This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
Lowlands
Shoah

Glossary entry

English term or phrase:

at nominal expense to

English answer:

at very small expense to / at very low cost to

Added to glossary by Charles Davis
Mar 28, 2014 07:27
10 yrs ago
10 viewers *
English term

at nominal expense to

English Bus/Financial Accounting
Something will be done at nominal expense to XY. Could you, please, explain me the exact meaning of this term? Does it mean that XY bears the cost? What is nominal in this context? Thank you.
Responses
4 +4 at very small expense to / at very low cost to
5 at a cost, that is just slightly above zero
3 at the real price (of production), or at a symbolic price to buyer
Change log

Mar 29, 2014 23:10: Charles Davis Created KOG entry

Discussion

Peter Simon Mar 28, 2014:
@ Charles I'm glad and thanks for more explanation, which I find a correct analysis of what we know. However, let me point out that my suggestions do not limit the meaning, just on the contrary, I suggested both very low and price-equivalent meanings. Look at my double solution with ", or", whereas yours was only "at very small expense to / at very low cost to". That, originally, did not embrace both possibilities. Now we seem to agree and of course, it's always up to the asker to decide what suits her best. Actually, my feeling is that the original language was intentionally fuzzy on this, not simply for us, but more importantly, for the business partner. Otherwise they could have simply said 'nominal cost', or 'minimal expense', or 'for a nominal amount/sum'. They didn't. Why? I think they didn't want to be specifically asking for very cheep work. Business ... But this is also simply speculation, though not an impossible kind at all.
Charles Davis Mar 28, 2014:
@ Peter No problem! I don't take disagreement as an insult :)

My position is simply that "at very low cost" is as far as we can go here. What all the other suggestions on the table have in common is that they imply low costs, lower than a full commercial price. "Very low cost" doesn't exclude a cost just above zero or a symbolic cost — on the contrary — but it is not limited to those possibilities, and I don't think we have a sufficient basis here for being so specific. As for price it costs for making, with no profit, it's quite true that "nominal cost" can mean that, but again, it doesn't have to, and there's nothing here to suggest that it does. In fact, now that we know it refers to disposing of something, I think we can exclude that meaning, since "nominal expense" evidently refers here to how much it will cost the company to dispose of whatever it is; it is not, apparently, a sale at all. In short, I think your suggestions limit the meaning too much, whereas mine is sufficiently general to embrace all these possibilities.
Peter Simon Mar 28, 2014:
@ Charles Sorry, I disagreed with your opinion that it can only mean 'at very low cost' - I agree that it may mean that, but maintain that it can also mean something like 'at the price it costs for making', 'at real price', as that would also mean no profit for maker or middleman. I feel that's the point. I do not consider 'real price' too technical or specific in meaning. And we also agree that XY may mean both seller or buyer. Sorry if you feel disagreement too strong.

Responses

+4
10 mins
Selected

at very small expense to / at very low cost to

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.
Peer comment(s):
agree Arabic & More
59 mins
Thanks, Amel!
agree Parvathi Pappu : agree
1 hr
Thank, paru!
disagree Peter Simon : expense is what it costs for maker, so 'nominal expence to XY' may simply mean that exactly, and XY may or may not be the maker of the thing, it's also unclear
1 hr
I don't understand your grounds for disagreement. As you say, it's unclear whether XY is the maker or the buyer. Since we can't tell, anything more specific than I have said is unwarranted here.
agree Ashutosh Mitra
3 hrs
Thanks, Ashutosh!
agree Tina Vonhof (X)
8 hrs
Thanks, Tina :)
agree lorenab23 : :-) specially now that we have x-tra context
20 hrs
Yes, I think so too. Thanks, Lorena, and have a great weekend :)
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Thank you, this is perfectly clear and fits my context."
18 mins

at a cost, that is just slightly above zero

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.
Peer comment(s):
neutral Arabic & More : It doesn't have to be a figure just above zero. "Nominal fees" for a course, for example, could be $200, but they are nominal because it usually costs $500.
53 mins
Something went wrong...
40 mins

at the real price (of production), or at a symbolic price to buyer

A tricky one. Yes, XY is going to bear the cost, but the expense will be nominal. There you may have several, contradictory kinds of interpreting the term 'nominal' (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nominal... Yes, it is often meant to be 'minimal', 'slightly above zero', as colleagues have pointed out in the meantime, but in finances, it also has the meaning "Nominal cost is the money cost of production. It is also called expenses of production" (WikiAnswers.com). Nominal is also often meant to be compared to real value, that is, value or cost expressed in money terms as seen now v. real value that does not change with the comparable values of currencies. These various meanings are corroborated in the list of terms in the Financial Times Lexicon and Investopedia (below), and a big article explains it here: http://www.answers.com/topic/real-versus-nominal-value-econo... However, because those are mostly terms relating strictly to finances and money market terms, I would still be doubtful - it depends for me on the immediate context you need it for. As 'nominal prices' usually refers to bonds ... 'nominal expense' may still be 'very little', i.e. 'symbolic'.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 41 mins (2014-03-28 08:09:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Actually, my confidence could be '5' as well, as I'm sure it can mean all the above, depending.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2014-03-28 10:31:05 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Hm, I've just seen your remark, Miomira, thanks. I still don't feel that I could choose between the two meanings. Both cases would mean no profit for the one doing the job. Of course, asking it to be done for no cost would mean 'not costing them too much' more than what it does cost to doer. Can it mean 'practically no cost' in sensible business? If yes, then Charles' view holds and only one half of what I thought.
Example sentence:

Expressed in terms of current prices or figures, without making allowance for changes over time: the nominal exchange rate

A price that does not take account of inflation a price that does not represent the real cost or value of something the stated price that appears on a bond etc.

Reference:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nominal.asp

http://lexicon.ft.com/Search?searchText=nominal

Note from asker:
In my specific case, something has to be disposed of at nominal expense to the company. Therefore, I assume that it will be disposed of only if the disposal would not cost the company much.
Peer comment(s):
neutral Charles Davis : There is no reason to think that it means anything so specific here, and I think it's unlikely. "Nominal" doesn't necessarily mean "symbolic"; a nominal cost can still be an economic cost.
15 mins
Nothing 'specific' about it, Ch, it means either 'very small', i.e. symbolic contrasted w/ original, or 'as much as it cost now', 'face value'. But it depends on the circumstances, doesn't it, because it may mean both, not only what you've said.
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search