ProZ.com global directory of translation services
 The translation workplace
Ideas
KudoZ home » French to English » Finance (general)

augmentation de capital

English translation: rights issue / secondary [equity] offering

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.
GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
French term or phrase:augmentation de capital
English translation:rights issue / secondary [equity] offering
Entered by: Will Ladislaw
Options:
- Contribute to this entry
- Include in personal glossary

01:22 Sep 27, 2009
French to English translations [PRO]
Bus/Financial - Finance (general)
French term or phrase: augmentation de capital
Chapter I
Once again ‘augmentation de capital’ has reared its ugly head in a translation concerning stock warrants, and I have been forced into a prolonged exchange arguing that the term ‘capital increase’ does not exist as a set term in US financial English.

This comes up regularly in French/German to English translations of capital market documents. It has been so widely mistranslated as ‘capital increase’, has become so widespread on the internet that it is difficult to convince people without education and professional experience in capital markets (stock brokerage, investment banking, etc.) that the term does not seem to exist in the US. Two very experienced colleagues with MBAs in finance, securities licenses and many years experience in corporate finance concur with me that this may be the single most common mistranslation they deal with. One said he has given up, does not argue forcefully any more, and just says it is incorrect, but if “that’s what the client wants...”, "just don’t say nobody told you", and documents his challenging the term. This mistranslation in contracts or other serious documents could conceivably cause significant material, adverse events for clients.

The term does not appear in the US financial press, in any of the US textbooks or Securities license manuals I have used, does not appear on the Investopedia.com website, or in Ménard’s Dictionnaire de la comptabilité, is not used by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Bloomberg or other US finance media.

It is translated by ‘capital increase' in some non-finance-specialized or more casual dictionaries such as granddictionnaire.com, reverso.com, and Freeman’s Dictionnaire Pratique des Mondes de la Finance et de la Bourse, as well as appearing in a Proz.com entry. If you do a google search, you will find it used in documents translated from other languages.

The words capital and increase, of course exist, and sometimes the word ‘capital’ can be used to modify ‘increase’, but it is not a set term, and not used in the same sense as ‘augmentation de capital’.

I had assumed the term might be used in the UK, although working for a couple of years in London and Hong Kong investment banks I can’t remember seeing or hearing it. But the following Wikipedia entry suggests that it is not used in the UK either and suggests that “it is generally a flag of unrefined translation despite its widespread use.” (amen)

‘Capital increase’, predictably, is not a term on Wikipedia either, but when you do a search, you are redirected to this entry:

Seasoned equity offering
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Capital increase)
"A Seasoned equity offering or secondary equity offering (SEO) is a new equity issue by an already publicly-traded company. Secondary offerings may involve shares sold by existing shareholders (non-dilutive), new shares (dilutive) or both.
The expression 'capital increase' is in widespread use in English-language material published by German corporations. It is a literal translation of the German "Kapitalerhöhung" (augmentation de capital). The expression has extremely little actual currency in either US or UK financial media, in contrast to 'share/stock sale', 'share/stock offering' or 'flotation', which are idiomatic, as well as 'raise/inject capital' or 'equity financing' for example in other contexts.
Because it is essentially not used as such in English, 'capital increase' is generally a flag of unrefined translation despite its widespread use."

When I have asked clients to define in French exactly what they mean by ‘augmentation de capital’, they have invariably described, as the Wikipedia article suggests, a ‘secondary offering’, ‘secondary equity offering’ (SEO) (formal terms), or as we most often say in the US financial vernacular, just ‘issue new equity’. (That this has been my invariable experience, of course doesn’t mean other meanings don’t exist.)
I would particularly appreciate hearing from native speakers of UK and US English, and French or German, who have experience working in stock brokerages, investment banks, private banks/wealth management or similar institutions, hold degrees in corporate finance and securities licenses such as the US Series 7 or their equivalents in other countries, accountants and securities lawyers.

