Vertaling van "Floating capital " (Engels → Nederlands) :

floating capital | net current asset | net working capital | working capital

amortisation of circulating capital | amortization of circulating capital | sinking of floating capital

circulating capital | floating capital | net current assets | working capital

Any execution performed at the behest of the judiciary or ruling authority [whether permanent or temporary], such as:asphyxiation by gas | beheading, decapitation (by guillotine) | capital punishment | electrocution | hanging | poisoning | shooting

Capitate [os magnum] Hamate [unciform] Lunate [semilunar] Pisiform Trapezium [greater multangular] Trapezoid [lesser multangular] Triquetrum [cuneiform of carpus]

Capitate bone

Capital epiphysis of femur

Australian Capital Territory

floats and mooring ropes maintaining | maintaining floats and mooring ropes | aquaculture cage equipment maintaining | maintain aquaculture cage equipment

Broad- or floating-betalipoproteinaemia Fredrickson's hyperlipoproteinaemia, type IIb or III Hyperbetalipoproteinaemia with prebetalipoproteinaemia Hypercholesterolaemia with endogenous hyperglyceridaemia Hyperlipidaemia, group C Tubero-eruptive xanthoma Xanthoma tuberosum

The three-month LIBOR margin benchmark shall be a rate equivalent to the average of the lowest 50 % of the margins over: (i) three-month LIBOR charged for floating rate transactions and (ii) three-month LIBOR as interpolated by swapping the fixed rate issuance to a floating rate equivalent charged for fixed rate transactions or capital market issuances.

As a result, the State obtained a 43,4 % stake in ÖVAG and became the second-biggest shareholder after the Volksbanken Holding (then 50,2 %), thereby diluting the stakes of the other shareholders, which did not participate in the capital injection: DZ-Bank 3,8 %, ERGO 1,5 %, RZB 0,9 %, and free float 0,1 %.

31. Recognises the important role played by money market funds (MMFs) in the financing of financial institutions in the short run and in allowing for risk diversification; recognises the different role and structure of MMFs based in the EU and the US; recognises that the 2010 ESMA guidelines imposed stricter standards on MMFs (credit quality, maturity of underlying securities and better disclosure to investors); notes, however, that some MMFs, in particular those offering a stable net asset value to investors, are vulnerable to massive runs; stresses, therefore, that additional measures need to be taken to improve the resilience of these funds and to cover the liquidity risk; supports the October 2012 IOSCO final report in its proposed ...[+++] recommendations for the regulation and management of MMFs across jurisdictions; believes that MMFs that offer a stable net asset value (NAV) should be subject to measures designed to reduce the specific risks associated with their stable NAV feature and internalise the costs arising from these risks; considers that regulators should require, where workable, a conversion to floating/variable NAV, or, alternatively, safeguards should be introduced to reinforce stable NAV MMFs’ resilience and ability to face significant redemptions; invites the Commission to submit a review of the UCITS framework, with particular focus on the MMF issue, in the first half of 2013, by requiring MMFs either to adopt a variable asset value with a daily evaluation or, if retaining a constant value, to be obliged to apply for a limited-purpose banking licence and be subject to capital and other prudential requirements; stresses that regulatory arbitrage must be minimised;

31. Recognises the important role played by money market funds (MMFs) in the financing of financial institutions in the short run and in allowing for risk diversification; recognises the different role and structure of MMFs based in the EU and the US; recognises that the 2010 ESMA guidelines imposed stricter standards on MMFs (credit quality, maturity of underlying securities and better disclosure to investors); notes, however, that some MMFs, in particular those offering a stable net asset value to investors, are vulnerable to massive runs; stresses, therefore, that additional measures need to be taken to improve the resilience of these funds and to cover the liquidity risk; supports the October 2012 IOSCO final report in its proposed ...[+++] recommendations for the regulation and management of MMFs across jurisdictions; believes that MMFs that offer a stable net asset value (NAV) should be subject to measures designed to reduce the specific risks associated with their stable NAV feature and internalise the costs arising from these risks; considers that regulators should require, where workable, a conversion to floating/variable NAV, or, alternatively, safeguards should be introduced to reinforce stable NAV MMFs’ resilience and ability to face significant redemptions; invites the Commission to submit a review of the UCITS framework, with particular focus on the MMF issue, in the first half of 2013, by requiring MMFs either to adopt a variable asset value with a daily evaluation or, if retaining a constant value, to be obliged to apply for a limited-purpose banking licence and be subject to capital and other prudential requirements; stresses that regulatory arbitrage must be minimised;