Glossary entry (derived from question below)
German term or phrase:
Sonderffekte
English translation:
one-off items
Added to glossary by
Marc Svetov
Sep 2, 2016 18:03
7 yrs ago
7 viewers *
German term
Sonderffekte
German to English
Bus/Financial
Accounting
Annual Financial Report
"Insgesamt ist damit für das Jahr xxxx von einer Ergebnisentwicklung unterhalb des Niveaus des durch Sondereffekte positiv geprägten Berichtsjahres auszugehen.
Darüber hinaus kann derzeit nicht davon ausgegangen werden, dass bestimmte Sondereffekte, die die Umsatzentwicklung im Jahr 2013 positiv beeinflusst haben, sich im Jahr xxxx gleichermaßen wiederholen lassen."
Darüber hinaus kann derzeit nicht davon ausgegangen werden, dass bestimmte Sondereffekte, die die Umsatzentwicklung im Jahr 2013 positiv beeinflusst haben, sich im Jahr xxxx gleichermaßen wiederholen lassen."
Proposed translations
(English)
5 +1 | one-off items | Ted Wozniak |
3 +2 | special factors | Michael Martin, MA |
4 | one-off developments | Andrew Bramhall |
3 +1 | particular circumstances | David Hollywood |
4 -1 | extraordinary (vs. exceptional) items | Adrian MM. (X) |
Proposed translations
+1
1 hr
Selected
one-off items
These are "one-off" or "extraordinary" items (as Adrian has already suggested). Either term is fine for the translation.
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thanks!"
10 mins
one-off developments
Beyond that you can't currently bank on the fact that certain one-off developments, which have had a positive influence on turnover in 2013, will have a similar effect in XXXX.
Sondereffekte = one-off developments ( but only in this context)
Sondereffekte = one-off developments ( but only in this context)
+1
9 mins
particular circumstances
to get the ball rolling
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 12 mins (2016-09-02 18:16:25 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
or: exceptional circumstances/factors
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 12 mins (2016-09-02 18:16:25 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
or: exceptional circumstances/factors
Peer comment(s):
neutral |
Andrew Bramhall
: agree with ' factors' more than ' circumstances';
8 mins
|
thanks Oliver
|
|
agree |
Michael Martin, MA
: With Oliver. 'Factors' is good/You bet. It's actually better than all the other terms, imo.
19 mins
|
thanks Michael
|
|
neutral |
RobinB
: I'm OK with "exceptional factors", but I'm afraid that "circumstances" are not what these Sondereffekte are about: they are quantitative factors that actually have a numerical effect on P&L.
12 hrs
|
ok Robin and thanks
|
+2
28 mins
special factors
"Toyota's operating profit was also partly inflated by special factors such as postponing booking some capital spending and other costs, Mr. Ijichi said." http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487040179045754085...
Peer comment(s):
agree |
RobinB
: They're often called "special factors" in German financial reports, too, even though it really sounds like translatorese (or more accurately, Denglish). It's one of several commonly used English translations, i.e. there is no single "right" answer here.
12 hrs
|
agree |
Ramey Rieger (X)
: Lovely loopholese
12 hrs
|
-1
35 mins
extraordinary (vs. exceptional) items
Extraordinary - out of the usual and irregular (Oliver T. > 'one-off'). Exceptional - in size or extent.
Some of us theatre/theater-goers (and ex-student cinema ushers or usherettes) would indeed prefer Hollywood or British Elstree Studios 'special effects'.
Some of us theatre/theater-goers (and ex-student cinema ushers or usherettes) would indeed prefer Hollywood or British Elstree Studios 'special effects'.
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Ted Wozniak
35 mins
|
Thanks. Glad you 'liked' the Hollywood joke.
|
|
disagree |
RobinB
: Sorry to have to disagree, but IFRSs haven't allowed "extraordinary" items for many years now, and they've also now been removed from European (and hence also German) GAAPs. But "exceptional" is OK./German companies don't use US GAAP, Adrian!
