Betekenis van:
loss ratio

Voorbeeldzinnen

1. ‘loss given default (LGD)’ means the ratio of the loss on an exposure due to the default of a counterparty to the amount outstanding at default;
2. Taking account only of financial debts with less than one year and more than one year to run, the ratio increases from 80 % in 2001 to 114 % in 2002 and 150 % in 2003, years when SNCB posted a consolidated loss.
3. ‘expected loss (EL)’, for the purposes of Title V, Chapter 2, Section 3, shall mean the ratio of the amount expected to be lost on an exposure from a potential default of a counterparty or dilution over a one year period to the amount outstanding at default;
4. However, this heavy loss had a considerable negative impact on the core‐capital ratio intended as a cushion against possible further losses and hence essential to viability, which dropped as a result to 5,6 % and thus by a considerable margin of almost [...]* % fell short of the [...]* % figure originally planned for 2002.
5. Its financial debts, as expressed in the consolidated accounts, went up from EUR 3,9 billion in 2001 to EUR 5 billion in 2002 and EUR 6,2 billion in 2003, compared with total consolidated debts of EUR 8,6 billion in 2001, EUR 9,6 billion in 2002 and EUR 10,7 billion in 2003, whereas its equity fell from EUR 4,9 billion in 2001 to EUR 4,4. billion in 2002 and EUR 4,2 billion in 2003. Taking account only of financial debts with less than one year and more than one year to run, the ratio increases from 80 % in 2001 to 114 % in 2002 and 150 % in 2003, years when SNCB posted a consolidated loss.
6. For regional banks/savings banks, the potential for recovery was severely restricted both by the loss of institutional liability and guarantor liability (Anstaltslast and Gewährträgerhaftung) and by Basle II. The target yields before tax of around 6 to 7 % (according to the original notification) or [...]** % (according to the revised medium‐term plan of 24 June 2003) were not directly comparable with the yields of competitors since BGB’s core‐capital ratio during the restructuring phase contained a ‘safety buffer’ to ensure refinancing on the capital market, partly to offset the total absence of hidden reserves.
7. The first measure consisted of a capital injection fully subscribed by the Netherlands which allowed ING Group to increase its Core-Tier 1 capital by EUR 10 billion [11]. The Commission noted in its decision approving the rescue aid (N 528/08) that the reasons for the loss of market confidence in ING, which triggered the State intervention, was due to the perceived toxicity of the Alt-A portfolio, market concerns about further write downs, the capital needs of ING Insurance and the deteriorating debt to equity ratio of ING group.
8. Admittedly, the annual loss of approximately EUR 700 million (after tax) was due predominantly to exceptional items (minus EUR 593 million), in particular substantial write-downs on Euro-Stoxx holdings of EUR 399 million, while the operating result less the provision for contingencies was only slightly negative (minus EUR 23 million) and was indeed around EUR 30 million better than that anticipated in the plan for 2002 (minus EUR 53 million). However, this heavy loss had a considerable negative impact on the core‐capital ratio intended as a cushion against possible further losses and hence essential to viability, which dropped as a result to 5,6 % and thus by a considerable margin of almost [...]* % fell short of the [...]* % figure originally planned for 2002.