Aug 27, 2014 11:53
10 yrs ago
1 viewer *
Russian term
параметры вероятности показателей
Russian to English
Other
Mathematics & Statistics
Документы Базельского комитета рекомендуют для построения надежных параметров вероятности показателей деятельности банка использовать ряды динамики как минимум за 7 лет.
A colleague recommended that I could drop "probability" without changing the meaning, but I am not so sure.
The aim appears to be to establish how likely it is that the indicators are reasonable. But perhaps "reliable" (as in "reliable parameters") covers this sufficiently and so I can indeed drop "probability".
In any case, "probability of indicators" sound wrong.
Any thoughts?
Thank you.
A colleague recommended that I could drop "probability" without changing the meaning, but I am not so sure.
The aim appears to be to establish how likely it is that the indicators are reasonable. But perhaps "reliable" (as in "reliable parameters") covers this sufficiently and so I can indeed drop "probability".
In any case, "probability of indicators" sound wrong.
Any thoughts?
Thank you.
Proposed translations
(English)
Proposed translations
+1
2 hrs
Selected
...that historical data used to calculate a/the bank's performance metrics go back at least 7 years
This is what it would look like in normal English as used by someone working in or familiar with the financial industry "as she is" in the US. What it means is that the data sample used to calculate average performance metrics, such as earnings, capitalization, loan portfolio performance, etc. should cover at least the preceding seven years.
The original Russian sentence is an absolute abomination (a string of 6 genitives, the record being seven, no?) and it results in an even bigger one when translated into English anywhere close to the original. You need to rephrase.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day1 hr (2014-08-28 13:27:17 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sure, you can say "... that to ensure reliability, historical data used... blah blah". There isn't really anything about financial performance metrics that would make them particularly "reliable" or "robust" in the engineering sense. They are ratios - such as price to earnings, price to book, percentage of bad loans in the bank's portfolio (actually, probably a whole bunch of those in this case, I am not much of a banking expert), etc. There is no reliability issue involved - not in the sense of, say, being able to reliably measure a vehicle's speed, or the engine's RPMs, or a person's weight without being off by ten pounds. There is no such risk with financial ratios. They are just formulas. If a regulator or industry group, such as Basel, believes that 7 years of performance data is sufficient for their purposes (which is mostly for disclosure) to calculate the ratio, then that's all you have to do, plug the data in and make sure the calculations are accurate. That's it. Of course, for the most part both you and your regulator still come out wrong - because, as they say in mutual fund prospectuses, past performance does not guarantee future results - but that's already a totally different story. Cheers.
The original Russian sentence is an absolute abomination (a string of 6 genitives, the record being seven, no?) and it results in an even bigger one when translated into English anywhere close to the original. You need to rephrase.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day1 hr (2014-08-28 13:27:17 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Sure, you can say "... that to ensure reliability, historical data used... blah blah". There isn't really anything about financial performance metrics that would make them particularly "reliable" or "robust" in the engineering sense. They are ratios - such as price to earnings, price to book, percentage of bad loans in the bank's portfolio (actually, probably a whole bunch of those in this case, I am not much of a banking expert), etc. There is no reliability issue involved - not in the sense of, say, being able to reliably measure a vehicle's speed, or the engine's RPMs, or a person's weight without being off by ten pounds. There is no such risk with financial ratios. They are just formulas. If a regulator or industry group, such as Basel, believes that 7 years of performance data is sufficient for their purposes (which is mostly for disclosure) to calculate the ratio, then that's all you have to do, plug the data in and make sure the calculations are accurate. That's it. Of course, for the most part both you and your regulator still come out wrong - because, as they say in mutual fund prospectuses, past performance does not guarantee future results - but that's already a totally different story. Cheers.
Note from asker:
Hi Misha. This sounds good to me, but why is the idea of "reliability" dropped? Do you see it as unnecessary, i.e. the bank would assume that its performance indicators are reliable / robust. Thanks. |
Peer comment(s):
agree |
AKhram
3 hrs
|
neutral |
DLyons
: This makes sense, but doesn't address the core issue IMHO.// the robustness of the indicators.
4 hrs
|
And the core issue is?//You are missing the point. It's not about robustness of indicators. It's about the proper way of calculating financial performance metrics. I can tell you are not a finance person.
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you everyone. I checked with my client and indeed the idea of "reliability" was superfluous. "
26 mins
robust performance ratio estimators
This is obviously a non-literal translation - but that's what they mean.
38 mins
parameters of probability of indicators
The documents of the Basel Committee recommend that, in order to construct reliable parameters of probability of indicators of performance of the bank, one should use dynamic series for a minimum of 7 years.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 39 mins (2014-08-27 12:33:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
It makes sense to me, as a trained probability mathematician. However, the context may be beyond my experience.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 39 mins (2014-08-27 12:33:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
It makes sense to me, as a trained probability mathematician. However, the context may be beyond my experience.
Peer comment(s):
neutral |
DLyons
: It doesn't make sense to me as another trained probability mathematician :-)
13 mins
|
1 hr
developing reliable performance parameters
Covers all of this!
построения надежных параметров вероятности показателей деятельности
построения надежных параметров вероятности показателей деятельности
6 hrs
см.
"для построения надежных параметров вероятности показателей деятельности банка" - for reliable estimation of bank performance parameters
Оцениваются сами показатели (а не какие-то их вероятности). Причём, подозреваю, оцениваются даже не показатели деятельности банка, а риски :)
Оцениваются сами показатели (а не какие-то их вероятности). Причём, подозреваю, оцениваются даже не показатели деятельности банка, а риски :)
Discussion