GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
07:27 Mar 28, 2014 |
English language (monolingual) [PRO] Bus/Financial - Accounting | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Charles Davis Spain Local time: 11:07 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Discussion entries: 3 | |
---|---|
at a cost, that is just slightly above zero Explanation: It means that the cost of something is very low, only so that you can just call it a cost. E.g. one party sells an industrial property or a machinery to another party at a cost of 1 euro. The reasons for selling something at nominal expense are various, it can be done e.g. for tax reasons. The term does in fact not exactly implify which party carries the cost, but normally it will the buyer. |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
at very small expense to / at very low cost to Explanation: One of the meanings of "nominal", and the relevant one here, I believe, is "very small in amount". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nominal?show=0&t=1... -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 11 mins (2014-03-28 07:38:52 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- In other words, "at nominal expense to X" means that it will cost X very little money. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 41 mins (2014-03-28 08:08:46 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- "Nominal" can have more specific meanings in economics. Nominal interest rates are those that do not allow for inflation. Nominal cost can mean the money cost of production. And you can talk about something being bought or sold for "nominal consideration", a purely symbolic cost such as one euro (which is what Aulikki is referring to): "Alpha Bank acquired Emporiki Bank from Credit Agricole for a nominal consideration of 1 euro." http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/10/alphabank-results-... But there's no reason to think that "at nominal expense to XY" means anything more specific than at very low expense, lower than you would normally expect whatever it is to cost. That is how the expression is almost always used. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 51 mins (2014-03-28 08:18:58 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Indeed, I can't find a single example of "at nominal expense to" in which it clearly means anything more specific than "at (very) low expense to". As I say, the fact that "nominal" has technical meanings in certain contexts doesn't mean that it has them here. It is not impossible that it means what Peter and Aulikki are suggesting, but there is no reason to think that it does, and I believe that if it did it would have been expressed differently ("at nominal cost" or "for nominal consideration"). "Natural regeneration would secure a new forest at nominal expense to the public" http://books.google.es/books?id=xMLW-rlQtVAC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA... "Thanks to sponsorship dollars from Toyota, this publication is produced at nominal expense to the state." http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsletters/legislative_bulletin... -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 hr (2014-03-28 09:20:04 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- I repeat: nominal expense is not necessarily symbolic expense (symbolic expense is unrelated to real expense, but this is not necessarily true of nominal expense), nor is it necessarily production cost. Since there is nothing in the source text quoted to indicate that it means anything more specific than very low expense, I don't think any more specific answer is justified here. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 1 hr (2014-03-28 09:21:43 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Your note to Peter, which I have just seen, confirms my feelings on this. "Disposed of at nominal expense" really must mean "disposed of at very low cost", nothing more. |
| |
Grading comment
| ||