I would like to know what terms you use for ‘augmentation de capital’. And if you think there are implicit understandings in the term as regards ‘rights issues’, dilution, etc. in common use in the French financial community. Can the term be used for just any increase in capital, for example, a parent company boosting a subsidiary’s capitalization, or is it just used to indicate issuing new equity? Are there any other nuances or implications associated with the term as commonly used in the French, Swiss and other financial communities? Thanks!
joehlindsay
Local time: 15:33
rights issue / secondary [equity] offering
Explanation:
As I argued in a discussion entry:

I do not believe "capital increase" would be an incorrect translation, because it is now widely understood in the French sense of "augmentation de capital" among English speakers in the financial world. Reuters regularly translates "augmentation de capital" and its Italian equivalent, "aumento di capitale", as "capital increase".

However, I think this increasing use of the term in the financial media is a case of an inaccurate translation (or perhaps an "international English" term) becoming a widely accepted term in the English speaking financial world as a result of sheer repetition. Sure, this is not in itself a strong argument not to "move with the trend"; after all, language changes over time, and often for the better.

Yet in this instance I think there are sound reasons to resist change and continue to use what I believe are more precise terms: "rights issue" or "secondary equity offering" (and for the verb phrase "augmenter le capital", I would translate as "issue new equity").

For many native English speakers, the term "capital increase" or "increase in capital" first brings to mind either (a) any way in which a company can increase its share capital (including e.g. retained profits), or (b) any way in which a company can raise funds to support business production (including e.g. bonds). Now, even the narrower concept (a) is broader than what the French usually intend by "augmentation de capital" -- see discussion entries posted by the asker and by wfarkas.

Allow me to digress for a moment:
I think it is the difference between (a) and (b) that has provoked debate about "debt capital" (google it, it's not an oxymoron). TechLawDC claims that increasing debts (e.g. through bonds) cannot increase capital because this would naturally increase liabilities as well as assets. L.J. Wessel van Leeuwen responds that if bonds didn't increase capital, companies would never issue them. Both are correct, because each is working from a different meaning of the word "capital". TechLawDC is referring to capital as net worth or shareholders' equity, but that is not the same as capital in a more general sense of the word (even as used in finance, without talking about "economic" or "real" capital). Financial capital in a more general sense is in fact any form of wealth that a company can use in the process of producing goods or services. In this sense of the word, therefore, an "increase in capital" can indeed come via a bond issue.

Revenons à nos moutons:
In French (and in Italian), a single term, "augmentation de capital" ("aumento di capitale"), has long been used to express both the broader concept "increase in capital" and the narrow concept of issuing new equity. It is not so in English, where "rights issue" and "secondary equity offering" are standard terminology. Therefore, wherever it is clear from the context that "augmentation de capital" is being used in the narrower sense (an issue of stock warrants in this particular case), it is my opinion that it ought to be translated using the standard English "finance textbook" terminology for this narrower concept. As rkillings points out, if the context does not clarify in which sense the original term is being used, then it's better to play it safe and call it "capital increase".

In my view, the only valid argument for preferring "capital increase" over "rights issue" (again, assuming the specific context is known) would be that it is more easily understood by an "international" audience. Here, we'd get ourselves into the debate over whether we should 'fine-tune' language so as to cater to not-quite-fluent readers. All I can say is that while it may sometimes be expedient to do this, it would no longer be pure translation.





Selected response from:

Will Ladislaw
Italy
Local time: 22:33
Grading comment
Thanks!
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
4 +2capital increaserkillings
4 +1increase in capitalTechLawDC
5raising the capitalAL GAZZARINE
4rights issue / secondary [equity] offeringWill Ladislaw
4recapitalisation/capital injectionxxxwfarkas
3 -1see text
L.J.Wessel van Leeuwen
1Daimler examplexxxBourth
2 -1Increase in shares outstanding
John Detre


Discussion entries: 42





  

Answers


1 hr   confidence: Answerer confidence 2/5Answerer confidence 2/5 peer agreement (net): -1
augmentation de capital (please don't suggest 'capital increase"
Increase in shares outstanding


