions. This action, which had collapsed to $ 1 is now worth $ 5. The last tranche of warrants has been sold at four times its purchase price. In total, the operation of Citigroup has reported $ 12.3 billion in U.S. taxpayer, or a profit of 28%. This was announced by the Treasury this morning.
It is important to learn from this type of intervention.
It is perfectly legitimate for governments to intervene in such rescues, but there is one key condition: such an “investment”, he was in crisis, implies a clear vision of the “exit strategy” states . This is not to intervene without having clearly established with the institution concerned, the manner and conditions of sale of those assets that states are not intended to keep. It is not, by definition, a strategic investment or perennial. The input type must therefore take into account the need to leave.
The operating conditions must protect capital as much as possible, and provide pay and conditions that create an incentive for institutions to “get rid” of such creditor or shareholder expensive bulky. United States, three types of incentives have been used: a high interest rate, fees and capital bulky … limits on pay.
Under these conditions, moreover, banks like Deutsche Bank and Barclays Bank have just thanked their respective states for their proposal and waived taste of this “potion” not so magical as that. In doing so, they were competitive position of strength.
D è s 2010, several banks have taken steps to get rid of those cumbersome conditions: at the forefront as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which limits compensation at a competitive disadvantage.
And we do not make me instantly of “liberalism”! The hypocrisy of those who screamed and cried when responding to liberalism when it comes to coping inescapable.
Citigroup and the U.S. Treasury is to remind us that it is possible for the taxpayer to participate in the rescue of national interest without the taxpayer will lose.
U.S. banks have expelled their mortgagors irregularly. (Update)
“The notion that the institutions that caused the housing crisis have made the situation worse than their debtors need is not only frustrating – it’s a shame.” This is how the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development spoke on Sunday. At the same time the administration tries to calm things: anger that grips the American public against banks peaked.
Several major U.S. banks have terminated the deportation proceedings they had begun because of the discovery of irregularities in their own procedures . Cela seems almost incredible: in a situation where mortgages put whole families in difficulties because of (in) famous subprime, the records do not appear to have been the subject of serious consideration.
Last week Obama but vetoed a provision passed by the Parliament (and therefore by many Democrats) that would have imposed a moratorium of such procedures at the national level. This request came from all States concerned to see an increased number of private owners of their residence. In September alone, over 100,000 evictions were executed, including 17,000 for California alone.
What is it?
To understand the mass evictions carried out in the United States, we must appreciate the fundamental difference between a mortgage between Europe and America. In Europe, if the mortgage falls into default, the bank can sell the property, but if this sale does not cover the overdraft, the debtor remains bound by the terms of the contract for the possible lack.
United States, an owner afraid to leave the key under the doormat and the bank has the property to repay. If this sale takes place at half the value of the loan, for example, the debtor’s slate is cleared. In addition, when rates are declining, debtors can renegotiate a new rate and yet another time with his banker or another without penalty.
In simple terms, some evictions are due to the fact that the bank in the United States is less well “protected” than its European counterpart. When she questions the ability of his client to face his charges, it goes directly to the expulsion is the easy way.
What is serious is the finding that deportation procedures were grossly negligent managed by banks and their lawyers. The latter being paid to the number of evictions and bankers have not verified the validity of the expulsion as thousands of these expulsions were in fact improper. Responsible employees signed records that, contrary to a statement signed under oath, they did not even open. The documents presented to the courts were sometimes wrong. It speaks of “signatories robots” in the banks as people who had signed the records signed by several thousand per month. This is the house pictured above who started this national review. Once again it is the complete lack of consideration of the banks to their customers or the general economy which is worn: the irregularities turn angry indignation.
Behind the idea of a national moratorium, the debtor is not Parliament that protected, but banks: it gave them time to put order in their records. Bank of America has completely stopped the evictions. Other banks reported that they would suspend deportations in states where courts have jurisdiction over these proceedings!
It became clear that the President of the United States intends to use his first veto to prevent the adverse consequences of an interruption of evictions on the prices of residential real estate, and with it the economic recovery. In reality, it is impossible to predict what the moratorium would result. Moreover, these problems are the responsibility of states, not the federal government. They must be reviewed locally according to the laws governing mortgages which are not uniform throughout the United States.
The state attorneys general gathered to analyze and correct the fraudulent or simply irresponsible. Must say, some twenty days before the election, this topic assumes the dimensions of an election issue, both the 1.3 million households ejected and how these evictions were carried create a much anger in population, particularly the poorest.
It is difficult to measure the magnitude of these problems: the share prices of banks have dropped to 10%. Last week, JP Morgan Chase increased its stockpile of mortgages has a $ 3 billion. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the nationalized agencies that represent about 90% of the mortgage market, have announced that they could claim back their interventions in cases of irregularity evictions. There would be $ 44 billion, according to an analysis by Goldman Sachs.