8 hrs
|
Doesn't matter about IFRS because 1. historical terminology in a/c & law may still be more descriptive & 2. Ted W's term of art is still hallowed in the asker's US: http://www.accountingtools.com extraordinary-items // I never meant to imply they did.
|
|
neutral |
Andrew Bramhall
: @RobinB- Adrian is " old school"!
1 day 13 hrs
|
Yes. No reason since 1998 in E&W to use Claimant - just because the Master of the Rolls disliked the term of Plaintiff.
|
|
disagree |
Björn Vrooman
: Have to follow suit, not only because I agree with Robin about the "regional" nature of these terms, but also because the links in the discussion as well as your own(!) link confirm that "extraordinary" should no longer be used - even in the US.
3 days 9 mins
|
Even if you & RobinB are unfaimiliar with Italian, your joint reverse logic would not work here: un onere straordinario = an extraordinary charge http://www.proz.com/kudoz/italian_to_english/finance_general...
|
Discussion
So this is a non-issue for me - I'm not sure what kind of "joint reverse logic" Adrian speaks of.
To your second part:
I think it's somewhat similar to, say, a political system. I won't suddenly call the German chancellor a president, just because I translate into AmE. Nor will I use the language of the Utah state legislature if I need to reference a certain EU directive. Like you, I don't see the logic in that. This isn't about convenience as in articles of journalism, where you may want to adjust your terminology, so the "average reader" can understand you.
One thing I'd like to ask you, though. Funnily enough, I have had the same term come up in one of my translations recently and the official ENS press release called them "other items incurred periodically, which are not the result of the Company's normal business operations."
Isn't that more in line with what you explained in your first post?
Thanks for posting the corroboration. I have to admit that I've taken my eye off US GAAP because it is of practically no relevance whatsoever for German preparers nowadays. There are at most a handful a couple of German companies reporting under US GAAP and reconciling to IFRSs (notably SAP), and last year a set of IFRS financial statements I was translating made reference to elements of US GAAP to "fill in the gap" in industry GAAP, but it really is extremely rare nowadays for DACH preparers to have anything to do with US GAAP.
It's interesting to see that all three accounting systems (IFRSs, US GAAP, German GAAP/HGB) now no longer permit "extraordinary" items (außerordentliche Posten).
Adrian's comment about the country of residence of the asker is, of course, also irrelevant: the terminology of the accounting system in question (IFRSs, German GAAP/HGB, Austrian GAAP/UGB, Swiss GAAP/FER) stays the same no matter what flavo(u)r of English you're translating into, in other words you don't suddenly start using (allegedly) US GAAP terms just because the client wants American English or the translator (or the target readership) is presumed to be in the US.
"The FASB on January 9, 2015, eliminated the seldom-used concept of 'extraordinary items' from U.S. GAAP."
https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/media-resources/news-media-re...
"It is extremely rare in current practice for a transaction or event to meet the requirements to be presented as an extraordinary item, but preparers nonetheless were spending time and incurring costs to assess whether events or transactions were extraordinary. The new standard eliminates the need for those assessments and eliminates the need for preparers, auditors, and regulators to evaluate whether a preparer treated an unusual and/or infrequent item appropriately."
http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/2015/jan/gaap-extra...
Differences between non-recurring and extraordinary:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/042413/financ...
Left to my own devices, I normally opt for something neutral like "non(-)recurring factors", but that's only if I can be absolutely sure that they really are one-time expense or income items. The problem is that very often, these things actually repeat from year to year, which means of course that they're not really "Sonder" at all, but rather an artificial device intended to obscure the fact that the company concerned didn't match its bottom-line or operating P&L target.
Anglosphere companies tend to talk about things like "adjusted" P&L and "P&L adjustments", that sort of thing, not least because many of them are actually prohibited by their regulator from indulging in the sort of faintly ludicrous word games that German CFOs get up to.