Explanation:
see this term in financial statements, not sure if it's exactly the same thing

John Detre
Canada
Works in field
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 12

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
disagree  Béatrice Huret-Morton: The capital may be increased without issuing new shares.
6 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

4 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): -1
augmentation de capital (please don't suggest 'capital increase"
see text


Explanation:
Since you (and others) do not like the term "capital increase" then why not use the term " increase in investment" or any other combination that will describe what is actually sought by the company: " An increase in its long term capital strucure". After all what the company wants is to strengthen its balance sheet by means of attracting long term investment (LTI) as opposed to the more risky short term increase (STI) of overdraft facilities or even term loans (1 year pwards) etc. The investment can be in cash, goodwill, exchange of shares, know-how that then become part of its permanent capital structure.

L.J.Wessel van Leeuwen
South Africa
Local time: 23:33
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish, Native in DutchDutch
PRO pts in category: 24

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
disagree  Béatrice Huret-Morton: the capital may be increased without calling on investors.
2 hrs
  -> O yea? How? the only way is to retain earnings and even so this has to be approved as shareholders expect dividends!
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

9 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 1/5Answerer confidence 1/5
Daimler example


Explanation:
Just an example, and of a German company at that, and of course the reporters may only be repeating what the German managers told them, but this is how Bloomberg and the NY Times handle the issue, compared to the French translation as augmentation de capital.

the world’s second- largest maker of luxury cars, will SELL 1.95 BILLION EUROS ($2.7 BILLION) OF SHARES to Abu Dhabi’s Aabar Investments PJSC, raising cash as it grapples with the deepening global recession and gaining a long-term shareholder.
Aabar will buy 96.4 million NEW Daimler shares for 20.27 euros apiece, the Stuttgart, Germany-based automaker said in a statement today. The price equates to a 5 percent discount to Friday’s close of 21.34 euros.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0eAzATg...

Daimler, the German maker of Mercedes-Benz cars, said that it would SELL about €1.95 billion worth of NEW shares of stock to Abu Dhabi, making the emirate its largest shareholder at a time of extreme hardship for the global auto industry.
Daimler and Aabar Investments, the Abu Dhabi government’s fund, said in a statement Sunday that the planned $2.7 billion injection of cash “further strengthens Daimler’s sound capital base and offers additional flexibility to invest in new automotive technologies.”
Automakers worldwide are suffering their worst slump in decades.
European sales fell 18.3 percent in February from the level of a year earlier, despite an increase in Germany that resulted from a tax incentive.
Daimler and the Abu Dhabi fund said they would jointly develop low-carbon-emission electric vehicles and research the production of new compound materials for automotive manufacturing.
Under the deal, which has already been approved by the Daimler board, the German company said it would INCREASE ITS SHARE CAPITAL by 10 percent, with 9.1 percent of the new equity going to Aabar. Kuwait had been the largest shareholder, with 6.9 percent.
www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/business/global/23iht-daimler.ht...

Un fonds d'investissement public d'Abu Dhabi, Aabar Investissements, a pris 9,1% du constructeur automobile allemand Daimler en souscrivant à une AUGMENTATION DE CAPITAL pour un montant de 1,95 milliards d'euros, a annoncé dimanche Daimler.
"Aabar est entré comme nouvel actionnaire et détient désormais près de 9,1% du nouveau capital", a indiqué Daimler dans un communiqué.
http://www.boursereflex.com/actu/2009/03/22/Un_fonds_d_inves...


xxxBourth
Local time: 22:33
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 307
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

8 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5
raising the capital


Explanation:
increasing the capital










--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 hrs (2009-09-27 10:31:28 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

company boosting a subsidiary’s capitalization. that's about it no need for extras !

