So why did Bouygues SA not have a direct stake of 69.5% in SAUR?

可是为什么布伊格股份有限公司不直接拥有SAUR的69.5％的股份呢？

Or, indeed, why was SAUR not a wholly owned subsidiary of Bouygues SA?

或者为什么SAUR实际上不是布伊格股份有限公司的全资子公司呢？

SAUR was the ideal vehicle for buying shares-it had a stable cashflow and almost no debt.

SAUR是一个购买股票的好理想工具——它有稳定的现金流也几乎没有外债。

Bouygues SA's management reported that the company had acquired a majority stake in SAUR.

布伊格股份有限公司管理层报告中称取得了SAUR的绝大多数股份。

But the splitting of Bouygues SA's interest into a direct stake and an indirect stake deprived its investors of control of SAUR.

但是分开计算布伊格股份有限公司的直接股份和间接股份的剥夺了它的投资者对于SAUR的控制权。

If it had taken a single direct holding, it would have controlled SAUR and Cofipex, and thus never have lost control of the 10% stake.

假使只有单次直接持股，它就会控股SAUR和Cofipex，也就不会丧失对那10%的股份控制权。

Note, too, that this transfer was possible only because Bouygues SA's stake in SAUR was divided between a direct 44.9% and an indirect 24.5%.

也请大家注意，此次股票转让之所以有可能实现，是因为布伊格股份有限公司所拥有的SAUR的股份分成44.9%的直接股份和24.5%间接股份。

Bouygues SA's shareholders were, in effect, footing most of the interest bill on SAUR's borrowings, because they had the greater economic interest in Maison Bouygues and SAUR.

实际上，SAUR的大部分借款利息由布伊格股份有限公司的股东支付，因为他们在Maison Bouygues和SAUR有更多的经济利益。

Taking account of its shareholdings in SAUR directly and indirectly, through Maison Bouygues, Bouygues SA's overall economic interest in SAUR was 69.5% and the brothers' interest a mere 26.5%.

把对SAUR直接和间接股份都通过Maison Bouygues公司纳入，布伊格股份有限公司总的在SAUR的经济利益是69.5%，布伊格兄弟的份额只有26.5%。