At a little over two weeks of the midterm elections on 2 November, it is impossible not to make an election issue.
Banks face a new regulatory framework.
The General Assembly of the International Monetary Fund is a gathering of policy makers in the financial sphere, whether publicly or privately. Meanwhile, the Institute for International Finance (IIF) also holds during the weekend, its own annual meeting. Given what we must recognize as a revolution of the regulatory framework for banks, officers had moved in large numbers to try to see clearly.
The IIR has over 400 members, mostly banks. So from the perspective of those that organized its work and discussions. The bankers are trying to understand what to expect in light of U.S. regulations, rules of Basel III and new EU regulations.
One thing that strikes: he still reigns, despite the publication of the new regulatory framework, a deep questioning about the details of implementation and, dare say, a real anxiety about this new world of banking is gradually emerging limbo. In part this change is justified: all the details of the regulations should be clarified. The IIF has been an important partner as the U.S. Government and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), author of Basel III. But ultimately, whether the authorities who took the decisions.
Although critics are heard on one or another aspect of this new landscape, you realize that the regulations that were released do not cause trauma to the side of bankers. They seem to not only live with it, but they breathe.
In this context, however, this obsession with the regulations appear to give the background which could now be decided on by each bank, regardless of the new rules. Several panelists pointed out some deeper truths
- Ethics comes before the regulations: the integrity of leaders is crucial. Unfortunately, the authorities can not rely on an improvement of the situation and must therefore strike hard.
- Having inflicted severe losses to their shareholders, banks need to renew the son of confidence. Banks are plaintiffs suggestions from institutional investors: improved transparency chosen, the review of the role and composition of boards of directors, a clear explanation of economic modeling are chosen as subjects to be addressed for now.
- A female voice from a shy Indian bank also reiterated the issue of choice for the movement of capital in core businesses to the economy.
- This is the shareholders who pay the salaries: would not it be more useful to know their point of view rather than seeing the authorities try to establish the parameters?
- The new ratios pose implementation issues: are we sure that all banks will have access to capital increases or sophisticated international financing? This seems unlikely.
But the nightmare of a new crisis leads bankers to spend considerable time with the central banks are attempting to define a system to resolve cases of bankruptcy at the international level. This is far from easy, and the more realistic is to try to ensure that the same principles apply to the major financial centers. The creation of a global system of field seems impossible.
With the knowledge that they can not expect future rescues Government that solutions must be found. Reconstruction of a financial system less fragile is just beginning. Nobody doubts his indispensability.
UniCredit in talks on 20 billion euro bank rescue fund
The announcement of a rescue fund of 20 billion euros made by large banks to service support structure for the banking system is a process that has many advantages.
Firstly, it is normal and traditional, that a fund be established to support customers of banks: it exists in all Western countries at the national level. The fact of creating a fund of this size at the international level is a logical continuation of global banks. It is also a measure which should be reassuring.Then it is indeed a fund whose mission is defined concrete that will be managed by banks. I can hear the critics on the risk of bias. It is wrong to know the banking world: the fund managers will be extremely parsimonious and intervene only in cases où bankers armed with their technical and analytical capacity, will be determined at the time the amount, and how the institution will benefit from this intervention.
Alessandro Profumo, boss of UniCredit, Italy’s largest bank, which seems to be at the origin of this initiative, also pointed out that the loans will be accompanied by a pledge made on assets. It seeks the support of Banco Santander and Deutsche Bank. What do they have in common? They have survived the crisis without government intervention. There is also the influence of increasing role of the International Institute of Finance, which works to strengthen the credibility of the banking sector.
Moreover, such a fund may operate extremely quickly in case of unexpected difficulties specific. However, it is often the first days of a crisis that needs exist. We will remember the remarkable intervention by the European Central Bank to a certain Friday in August 2007 to 94 billion euros. This saved us a massive liquidity crisis, with the intervention of the Federal Reserve to $ 40 billion to USA.
Finally, it should highlight, if Europe persisted in his intention to tax the banks, that his intentions are budgetary or vengeful, but do not seek to strengthen the banking sector. In a previous post on this duty, I ‘I tried to highlight the profoundly ambiguous nature of the European initiative: it also involves the removal of a tax, not community, but national.
Once is not custom, such a banking initiative deserves to be applauded and encouraged, and the banks who participate will demonstrate that it is not with words but with actions, than private banks regain the credibility that they need international markets. It also looks forward to the new rules that Michel Barnier will propose to the defense of consumers and investors and those to be established for derivatives. I fail to return.