AL GAZZARINE
United States
Local time: 14:33
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in ArabicArabic
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 hr   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +1
augmentation de capital (please don't suggest 'capital increase"
increase in capital


Explanation:
As a very senior finance translator, I see no problem. In the context of a secondary offering, or a conversion of a convertible security, "increase in capital" is fine. (Read any Articles of Incorporation for a French company.) You have not offered a counterexample of a situation or transaction for which "augmentation de capital" would be correct in French but for which "increase in capital" would be misleading in English. Of course "increase in capital" is more vague than "issuance of additional shares" or the like, but it is for the author to decide how vague to be. I guess the issue you, Lindsay, is raising is whether "increase in capital" is substantially more vague than the French author intended. I tend to say "no", or at least "it depends on context".
I agree that if I were reviewing a translation about a secondary offering and the translator translated "augmentation de capital" as "issuance of new shares" I would not change it, because (1) who cares?, (2) in context it is probably more correct than "increase in capital", and (3) I would never finish the review if I descended to this level of nitpicking.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2009-09-27 02:54:25 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

... are raising ...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2009-09-27 02:57:19 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Pacific Valley Bank Announces an Increase in Capital and Reports ...
Mar 3, 2009 ... SALINAS, CA, Mar 03 (MARKET WIRE) -- Pacific Valley Bank (OTCBB: PVBK) announced today the completion of a private placement of common stock ...
www.reuters.com/.../idUS204615 03-Mar-2009 MW20090303

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2009-09-27 03:01:28 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

If I were a financial reporter writing about an issuance of a convertible security or convertible private placement that I expected to be converted in the short or medium term, I might well describe it as an "increase in capital" even though misleading, and even though incorrect from the standpoint of accounting principles (as opposed to business sense).

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2009-09-27 03:08:17 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

In many contexts, "increase in paid-in capital", to make it more clear to a U.S. reader.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 10 hrs (2009-09-27 11:48:31 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Actually, "increase in share capital" is okay in English too. It is not as ambiguous as a naive reader would believe. It is synonymous with "paid-in capital". As to warrants, I believe the practice is that the issuance of the warrant is a capital increasing event, and that if the warrant is exercised there will be an exercise price (less commission etc.) which will accrue to the company as additional share capital, i.e. a second capital increasing event.

TechLawDC
United States
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 14

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Clair@Lexeme
1 day4 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

18 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
recapitalisation/capital injection


Explanation:
My contribution to the educated guesses.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 hrs (2009-09-27 19:36:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The terms recapitalisation/capital injection are neutral as to the form in which the capital structure in expanded (additional debt/equity, asset revaluation, etc.


xxxwfarkas
Canada
Local time: 16:33
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish, Native in FrenchFrench
PRO pts in category: 62
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

3 days8 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
rights issue / secondary [equity] offering


Explanation:
As I argued in a discussion entry:

I do not believe "capital increase" would be an incorrect translation, because it is now widely understood in the French sense of "augmentation de capital" among English speakers in the financial world. Reuters regularly translates "augmentation de capital" and its Italian equivalent, "aumento di capitale", as "capital increase".

However, I think this increasing use of the term in the financial media is a case of an inaccurate translation (or perhaps an "international English" term) becoming a widely accepted term in the English speaking financial world as a result of sheer repetition. Sure, this is not in itself a strong argument not to "move with the trend"; after all, language changes over time, and often for the better.

Yet in this instance I think there are sound reasons to resist change and continue to use what I believe are more precise terms: "rights issue" or "secondary equity offering" (and for the verb phrase "augmenter le capital", I would translate as "issue new equity").

For many native English speakers, the term "capital increase" or "increase in capital" first brings to mind either (a) any way in which a company can increase its share capital (including e.g. retained profits), or (b) any way in which a company can raise funds to support business production (including e.g. bonds). Now, even the narrower concept (a) is broader than what the French usually intend by "augmentation de capital" -- see discussion entries posted by the asker and by wfarkas.

