2

Consider:

The first layer might provide indemnification for losses between $50 million and $60 million, the next layer might cover losses between $60 million and $70 million.

I think "for" here fits the 3rd definition (concerning someone or something) in OALD.

The most obvious risk for an insurance company is that the policy reserves are not sufficient to meet the claims of policyholders.

I think "for" here fits the 12th definition (used after some nouns, adjectives, or verbs in order to introduce more information or to indicate what a quality, thing, or action relates to.) in Collins.

The European Union is working on Solvency II which assigns capital for a wider set of risks than Solvency I.

I think "for" here fits the 1st definition (used to show who is intended to have or use something or where something is intended to be put) in OALD.

However, I wonder why sometimes to is used instead. You don't need to explain by using simple examples like "give/sing/explain sth to sb", or "get/buy/bring sth for sb" because I think "for" here does not fall into this category.

Sometimes pensions are adjusted for inflation. This is known as indexation.

I think "for" here fits the 9th definition (used to show a reason or cause) in OALD.

Defined contribution plans involve very little risk for employers.

I think "for" here fits the 8th definition (used when you make a statement about something in order to say how it affects or relates to someone, or what their attitude to it is.) in Collins.

A combination of negative equity returns and declining interest rates is a nightmare for all managers of defined benefit plans. This combination created a “perfect storm” for defined benefit pension plans.

I think the first "for" fits the 8th definition to say how it affects sb, and the second also fits this to say how it affects sth.

I quote these examples from Risk Management and Financial Institutions, 3rd Ed. written by John Hull.

Am I correct in understanding all the "for" above? Plz go through them one by one.

I have got the designation of Financial Risk Manager, so you don't need to explain any financial terms to me.

closed as too broad by Maulik V, nxx, StoneyB, choster, snailcar Mar 20 '14 at 12:02

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • too broad this is. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for – Maulik V Mar 18 '14 at 11:36
  • I can't match these definitions with my examples, so I open a queation. I don't think it's broad since I have added examples here. This question has confused me for a long time. @Maulik V – Kinzle B Mar 18 '14 at 11:40
  • wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=for and many such dictionaries. As you stated that you looked into OALD, I'm just suggesting to refer other books as well - Collins, McMillian, Merriam-Webster, WordWeb and so on. – Maulik V Mar 18 '14 at 11:46
  • 1
    'A leg for you' might also mean a chicken leg that you are supposed to eat. :P – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 12:05
  • 2
    @Zhanlong Zheng This is an excellent question, and it is great that you have provided examples. But I also think that this question is "too broad" - which just means that answers will be too long and, given the number of examples, akin to answering several questions at once. Could you ask about which dictionary definitions or for as [x] type of word you have trouble understanding, rather than asking what "for" is/means in examples? – nxx Mar 18 '14 at 19:08
-1

This problem creates a complication for actuaries and accountants.

Here, for relates the problem to the actuaries and accountants. It acts like a prepositon, and like a function word to indicate the object or recipient of a perception. Here for qualifies the noun as it is a preposition here.

The example shows calculation of operating ratio for a property-casualty insurance company.

Here, for tells us that the operating ratio is directed towards the insurance company. Again being a preposition, it qualifies the noun.

In the United States, health insurance has been an important consideration for most people.

Here, for acts in a similar way to the first one, pointing towards the recipient of the perception.

The first layer might provide indemnification for losses between $50 million and $60 million, the next layer might cover losses between $60 million and $70 million.

Here, for tells us that the 'indemnification' (not quite sure what that means) is directed towards the losses. As above, here too, it is a preposition.

The balance sheets for life insurance and property-casualty insurance companies are different.

*For acts similar to the above case.

The most obvious risk for an insurance company is that the policy reserves are not sufficient to meet the claims of policyholders.

For acts as in the first case.

The European Union is working on Solvency II which assigns capital for a wider set of risks than Solvency I.

Here, *for acts as in the fourth case.

Sometimes pensions are adjusted for inflation. This is known as indexation.

Here adjusted for is a phrasal verb. ( A verb+preposition combination.) So here, for qualifies the verb.

Defined contribution plans involve very little risk for employer.

As in the first case.

A combination of negative equity returns and declining interest rates is a nightmare for all managers of defined benefit plans.

Similar to the first case.

This combination created a “perfect storm” for defined benefit pension plans.

Here, the meaning depends on the context. I take it to mean "in favour of".

I've tried to explain things the best I could, from my point of view, which may not be right sometimes.

No, in these sentence for cannot be replaced by 'of'. Only when for describes a fraction as 'three for four days' can it be replaced by 'of' .

  • Thx, some of your explanations enlighten me, but some are obviously wrong. I guess that you don't fully understand what some examples try to say because of the financial subject. – Kinzle B Mar 18 '14 at 12:30
  • Yes, a little bit more context would help here. – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 12:31
  • By the way, which of these do you think must be wrong? – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 12:32
  • 1
    For is a preposition in this case. Wikipedia says: "The word preposition comes from Latin, a language in which such a word is usually placed before its complement. (Thus it is pre-positioned.) English is another such language." So in English, the preposition complents the word after it. – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 13:20
  • 1
    'For' can be an adverbial clause in relation to time and space only. In other words it becomes a prepostition of space and time. and then it qualifies both the noun and verb. See also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prepositional_adverb. – Adil Ali Mar 18 '14 at 13:26

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.