The person shown here is a basic user of this site. He or she may be contacted directly for language-related services.
|
Working languages: English to Chinese
Chinese to English
| Shi-Chi Lin
London, England, United Kingdom
Native in: Chinese  | | Willingness to Work Again  |  No feedback collected |
| | |
|
| Freelancer | | Translation, Interpreting, Editing/proofreading, Website localization, Software localization, Post-editing, Project management | | Specializes in: | | Anthropology | Art, Arts & Crafts, Painting | | Linguistics | Photography/Imaging (& Graphic Arts) | | Social Science, Sociology, Ethics, etc. |
| Also works in: | | Telecom(munications) | Business/Commerce (general) | | Internet, e-Commerce | Certificates, Diplomas, Licenses, CVs | | Advertising / Public Relations | Retail |
More Less | | Questions answered: 1 | | 0 entries | | Wire transfer, Check | Sample translations submitted: 2 Chinese to English: 上海養老路線圖 (The Shanghai Pension Path)
General field: Bus/Financial
Detailed field: Real Estate | Source text - Chinese
上海養老路線圖
上海市在去年推出的14條提振房市的措施中，第11條即提到要“繼續加大中心城區舊區改造力度，努力改善舊區居民住房條件”。而2009年上海新一輪的舊城改造焦點將直接對準上海市中心，改造拆遷規模將達到800萬平方米。
有專家預測，這將直接帶來500萬平方米的動拆遷安置的需求。由動遷產生的剛性被動需求，已經令閘北區的彭浦、芷江、大寧板塊以及其他中心城區的老城區板塊成為2月上海樓市的亮點。由於不少動遷戶在原居住地居住的願望很強烈，有的選擇附近的一手房，有的則到本區域的二手房市場中尋找新居所，一旦有優質房源拋出，就出現拉動均價的現象。
據了解，2005年和2006年，上海每年動拆遷規模在800萬平方米，到2007年縮減至300萬平方米。“這種做法本質上是政府的調控手段之一。2007年市場異常火爆時，為了防止動拆遷項目帶來大量剛性需求從而拉高房價，政府的做法是延緩動拆遷項目開工。而今年開始，一些剛性需求開始釋放出來。”易居中國的分析師薛建雄稱。
薛建雄認為，市中心800萬平方米的土地，如果按照2的容積率進行開發的話，可以提供1600萬平方米的物業供應，相當于目前上海樓市一年的新增供應量。“這還是一個相對保守的水平，如果按照2.6的容積率來算，將產生2000萬平方米物業，這就達到了目前上海3萬元/平方米以上高檔公寓總量1000萬平方米的一倍。
上海市社科院曾發布專題報告稱，上海市的財政收入中，有25%來自房地產及相關行業。另有信息表明，2002年上海市土地出讓金已占該市財政總收入的50%以上。
近年，房地產業已經不再是上海的支柱產業，然後在樓市低迷、經濟走勢尚不明朗的情況下，上海不惜再次助推樓市，折射出財政收支矛盾日益突出。1月13日，上海市市長韓正在作政府工作報告時表示，2009年地方財政收入增長目標設置為6%，遠遠低于2008年12.5%的目標。
| Translation - English
The Shanghai Pension Path
Of the 14 measures implemented last year to stimulate the Shanghai property market, article 11 stated its purpose "to continuously enhance the capacity to renovate the town centre, and improve the living conditions of the displaced inhabitants." In 2009, the focus of the redevelopment of the old section of the city will shift directly to Shanghai city centre, and the scale of the demolition and resettlement will reach 8 million square metres.
Some experts had expected the action to cause a direct demand for resettlement covering 5 million square metres due to the demolition. The rigid housing demand caused by the resettlement has drawn attention to the Zha-bei district, including the Pongpu, Zijiang and Daning areas, and other old district centres, which have become hot spots in the Shanghai property market. Many of the original residents in the resettlement area wish to stay in their home districts. Some of them choose to buy new properties in the vicinity, and some of them try to find new dwellings in their local second hand property markets. Average property prices will be pulled up when high quality property becomes available.