Allow me to digress for a moment:
I think it is the difference between (a) and (b) that has provoked debate about "debt capital" (google it, it's not an oxymoron). TechLawDC claims that increasing debts (e.g. through bonds) cannot increase capital because this would naturally increase liabilities as well as assets. L.J. Wessel van Leeuwen responds that if bonds didn't increase capital, companies would never issue them. Both are correct, because each is working from a different meaning of the word "capital". TechLawDC is referring to capital as net worth or shareholders' equity, but that is not the same as capital in a more general sense of the word (even as used in finance, without talking about "economic" or "real" capital). Financial capital in a more general sense is in fact any form of wealth that a company can use in the process of producing goods or services. In this sense of the word, therefore, an "increase in capital" can indeed come via a bond issue.

Revenons à nos moutons:
In French (and in Italian), a single term, "augmentation de capital" ("aumento di capitale"), has long been used to express both the broader concept "increase in capital" and the narrow concept of issuing new equity. It is not so in English, where "rights issue" and "secondary equity offering" are standard terminology. Therefore, wherever it is clear from the context that "augmentation de capital" is being used in the narrower sense (an issue of stock warrants in this particular case), it is my opinion that it ought to be translated using the standard English "finance textbook" terminology for this narrower concept. As rkillings points out, if the context does not clarify in which sense the original term is being used, then it's better to play it safe and call it "capital increase".

In my view, the only valid argument for preferring "capital increase" over "rights issue" (again, assuming the specific context is known) would be that it is more easily understood by an "international" audience. Here, we'd get ourselves into the debate over whether we should 'fine-tune' language so as to cater to not-quite-fluent readers. All I can say is that while it may sometimes be expedient to do this, it would no longer be pure translation.







Will Ladislaw
Italy
Local time: 22:33
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 8
Grading comment
Thanks!
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

16 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +2
capital increase


Explanation:
This term *is* used in the English-language financial press. Don't take my word for it: perform the following exact-phrase searches for "capital increase" on Google using the site: operator:
site:nytimes.com
site:wsj.com
site:ft.com
site:bloomberg.com
site:reuters

I had the same concerns as Joe back in the early '90s, but the world has moved on. This is now a common term in international financial English.

The reasons reporters are using it are also good reasons for translators to use it. To describe a capital increase using another more familiar US or UK term or terms, you have to know just what it entails (rights issue, open issue, secondary offering, private placing, incorporation of reserves, etc., etc.) -- and you may not have that information. This is a higher-level category term otherwise lacking in English, so the case for borrowing it is compelling. Besides, it pretty obviously means an increase in authorised share capital/capital stock, does it not?

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day1 hr (2009-09-28 02:26:42 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

For those who wouldn't take my word for it:
wsj.com
Songbird Details Capital Increase - WSJ.com
Sep 24, 2009 ... UK real-estate company Songbird confirmed the details of a capital

increase … The company said it planned to raise £895 million ($1.46 billion)

through share placements -- £620 million of ordinary shares and £275 million in

preference shares

Areva CEO: Sovereign Funds Interested In Capital Increase - WSJ.com
Sep 17, 2009 ... Areva CEO: Sovereign Funds Interested In Capital Increase.

Apollo to Become Infineon Holder Through Capital Increase - WSJ.com
Jul 10, 2009 ... Infineon Technologies said it will launch a rights issue guaranteed

by financial investor Apollo Global Management …
-----
ft.com
FT.com / Companies / Automobiles - Struggling Continental eyes ...
Jul 20, 2009 ... Capital increase is Continental's second option. ... Continental's

management is eyeing a €1bn ($1.4bn) capital increase, as the German car ...

FT Alphaville » Blog Archive » HSBC 'only needs $20-35bn'
Feb 16, 2009 ... Following investor debate, we wanted to refresh our thesis

regarding a possible capital increase at HSBC. We have extended our analysis of ...

capital increase definition from Financial Times Lexicon
capital increase - definition of capital increase on Financial Times Lexicon. An

increase in the size of a company's equity capital, either through the ...
-----
nytimes.com
RBS set to announce major capital increase next week - The New York Times
The capital increase, long rumored in the market but frequently dismissed by RBS

management, is a radical U-turn for the second-largest bank after HSBC. ...

