最初に本件の背景をご説明します。モニター後のA報告で予期せぬ課題が発生しました。
これはB、すなわちこれから説明するCの率に起因するものです。
Pのレートは年々弱まり、大きな為替変動のためリスクがあると考えられます。
また実際は円で支払われるにも関わらずドル契約となっているものもあります。
ところが、Dの後Eの結果が出て、C適用率はFの値に届かないことがわかりました。
では、C比率を上げればFを達成できるか。答えは残念ながらノーでした。
なぜならGではHのレートを前提に計算していました。
評価
52
翻訳 / 英語
- 2019/02/25 14:00:07に投稿されました
First of all, I would like to explain this matter's background.
The unanticipated problem incurred in a report after monitor.
This is because of B. It means this is because of C rate which I will explain from now on.
The rate of P has decreased gradually. I think there is a risk because of incremental exchange rate fluctuation.
Also, there are some contracts with USD even though they make a payment with JPY in fact.
However, we found based on E result after D that C apply rate does not reach F amount.
Then, will we reach F if we increase C rate? The answer is no unfortunately.
This is because we calculated in G based on the rate of H.
tgvicektxさんはこの翻訳を気に入りました
The unanticipated problem incurred in a report after monitor.
This is because of B. It means this is because of C rate which I will explain from now on.
The rate of P has decreased gradually. I think there is a risk because of incremental exchange rate fluctuation.
Also, there are some contracts with USD even though they make a payment with JPY in fact.
However, we found based on E result after D that C apply rate does not reach F amount.
Then, will we reach F if we increase C rate? The answer is no unfortunately.
This is because we calculated in G based on the rate of H.
評価
50
翻訳 / 英語
- 2019/02/25 14:00:59に投稿されました
First of all, allow me to explain the background of this matter. An unexpected issue has occurred in the A reporting after monitoring.
This is B, in other words incurred from C's rate which I am going to explain now.
P's rate has been weakened each year, and there appears to be a risk due to the major exchange rate fluctuation.
Also in reality, despite the amount is paid in JPY, some of the agreements are concluded in USD.
Nonetheless, it has turned out that the applicable rate for C does not reach to the value of F as a result of E after D.
So, could we attain F by raising the rate of C? The answer was no, unfortunately.
This is because the calculation was made with H's rate as a premise in G.
tgvicektxさんはこの翻訳を気に入りました
This is B, in other words incurred from C's rate which I am going to explain now.
P's rate has been weakened each year, and there appears to be a risk due to the major exchange rate fluctuation.
Also in reality, despite the amount is paid in JPY, some of the agreements are concluded in USD.
Nonetheless, it has turned out that the applicable rate for C does not reach to the value of F as a result of E after D.
So, could we attain F by raising the rate of C? The answer was no, unfortunately.
This is because the calculation was made with H's rate as a premise in G.
![[削除済みユーザ]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/695023b4efd563721d13716b1457bc73.png?d=identicon&mode=crop&r=PG&s=42)
評価
50
翻訳 / 英語
- 2019/02/25 14:00:59に投稿されました
I will first explain the background of this case.
An unexpected issue occured with report A after monitoring it.
Which is B. That is due to the rate of C still not being explained.
The rate of P weakened year by year, it is thought that there is a rist due to a large exchange rate fluctuation.
Also, there are som dollar contracts in effect despite these being paid in yen. However, After D we got the results of E and found that C's application rate did not reach the value for F.
So is it possible to achieve F by increasing the ratio for C?
If you ask me why, it's because in G, the rate of H was calculated this way.
An unexpected issue occured with report A after monitoring it.
Which is B. That is due to the rate of C still not being explained.
The rate of P weakened year by year, it is thought that there is a rist due to a large exchange rate fluctuation.
Also, there are som dollar contracts in effect despite these being paid in yen. However, After D we got the results of E and found that C's application rate did not reach the value for F.
So is it possible to achieve F by increasing the ratio for C?
If you ask me why, it's because in G, the rate of H was calculated this way.
