21:00 Mar 13, 2008 |
French to English translations [PRO] Bus/Financial - Accounting / Income statement | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: rkillings United States Local time: 21:01 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 | operating income vs other income from operations |
| ||
3 | operational income VS management returns |
|
Discussion entries: 1 | |
---|---|
operational income VS management returns Explanation: je suppose |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
operating income vs other income from operations Explanation: Of course, it makes no sense, but neither does the French. The point is this: there is no established terminology for the company is trying to do. Here is what is going on, from the Basis for Conclusions section of IAS 1 (Presentation): "Results of Operating Activities BC12. The Standard omits the requirement in the previous version to disclose the results of operating activities as a line item on the face of the income statement. ‘Operating activities’ are not defined in the Standard, and the Board decided not to require disclosure of an undefined item. BC13. The Board recognises that an entity may elect to disclose the results of operating activities, or a similar line item, even though this term is not defined. In such cases, the Board notes that the entity should ensure the amount disclosed is representative of activities that would normally be considered to be ‘operating’. In the Board’s view, it would be misleading and would impair the comparability of financial statements if items of an operating nature were excluded from the results of operating activities, even if that had been industry practice. For example, it would be inappropriate to exclude items clearly related to operations (such as inventory write-downs and restructuring and relocation expenses) because they occur irregularly or infrequently or are unusual in amount. Similarly, it would be inappropriate to exclude items on the grounds that they do not involve cash flows, such as depreciation and amortisation expenses." In short, a reporting entity is allowed to characterise items as "operating", but if it reports an operating *result*, it had better not leave anything out. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 3 hrs (2008-03-14 00:34:36 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Make that 'for what the company is trying to do'. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 20 hrs (2008-03-14 17:53:36 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- You could try "trading" for "d'exploitation", reserving "operating" for "opérationnel". From the IASB's point of view, the company is using an undefined "non-GAAP" measure. It can call it anything it wants so long as it discloses how it is calculated. However, if the company has a line item consisting solely of items considered to be unusual in amount and in kind, it sure looks like it is not honouring the spirit of the prohibition on "extraordinary" items. |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
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.