(2008/04/18)

France blocks capital increase for EADS - The New York Times
EADS managers raised the possibility of a capital increase in January, citing the

anticipated €10 billion, or $13.36 billion, in research and development ...
(2007/04/10)

UBS offers shares at a steep discount to replenish capital - The New York Times
May 22, 2008 ... The capital increase is the second time that UBS has had to raise

funds since the global credit crisis began last year with the collapse of ...
-----
bloomberg.com
Switzerland Selling UBS Stake After U.S. Tax Accord (Update4)
Aug 20, 2009 ... The settlement of a U.S. lawsuit that sought data on 52000 UBS

clients and the bank's 3.8 billion-franc capital increase in June …

ADB to Boost Lending After Capital Increase, Nag Says (Update1)
May 2, 2009 ... The Asian Development Bank plans to disburse an additional $10

billion in loans in the next two years to fund infrastructure projects and ...

Petrobras Expects Brazil Government to Increase Stake (Update2)
Sep 4, 2009 ... The capital increase may occur in the first half of next year, ... “The

capital increase is a fundamental element for the company today because we are

already investing more than our Ebitda,” Barbassa said ...
-----
reuters.com
UPDATE 1-ArcelorMittal down on capital increase talk-traders | … * Rumour of

capital increase * Analysts mostly positive after Wednesday investor day
(2009/09/17)

Pernod Ricard Launches Its € 1bn Capital Increase Through a Rights ...
Apr 15, 2009 ... A fully underwritten rights offering with a subscription ratio of 3

new shares for 17 existing shares and a subscription price of €26.70 per ...

Maersk CEO says group needs no capital increase | Reuters
Mar 16, 2009 ... COPENHAGEN, March 16 (Reuters) - Danish shipping and oil

group AP Moller-Maersk said on Monday it does not need a capital increase.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day1 hr (2009-09-28 02:30:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

*Of course* the term is being used in the financial press for non-US companies and institutions -- because it's the term they themselves are using.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day5 hrs (2009-09-28 06:59:52 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Well, this term appears in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, put there by the SEC in 2000:
"Final Rule:
International Disclosure Standards
Securities and Exchange Commission
17 CFR Parts 210, 228, 229, 230, 239, 240, 249 and 260
[Release Nos. 33-7745; 34-41936; International Series Release No. 1205]
File No. S7-3-99
RIN 3235-AH62
International Disclosure Standards
Agency: Securities and Exchange Commission
Action: Final rule

4. Where there is authorized but unissued capital or an undertaking to increase the capital, for example, in connection with warrants, convertible obligations or other outstanding equity-linked securities, or subscription rights granted, indicate: (i) the amount of outstanding equity-linked securities and of such authorized capital or ***capital increase*** and, where appropriate, the duration of the authorization; (ii) the categories of persons having preferential subscription rights for such additional portions of capital; and (iii) the terms, arrangements and procedures for the share issue corresponding to such portions."

And of course the SEC site hosts countless Form 20-F filings from foreign issuers containing the term, so while this term may not be used in "US finance", the US securities regulator seems to have no problem with it.

And one has to question the credibility of the unnamed Wikipedia authors who say the term has "extremely little actual currency in either US or UK financial media, in contrast to 'share/stock sale', 'share/stock offering' or 'floatation'" -- and cannot spell flotation. Flag of unrefined translation indeed.:-)



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days21 hrs (2009-09-30 23:21:14 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

The problem with ‘capital increase’, if there is one, cannot be that it is mistranslation of ‘augmentation de capital’. The definition of this term in English in the Financial Times’ glossary exactly matches that of its equivalent in French. The term is glossed by the OECD, used by the SEC in the US Code of Federal Regulations, and increasingly widely used by the financial press and news services.