As we know, in 2005 and 2006, the annual scale of resettlement was 8 million square metres, but in 2007 that fell to 3 million m2. "This is essentially an adjustable measure by the government. When the market was extraordinarily popular in 2007, to prevent high rigid housing demand caused by the resettlement and rising property prices, the government postponed the inauguration of the resettlement plan. At the beginning of this year, some rigid housing demand has started being released." said Xue Jianxong, an analyst of E-House (China) Holdings Ltd.
Xue thinks the 8 million m2 land area of the city centre can, if developed at a double floor area ratio, yield 16 million m2 property provision, which equals the current provision of the Shanghai property market. "This is a relatively conservative number. If we use a floor area ratio of 2.6, it can generate 20 m2 property provision. That number is twice the current area of total luxury apartments in Shanghai worth 30,000 yuan per square metre.
The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences published a feature report indicating that 25% of Shanghai government's income was from real estate and related industries. Further information reveals in 2002 the land remise fund in Shanghai was more than half of the Shanghai government's total income.
In recent years, real estate has no longer been the pillar industry in Shanghai. Under the circumstances of a declining property market and uncertain economic outlook, Shanghai had no other options than promoting its property market, which reflects the increasingly conspicuous unbalanced bottom line of Shanghai government's income and expenditure. On 13 January, the mayor of Shanghai, Zhang Han, in a government work report said the targeted increase in local government income was 6%, which is far lower than the 2008 target of 12.5%.
| | English to Chinese: Rise of the super-bank (adapted from: How to shrink the banks, by Jonathan Ford and Peter Thal Larsen, Issue 165 Prospect) | Source text - English
RISE OF THE SUPER-BANK
The government safety net for the banking system has not always existed. Until a few hundred years ago, banks had more to fear from defaulting sovereigns than vice versa. More recently, government has acted to protect the public form the effects of crises. In particular, to guard against damaging runs, governments have made deposit insurance more generous.
The reson that the safety net has expanded is that there are not more bigger banks. Between 1998 and 2008, the share of global banking assets accounted for by the world's five largest banks - as measured by the Banker magazine - doubled from 8 per cent to 16 per cent.
Why did the banks expand so fast? Apologists have advanced two possible explanations. One is that the globalisation of capital flows has created the need for large financial institutions that can operate around the world. The second is that very large banks are more efficient.
The first is difficult to accept. If you spool back ten years, Goldman Sachs was considered to be a strong global bank. Its balance sheet is now almost five times bigger. It is simply hard to believe that the ideal size for a global bank should have risen so sharply in a single decade.
The efficiency case is also weak. Much of the academic evidence contradicts the idea that size itself makes a bank more efficient. A 2002 report for the US Federal Reserve looked at banking mergers in the US, Europe and Japan and concluded that scale provided advantages only up to a low level of total balance sheet assets (about $50bn). Beyond that there were disadvantages in greater size arising from the complexity of running such large organizations - expecially multinationals.
The report did note that some very large banks generated increased shareholder returns. But this was not because they were inherently more profitable; it was because they were permitted to hold less capital against the assets on their balance sheets. They were, in effect, allowed to borrow more than smaller institutions. This was supported by policymakers because they accepted the received wisdom that large banks were safer than small ones, as their risks were more diversified. They also felt big banks could afford more sophisticated risk management systems. This view has been exploded by the crisis. One of its lessons is that the interconnectedness of today's markets makes the benefits of risk diversification smaller than had been thought.
