https://www.proz.com/kudoz/french-to-english/accounting/2474272-produits-op%C3%A9rationnels-vs-produits-dexploitation.html
This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
  1. KudoZ™ Top
  2. French to English
  3. Accounting

produits opérationnels VS produits d'exploitation

English translation: operating income vs other income from operations

21:00 Mar 13, 2008
French to English translations [PRO]
Bus/Financial - Accounting / Income statement
French term or phrase: produits opérationnels VS produits d'exploitation
From a financial report:

Ces produits étant considérés comme exceptionnels par leur montant, mais pas par leur nature, ils ont été comptabilisés en " autres produits d'exploitation " et non en " autres produits opérationnels ".

Thanks
David BUICK
Local time: 14:57
English translation: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.
Selected response from:

rkillings
United States
Local time: 05:57
Grading comment
thanks for your help and comments.
3 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
4operating income vs other income from operations
rkillings
3operational income VS management returns
gabuss


Discussion entries: 1





  

Answers


24 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5
operational income VS management returns


Explanation:
je suppose

gabuss
Local time: 12:57
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in FrenchFrench
PRO pts in category: 8
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

3 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
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.

rkillings
United States
Local time: 05:57
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 393
Grading comment
thanks for your help and comments.
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.

Return to KudoZ list

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:
ProZ.com term search
Search millions of term translations