Kieran McCann Aug 11, 2005:

the intransitive use of 'transf�rer' seems to imply that something else is understood, some specific financial/legal measure, some aspect of or change in ('s'adapter') the company's business or structure?

Non-ProZ.com Aug 11, 2005:

"Transfer" seems too obvious I appreciate the input so far - but given the context (which I may have originally inadequately given), I think there's something more. You don't "transfer" xxbn EUR d'actif if you don't say where you are transferring it to, do you? You "do something" with "actif" in this context - but what? Is it "increase. . . by . . .", perhaps?

Any ideas (or the right answer) would be much appreciated.

Non-ProZ.com Aug 11, 2005:

Further context In answer to Kieran - this is part of the minutes of a meeting with staff concerning the future of this large company:

"M. [Director] fait un expos� sur la situation �conomique et les orientations du groupe [company name] dans ses diff�rents secteurs d�activit�s.
"Il n�y a pas de raisons pour dire que 2005 sera une moins bonne ann�e que 2004 contrairement � d�autres soci�t�s.
"Toutes les d�cisions qui ont �t� prises vont dans le bon sens. [Company] va bien, les r�sultats sont positifs car le [company group] a pu s�adapter. En 3-4 ans le [company group] a transf�r� pour 4 milliards d�euros d�actif.

"Nous pr�parons � pr�sent le [company name] des ann�es 2010 et avons un projet ambitieux : atteindre les 9 milliards d�euros de CA en 2010"

To be honest I don't exactly know how "pour" is being used here - but I have seen it used in financial reports before in the sense of "for the sum of" - or that's how I implicitly translated it.

Kieran McCann Aug 11, 2005:

what is the context? why the 'pour'?