Do we really need big banks at all? Many bankers would emphatically say yes. "The idea that we could run modern economies with mid-sized savings banks is totally misguided," Josef Ackermann, the chief executive of Deutsche Bank, one of the world's largest commercial and investment banks, said in November. But their big corporate customers are unconvinced. Companies would prefer to have more, smaller banks so that they can spread their business to ensure they get the best deal. Most large commercial of investment banking transactions, after all, involve a syndicate or group of banks to divide up the risk. The same applies to foreign exchange deals. The customer searches for offers and takes the best one. | Translation - Chinese
超級銀行的掘起
政府救助銀行系統的安全網不是一直就存在的。直至幾世紀前，銀行擔心的是政府不償還債務而非積欠政府的錢。但是，最近政府卻採取行動，挽救民眾受到金融危機的波及，尤其是提高儲金保險，以防止銀行擠兌現象。
由於大型銀行持續增長，這道安全網不斷擴大。在一九九八年至二千零八年間，根據銀行家雜誌的統計，世界五大銀行在全球金融業資產總額的百分比從８％，雙倍成長到１６％。
這些銀行急速擴張的原因為何？超級銀行的支持者提出了兩個可能的解釋：一是全球化所帶來的資本流動，促進了大型金融機構業務全球化的需求。二是大型機構的效率較高。
但是很難相信第一個理由屬實。如果時光倒回十年，當時的高盛投資銀行就已經具備了全球實力，如今高盛資產負債表上的收益卻幾乎是它的五倍，所以真的很難相信，全球銀行應有的規模可以在短短的十年間迅速增長。
高效率的理由也同樣沒有什麼說服力。許多學術上的證據顯示，規模愈大的銀行不見得就愈有效率。在二千零二年，一項為美聯儲調查的報告指出，在美國、歐洲和日本的合併銀行中，能夠為公司帶來利益的規模上限約為五百億美元，層級為總資產負債表的低階。更高階的規模，則由於經營大型銀行太過複雜而產生不利因素，特別是對跨國銀行而言。
雖然這項報告也指出了某些大型銀行給予股東愈來愈多的紅利，但是並不表示他們本身處於盈利的狀態；這是因為，與資產額相比，他們可以在資產負債表上持有較少的資本額。因此，比起小型的金融機構，他們還可以借貸更多資金。這些政策也都受到決策者的支持，因為他們相信眾所皆知的明言：大銀行的風險較分散，比小銀行更為安全。他們也認為大銀行可提供較精密的風險管理系統。這個觀點卻被此次的金融危機給打破。其中之一的教訓是，今日相互關連的市場，使得風險分散的優勢比想像中的還要低。
人們真的需要大型銀行嗎？許多銀行家會異口同聲地說”要”。為世界最大的商務和投資銀行之一的德意志銀行，其首席執行長約瑟夫‧阿克曼在十一月份說道：「我們可以用中型儲蓄銀行來經營現代經濟的想法，完全是被誤導的」。但是他們的顧客，大型企業公司卻不這麼認為。公司一般認為，更多的小型銀行表示業務的擴展，從而確保他們得到最好的交易。而且大部份的大型商務或投資銀行交易，畢竟還是需要財團或銀行團體的支持來分散風險，外滙交易也是如此。別忘了顧客總是會貨比三家以取得最好的價格。 |
More Less | | Years of translation experience: 1. Registered at ProZ.com: Jan 2010. | | N/A | | N/A | | N/A | | Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word, Powerpoint | | English (DOC) | | About me I am currently taking an MA Translation & Interpreting course at the University of Westminster and am a registered freelance translator with Taiwanese translation company Linguitronics Co., Ltd. I have one year’s experience as an in-house translator/customer service advisor at a UK website company, Qsoft. I can provide translation services in a wide range of genres, for instance, from art critiques to legal documents. I am particularly interested in the legal translation. Hopefully, after graduation I will be able to work with a translation company specialised in the legal field. |
|
Keywords: Chinese, Mandarin, website, localisation, e-commerce, art, literature, anthropology, linguistics.
Profile last updated
May 19, 2010 |
The translation workplace 
Expertise