gangels (X) Oct 24, 2010:

buchwertneutral .... is an oxymoron, since Buchwert (book value) is already the baseline (or dead center/pivot point, if you will) of a company's assigned value. While most companies sell at a premium to book value (see my earlier remarks), if for whatever reason a business is held in low esteem, it can sell AT book value (what the individual parts would hypothetically bring if sold off separately, including good will and receivables, less liabilities) or 'BELOW book', i.e. at a discount (selling below book hardly ever happens to a going company, though silver miners did when silver went for $2.50 an ounce). 'Carrying costs' (not amounts) are simply balance sheet entries, e.g., American banks still 'carry' mortgages as assets on their balance sheets when they really should be written off. Keeping them on are 'carrying costs.' Manufacturers list carrying costs for inventory, for example, which gets favorable tax treatment.

It's true, RobinB, book and breakup value is not the same, used it to make a point only. Book value is assigned to a solvent, going business, break-up value is assigned to a bankrupt business, its parts are basically auctioned off to satisfy the creditors with the proceeds

Ted Wozniak Oct 24, 2010:

@Sebastian "pls enlighten me what made you render "x-neutral" as "at the x". That doesn't make sense to me being just a regular guy from round the corner, even though I do not question you guyses' authority in the field. To me "x-neutral" means no impact on x."

It's a question of using the standard term of art (Fachjargon/terminus technicus). You are indeed correct that "x-neutral" means "no impact on x". Ergebnisneutral "means" "no impact on net income", while by the same token, "x-wirksam" literally means "with an impact on/affecting x".

But that is not how these concepts are expressed in English accounting terminology. There are a few options available depending on the particular item. As Robin has pointed out previously, ergebnis-, erfolgs- and ertragsneutral can (should) be rendered as "recognized directly to OCI" (or to a specific equity account if known) or as a negative, e.g. "not recognized in profit and loss". The "-wirksam" terms work the same way, e.g. "recognized as income (an expense)", "recognized in profit and loss", "recognized in the income statement". That's the terminology used by English-speaking accountants.

RobinB Oct 24, 2010:

@gangels "break-up value" = Liquidationswert, which has *nothing* to do with the Buchwert = carrying amount (previously called "book value" in German GAAP accounting, now "carrying amount" under both IFRSs and German GAAP), which is simply the amount at which an item is measured in the financial statements in accordance with the relevant GAAP and the reporting entity's accounting policies. This really is accounting 101!

RobinB Oct 24, 2010:

Accounting dictionary David: Try the new Wessels/Wessels dictionary rather than the old Hamblock/Wessels. The new one has a number of shortcomings, but I'd certainly regard it as an improvement over H/W.
As far as writing my own dictionary is concerned, this has been an on-off project for almost ten years now. More off than on, I'm afraid. With around 5,000 German GAAP terms and well over 30,000 IFRS terms to consider (plus a couple of thousand general accounting terms), it's not something that can be done in a couple of weekends! I do have an expert collaborator (WP) lined up to help me in particular with the E->G part (plus a bunch of very eager revisers from the accounting side), but neither of us has enough time at the moment. So it's probably something we'll get to when we decide to semi-retire.

DFTS (X) Oct 24, 2010:

Thanks for the tip Robin! I do recall having read something written by you to this effect in the past but I had forgotten which dictionaries were mentioned. Luckily I only recently ordered Schäfer, so there is time to return it and get Zahn and Hemblock/Wessels instead. You should write a German<>English accounting dictionary yourself someday! It would really be something to have that directly instead of only having the Kudoz term search function to tap into your knowledge!

RobinB Oct 24, 2010:

Schäfer David: Avoid Schäfer at all costs. I have written many times in the past that I believe Schäfer to be a criminal waste of trees, and I see no reason to change my opinion. It is littered with (mis)translations of German terms for which there are perfectly good English *equivalents* and has apparently been compiled by people with little or no knowledge of the language of the subject area.
Unfortunately there are no reliable dictionaries for accounting, either in print or in electronic form. Roman and Dietl are useful for legal terminology, but no more than that. Zahn is of course still very useful for banking and stock market terminology, and you might like to try out the new Wessels/Wessels financial dictionary as well (though certainly not for accounting).
You really shouldn't get too bothered about whether dictionaries are electronic or not. Many (possibly most) of the best dictionaries are only available in print form (this in fact applies to all reference works in the fields of finance and law), and you should aim to use the best references, not just those that are available electronically.

DFTS (X) Oct 23, 2010:

Ted and Robin, while we are on the subject, have you by any chance had a better impression of Schäfers Wirtschaftsenglisch than Romain and Deitl/Lorenz for accounting? Which dictionaries are a safer bet (preferably available in electronic form)? Thanks

Elizabeth Kelly (asker) Oct 23, 2010:

@ Robin: Yes, it's the Romain, which is a pretty good dictionary. I did not realise that you could not trust it in relation to accounting terminology.
Thank you both for your expertise, also in relation to "liquiditätswirksam". I have implemented both.

RobinB Oct 23, 2010:

@Elizabeth By "Wörterbuch der Rechts- und Wirtschaftssprache" I presume you mean Romain. This is indeed a good legal dictionary, in particular in combination with Dietl. But both Romain and Dietl should not be consulted for financial terminology - they're both pretty hopeless here.

And what Ted says about omitting "neutral" is absolutely correct. The German word "neutral" is generally not translated as such in accounting. Example: "erfolgsneutral" (or "ergebnisneutral") is "recognised in other comprehensive income" or "recognised directly in equity", depending on the context.

Ted Wozniak Oct 23, 2010:

no neutral "neutral carrying amount" doesn't say anything in English. "at the carrying amount" is what "buchwertneutral" means.

Elizabeth Kelly (asker) Oct 23, 2010:

@Ted Should the "neutral" part be omitted altogether or can I say at a neutral carrying amount?

Ted Wozniak Oct 23, 2010:

liquiditätswirksam zu verkaufen = cash sale/to dispose of for cash. Doesn't help much with your question but I stand by my answer. You could probably combine both German sentences into one translation if you can get "cash sale at the carrying amount" or "dispose of for cash at the carrying amount" or "sold to XY for cash at the carrying amount".

Elizabeth Kelly (asker) Oct 23, 2010:

@Ted The exact previous sentence is: „Im Berichtsjahr wurde aus Perspektive der XX Gruppe beschlossen, einen Teil dieser Abteilung liquiditätswirksam über den Weg der XX und im Rahmen eines gruppenweit angelegten Sale Agreements an die XY zu verkaufen und die Dienstleistungsversorgung mittels eines Pools mit der XX zu gewährleisten.“
Not sure, if that helps ;-)

Ted Wozniak Oct 23, 2010:

What exactly was the previous German sentence about "impact on liquidity"? All of these "-neutral" and "-(un)wirksam" terms have specific meanings in accounting.

I'd hazard also to guess that the proper German word should have been "Etragsneutral" oder "Erfolgsneutral", which means "not recognized in profit and loss" or "recognized directly to equity".