So what is the issue? Why would knowledgeable finance specialists like Joe and Will resist using it? The reason, IMO, is that English is uncomfortable with the level of abstraction common in continental languages. In English we focus on the how, not the what; the specific, rather than the general. If a company has announced a capital increase, we want to know how it intends to raise new money. (If it is merely increasing the capital stock by incorporating retained earnings, which does count as a ‘capital increase’, it is not increasing its equity, and that is usually not newsworthy. Most cases encountered in translation are indeed about raising new money.)

The translation problem in going from the general to the specific is that you need precise details. For example, in 2008 Barclays conducted a £4.5bn capital increase (reported in the UK press as a ‘share sale’ or ‘cash call’) via a placing to Gulf and Asian investors and an open offer to existing shareholders. The placing was private, so it cannot be described as a ‘secondary offering’, which in both the US and UK is understood to be a *public* offering. And an open offer is sufficiently different from a normal rights issue that it goes by a different name. Thus, in this case—and it was a big one—neither ‘rights issue’ nor ‘secondary offering’ would be the right term.

It is legitimate and commendable for a translator to drop from the abstract to the concrete, but you have to know what is actually being done. You cannot just make it up.

In practice, too, some source-language conventions are forced on the translator because it is too cumbersome to avoid them. Take ‘périmètre de consolidation’. The conventional translation, ‘scope of consolidation’, is not a term for which one can find any homegrown usage in the Anglosphere at all. But until someone finds me a concise existing term for the accounting combination of (parent + consolidated subsidiaries + equity-accounted associates), I will go on using it.


rkillings
United States
Local time: 13:33
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 1102
Notes to answerer
Asker: Let me reiterate why we do not use 'capital increase' for an EN-US translation: the term is not understood in the US financial community, and not used by native speakers, it is in our view, clearly a mistranslation that has become widespread. It is especially important to not use it in important documents such as contracts where misunderstanding could have material adverse consequences. I reiterate, the term appears in no US financial dictionaries, is not on investopedia, is not in even the most comprehensive US financial glossaries. "Scope of consolidation" is another poor translation. The best translation for 'périmètre de consolidation' is usually simply 'consolidation' And this does often trip translators up. Having spent much of my childhood through graduate school in France I would say that 'comfortable with abstraction' is something I would have to characterize with the taurine scatological metaphor. The only use of capital increase on the SEC website is from received mistranslated documents, mostly it looks like from Germany. These 'Euro-English' mistranslations are not uncommon. I had another one today. An editor who wanted to change 'antidilutive' to 'relutive' because that is the French word. If you google 'relutive' you will find a French definition, no English, and a page of documents about French companies like BNP. Crédit Agricole and EDF Suez, all poorly translated from French. If you don't pay careful attention you will think that relutive is actually a word, which it is not in English. For me it is helpful to do searches on these dubious terms to see how many hits a term has, and where they are from. If a term seems only or preponderantly used on non-English speaking country websites, there is a good chance it is not the right term. 'Secondary offering' and 'new equity' are very common terms in finance and it behooves financial translators to become familiar with the details and how they relate to the general locution 'increase in capital'. There should be enough information/references in this Proz entry for translators to decide for themselves if they want to use 'capital increase'. If you want your translation sound professional, I wouldn't. I think the Wikipedia guy is right. It is nothing more than a widespread mistranslation.


Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  L.J.Wessel van Leeuwen: Indeed we are in fact in the year 2009 going on 2010...
10 hrs

agree  Clair@Lexeme
13 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Voters for reclassification
as
PRO / non-PRO
Non-PRO (1): iqcservices


Return to KudoZ list


Changes made by editors
Sep 30, 2009 - Changes made by Will Ladislaw:
Edited KOG entry<a href="/profile/942041">Will Ladislaw's</a> old entry - "augmentation de capital " » "rights issue / secondary [equity] offering"
Sep 30, 2009 - Changes made by Will Ladislaw:
Created KOG entryKudoZ term » KOG term
Sep 27, 2009 - Changes made by Stéphanie Soudais:
Term askedaugmentation de capital (please don\'t suggest \'capital increase\" » augmentation de capital


KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.



See also: