Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

55 views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Forex risk
- Calculating Value at Risk
- MBA (E) 2017-19 2nd Semester All Subjects Syllabus Copy
- Extreme Value Theory in R
- Report on the Risks of Financial Modeling, VaR and The
- Bland 1986 Lancet
- new vison
- Crisis
- Swedbank's Interim Report Q2 2012
- Statistics Assignment Sample Solved
- Taleb Testimony
- Cp&Cpk
- Var
- IAS Sample Risk Report
- Syllabus.pdf
- ARF 116.0 Market Risk
- Sinr_wireless Communication Systems
- stress tests
- bcbs57
- 41453

You are on page 1of 11

Royal Bank of Canada, Group Risk Management Trading & Insurance, 200 Bay Street,

15th floor, South Tower, Royal Bank Plaza, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2J5

This paper presents a new probabilistic denition of component value-at-risk (VaR). It is

shown that, for well-behaved return distributions, this denition is equivalent to the

standard denition of component VaR. However, this new approach is convenient

because it has a graphical interpretation and facilitates rigorous analysis. Furthermore,

it leads naturally to component VaR estimators for both parametric and scenario-based

risk management systems. These estimators are applied to a sample portfolio and

present a simulation to recommend which estimator should be used in practice.

1. INTRODUCTION

Value-at-risk (VaR) has become an indispensable tool for daily risk manage-

ment at nancial institutions (see Jorion 2000; JP Morgan 1996). Its eective-

ness stems from its ability to aggregate risk across products and portfolios.

However, proactive risk management requires a more comprehensive risk

analysis. This has led to the introduction of three closely related VaR tools:

component VaR (CVaR), incremental VaR (IVaR), and marginal VaR (MVaR).

In layman's terms, marginal VaR is the change in VaR resulting from adding $1

of exposure to a position. Incremental VaR is the change in VaR due to adding

a new position of any specied size. Thus marginal VaR is a good measure of

sensitivity to small position changes, whereas incremental VaR accounts for

nonlinearities that may be signicant for large position changes.

This paper focuses on the analysis and calculation of CVaR, which measures

the contribution that an arbitrary subportfolio makes to the aggregate VaR. In

other words, component VaR provides a decomposition of risk that accounts

for diversication. CVaR is a complement to VaR that provides insight into

hedging and estimates the impact of changes to portfolio positions. However, an

ecient means of calculating CVaR is well known only for parametric VaR

systems that assume that returns are normally distributed (see Garman 1996,

1997). This leaves an important void for value-at-risk systems that use Monte

Carlo, historical simulation, or a parametric approach with nonnormal return

distributions. Thus, the key contribution of this paper is that it provides a

practical means to estimate CVaR for all value-at-risk systems. The secondary

goal of this work is to provide a general framework that facilitates both

theoretical and practical analysis of component VaR. This will conveniently

allow researchers and practitioners to study the properties of CVaR and to

develop new estimators that are tailored to their specic purposes. Interested

57

readers should also refer to the paper by Hallerbach (1999), which independ-

ently took a similar approach to developing general CVaR estimators.

In Section 2 we formulate a mathematically precise denition of CVaR. This

will provide the framework for further analysis, which we will pursue in

Section 3. Section 4 investigates the practical estimation of CVaR. We will see

that the new denition provided in Section 2 leads naturally to both parametric

and scenario-based estimators. In addition, we apply these CVaR estimators to a

sample nonlinear portfolio. This section also contains a simulation experiment

and discussion that investigate the behavior of these estimators.

2. A FORMAL DEFINITION OF CVAR

Suppose that we are given two portfolios, T and o. Normally we expect that o is a

subportfolio of T, but this need not be the case. Let S and P be random variables

that model the prot and loss (P&L) of portfolios o and T, respectively. The

component VaR of S, denoted CVaR(S), is the expected contribution of S to the

VaR of P. More precisely,

CVaR(S) = E[S [ P = VaR(P)]. (1)

where VaR(P) satises Pr

P - VaR(P)

In other words, the component VaR of S indicates the expected P&L of portfolio

o in the event that P realizes its VaR. Note that this denition and the discussion

that follows is general enough that there is no need to explicitly set the condence

level associated with VaR. Also note that the conditioning is on negative VaR(P)

because VaR is normally expressed in terms of loss. Refer to the Appendix to see

that this denition is equivalent to the JP Morgan denition of incremental VaR

1

(see Laubsch 1999) for suciently smooth random variables.

3. ANALYSIS OF CVAR

This section uses denition (1) as the basis for analysis that provides a rigorous

understanding of component VaR as well as practical formulas for its calcula-

tion. The following theorem expresses CVaR in terms of convenient statistics.

Theorem 1 Suppose P and S are bivariate elliptically distributed.

2

Component

VaR can be expressed as

CVaR(S) =

COV

S.P

o

2

p

VaR(P) E[S]

COV

S.P

o

2

p

E[P]. (2)

where COV

S.P

denotes the covariance between S and P, and o

2

p

denotes the

variance of P.

1

Although JP Morgan introduced the term incremental VaR for this quantity, the term component

VaR has become industry convention.

2

The observation that this assumption is sucient should be credited to Hallerbach (1999).

Journal of Risk

R. B. Carroll et al. 58

Proof. S has a least-squares decomposition S = kP P

J

, where k = COV

S.P

,o

2

p

.

It follows from this decomposition that P and P

J

are uncorrelated. It is clear that

uncorrelated bivariate Gaussian random variables must be independent. Kelker

(1970) generalized this result to bivariate elliptic random variables. Thus, P and

P

J

are independent. Substitute the least-squares decomposition into denition

(1) to obtain CVaR(S) = kVaR(P) E[P

J

[ P = VaR(P)]. Since P and P

J

are independent, CVaR(S) = kVaR(P) E[P

J

] (see Doob 1990). Finally,

substitute P

J

= S kP. &

This result relied on the bivariate elliptic distribution assumption in order to

obtain the linearity of the conditional mean. In intuitive terms, the error in

applying this theorem to nonelliptic distributions will depend on just ``how

much'' dependence the random variables can exhibit while maintaining zero

correlation. Of course, applying this theorem to portfolios with returns that are

not reasonably approximated by elliptic distributions, such as portfolios with

very short term at-the-money options, could be dangerous. The example in

Section 4 will give some comfort in applying the theorem to portfolios contain-

ing options. The following simplication of the theorem is immediate.

Corollary 1 If, in addition to the assumptions of Theorem 1, P and S have

zero mean, then

CVaR(S) =

COV

S.P

o

2

p

VaR(P). (3)

An additional assumption of normality lets us express the component VaR in

terms of VaR(S) rather than VaR(P). Corollary 2 may be particularly useful

since the normality assumption is consistent with the standard parametric VaR

methodology (see JP Morgan 1996). Note that it gives a geometric interpreta-

tion of component VaR in terms of the projection of VaR(S) onto VaR(P). The

result is consistent with Jorion (2000).

Corollary 2 If P and S are normally distributed with zero mean, then

CVaR(S) = ,

S.P

VaR(S). (4)

where ,

S.P

is the coecient of correlation between S and P.

Proof. The result follows immediately from the fact that VaR(P) = co

p

and

VaR(S) = co

S

, where c is the z-score corresponding to a given condence

interval for a standard normal distribution. &

4. ESTIMATION OF CVAR

There are three methods that a risk management system can use to compute

VaRparametric, historical scenarios, or Monte Carlo scenarios (see Jorion

1996; Laubsch 1999). This section demonstrates the practical calculation of CVaR

for each of these implementations. The formulas discussed in Section 3 can be

Volume 3/Number 3, Spring 2001

A new approach to component VaR 59

used to estimate CVaR whenever the proper statistics (VaR, covariance, and

variance) are available, regardless of the VaR methodology. Since this approach

relies on statistical parameters, we will refer to it as the parametric CVaRestimate.

Another estimator can be devised for risk management systems that use a

scenario-based methodology (historical or Monte Carlo). Referring back to the

denition from equation (1), it is clear that we can estimate CVaR by computing

the subportfolio P&L under the VaR scenario. Table 1 summarizes the applic-

ability of these two CVaR estimators to the various VaR methodologies.

4.0.1 A simple example As an example, we will calculate the CVaR of

subportfolios o

1

and o

2

dened in Table 2 with respect to the total portfolio

T, also dened in Table 2. The portfolios contain options and shares of IBM as

TABLE 1. Methodologies for computing VaR and

component VaR.

VaR method Applicable

CVaR method

Parametric Parametric

Historical Parametric

Scenario

Monte Carlo Parametric

Scenario

TABLE 2. Portfolio T and subportfolios (22 October 1999).

Portfolio T

Units Security Description

50 S&P500 baskets $1301.65/basket

85 IBM shares $107.135/share

85 IBM puts At-the-money;

58 days until expiry;

volatility at 26.43%

Subportfolio o

1

Units Security Description

85 IBM shares $107.135/share

85 IBM puts At-the-money;

58 days until expiry;

volatility at 26.43%

Subportfolio o

2

Units Security Description

50 S&P500 baskets $1301.65/basket

Journal of Risk

R. B. Carroll et al. 60

well as S&P 500 baskets. Since the VaR is computed over 1 day while the options

mature in 2 months, the returns should be nearly linear with respect to the

underlying. Thus the distribution of returns should be approximated well by

elliptic distributions. Subportfolio o

1

consists of only the options and shares of

IBM, while subportfolio o

2

contains the remaining baskets. P&L vectors for these

portfolios were obtained by repricing them over 500 historical scenarios. These

scenarios were obtained from market data over the past 2 years. The P&L

statistics for both of these portfolios are summarized in Table 3. Since we chose

the 99% condence level, the sixth largest loss among the 500 P&L values

estimates VaR. For portfolio T, this loss occurred using the 09-Jan-98 scenario.

This means that we can use the P&L for subportfolio o under the 09-Jan-98

scenario as an estimate of CVaR. Note that, in this example, the VaR scenario is

the same for both T and o

2

, which can be interpreted as implying that, at the 99%

condence level, the risk of the overall portfolio is driven by the risk in

subportfolio o

2

. In this special case, the scenario estimates of both VaR(o

2

)

and CVaR(o

2

) are equal. Alternatively, we can use the formulas from Section 2 to

produce a parametric estimate of CVaR. Both CVaR estimators are compared in

Table 4.

4.0.2 A numerical experiment As noted above, scenario-based VaR methodol-

ogies facilitate both parametric and scenario-type estimators. The goals of this

section are

1. to provide some guidance on which estimator to use in practice; and

2. to develop a qualitative understanding of the behavior of the estimators.

TABLE 3. Daily P&L statistics generated by a data set of 500 historical scenarios. VaR is

calculated at the 99% confidence level. The VaR scenario is the scenario that generated

the sixth-largest loss.

Portfolio Mean Std. Dev. VaR 99% VaR scenario Scenario description

T 63.24 763.33 1806.00 09-Jan-98 S&P 500 down 3.2%

o

1

15.65 133.27 401.03 21-Apr-98 IBM up 6.13%

o

2

78.89 841.85 2011.23 09-Jan-98 S&P 500 down 3.2%

cov(T. o

1

) 54142

cov(T. o

2

) 63681

TABLE 4 Component VaR estimates. The scenario CVaR is obtained by evaluating the

subportfolios under the 09-Jan-98 historical scenario.

Portfolio Parametric CVaR

calculation

Parametric

CVAR

Scenario

CVAR

o

1

54142

763.33

2

(1806.00 63.24) 15.65 158.04 205.24

o

2

63681

763.33

2

(1806.00 63.24) 78.89 1964.04 2011.23

T 1806.00 1806.00

Volume 3/Number 3, Spring 2001

A new approach to component VaR 61

We expect the parametric estimator to perform well when the assumptions of

Section 3 are met. To test this hypothesis we conducted the following experiment.

Step 1: Generate random P&L vectors We generated 2000 samples of correlated

standard Gaussian random vectors p and s with 500 elements each. Each pair of

sample vectors is meant to model the P&L of a portfolio and a subportfolio.

Step 2: Calculate estimators For every pair of sample vectors, we calculated

both parametric and scenario estimators. The precise formulas are developed as

follows. Let [ p. 6] denote the index of the sixth smallest element of vector p. For

each sample, we calculated the parametric estimator based on equation (2),

s

i

p

i

p

2

i

( p

[ p.6]

1

500

p

i

)

1

500

s

i

. (5)

and the scenario-type estimator based on equation (1),

s

[ p.6]

. (6)

Of course, we can use standard statistical techniques such as the maximum-

likelihood method (see Kay 1993) to generate other parametric estimators if we

are willing to make use of the a priori knowledge that the random variables are

Gaussian. However, for this exercise we wish to take a very general approach.

Step 3: Analyse the results Finally, we calculated the standard error of the 2000

estimates given by equations (5) and (6). This procedure was repeated using

correlations 0, .05, .10, .15, . . . , 1. Figure 1 plots the standard error of the two

estimators against the correlation of p and s. It is clear that the two estimators

exhibit markedly dierent behavior. The following observations are evident.

+ Performance of the scenario-type estimator improves signicantly as correlation

increases.

We will provide some intuition for this behavior by rigorously examining the

endpoints. When P provides no information about S, the correlation is 0 and

s

[ p.6]

is simply a random sample of S. In this case, we expect s

[ p.6]

to have the

same variance as S itself. This explains why the standard error in Figure 1 is very

nearly 1 when , = 0. On the other hand, when P provides complete information

on S, the correlation is 1 and s

[ p.6]

= s

[ s.6]

. Since this is an estimator of VaR(S),

we know from elementary sampling theory (see Lehmann 1998) that this

estimator is approximated by a normal distribution whose variance decays in

proportion to 1,N. For a normal distribution at 99% condence, the propor-

tionality constant is 13.94. This leads us to expect the simulation experiment to

exhibit a standard error of approximately

_

(13.94

1

500

) = 0.17, which is very

close to the realized standard error of 0.13. With this explanation of the two

extreme cases, it is natural to expect a standard error somewhere between these

extremes when P provides partial information about S. This is exactly what

Figure 1 demonstrates.

Journal of Risk

R. B. Carroll et al. 62

+ Performance of the parametric estimator has a parabolic shape; as correlations

increase it initially improves, but eventually deteriorates.

Equation (5) can be interpreted as a regression evaluated at an estimate of

VaR(P). Thus we can think of the error as arising from both the regression

equation and from the point at which the regression equation is evaluated.

Regression theory (see Weisberg 1985) tells us that the standard error of a

regression decreases as correlations increase. Thus, when the correlation is very

high, error from the regression equation is very low. However, the coecient of

VaR(P) will be large and so equation (5) will be sensitive to errors in the

estimate of VaR(P). When correlation is very low, the regression will be a poor

t, but it will not be sensitive to errors in VaR(P). The performance observed in

Figure 2 shows the interplay between these conicting error sources. The

optimal correlation is approximately 0.225.

+ The parametric estimator has substantially less variance than the scenario

estimator, especially when the correlation is low.

Since the performance of the parametric estimator is far superior, we expect

similar behavior even when the distributions are only approximately Gaussian.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

FIGURE 1. Standard error vs. correlation for scenario (top) and parametric (bottom)

estimators. For every given correlation, 2000 samples were generated containing

500 elements each.

Volume 3/Number 3, Spring 2001

A new approach to component VaR 63

5. SUMMARY

The following paragraphs summarize the fourfold contribution of this paper.

5.0.1 Denition of CVaR. The new denition in equation (1) provides an

elegant framework for practical and theoretical analysis of component VaR.

5.0.2 Analysis of CVaR. Section 3 expresses CVaR in terms of familiar statistics.

In particular, Theorem 1 is a convenient expression of CVaR that makes very

general assumptions about the underlying distributions.

5.0.3 Estimators for CVaR. We used equation (1) to derive the familiar

scenario-type CVaR estimator that can be used with historical or Monte Carlo

VaR methodologies. We also explained how to use the equations from Section 3

to devise new estimators, which we referred to as ``parametric estimators'', that

can be used with any risk management methodology.

5.0.4 Practical implementation. Among the two approaches for CVaR estima-

tion applicable to scenario-based VaR implementations, the simulation in

Section 4 provides a strong argument for using a parametric estimator for

approximately normal P&L distributions. We also provided an explanation for

the observed behavior of the estimators.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

0.09

0.095

0.1

0.105

0.11

0.115

0.12

0.125

0.13

0.135

0.14

FIGURE 2. Standard error for the parametric estimator. For every given correlation,

2000 samples were generated containing 500 elements each.

Journal of Risk

R. B. Carroll et al. 64

APPENDIX

The following theorem shows that the denition of component VaR above is

consistent with the JP Morgan denition of incrmental VaR (see Laubsch 1999).

This result is stated, but not proved, by Hallerbach (1999).

Theorem 2 Let s be the market value of portfolio o and let D be the P&L of a

$1 investment in portfolio o, so that S = sD. If both CVaR(S) and (o,os)VaR(P)

exist, then

CVaR(S) = s

o

os

VaR(P). (7)

It is tempting to approach this result by calculating

s

o

os

VaR(P) = s

o

os

{sE[D [ P = VaR(P)] E[P S [ P = VaR(P)]]

= sE[D [ P = VaR(P)]

= E[S [ P = VaR(P)]

= CVaR(S).

Unfortunately, this approach overlooks the subtlety that the expectation terms

are functions of s since they are conditioned on a function of s. Hence the

derivative may not be so simple. Instead, we will approach the theorem from its

foundations. It is rst necessary to dene precisely what we mean by expectation

conditioned on a point. Denote the probability measure by j. If

lim

c0

1

j(T

c

)

T

c

Xdj = C

for every sequence of sets satisfying j(T

c

) > 0 and lim

c0

T

c

= Y

1

(y), then we

dene E[X [ Y = y] = C. Otherwise, we say that E[X [ Y = y] does not exist.

Proof. Dene three families of sets as follows:

U

c

= {P 6 VaR(P) and P cD > VaR(P cD)].

V

c

= {P > VaR(P) and P cD 6 VaR(P cD)].

W

c

= {P 6 VaR(P) and P cD 6 VaR(P cD)].

From the denition of value-at-risk, we know that

j

P 6 VaR(P)

= j

P cD 6 VaR(P cD)

.

It is evident from the decompositions

j

P 6 VaR(P)

= j(U

c

) j(W

c

)

and

j

P cD 6 VaR(P cD)

= j(V

c

) j(W

c

)

Volume 3/Number 3, Spring 2001

A new approach to component VaR 65

that j(U

c

) = j(V

c

). Suppose that there exists an c

0

such that j(U

c

) = 0 for every

c - c

0

. Dene the sets T

o

= {VaR(P) o 6 P 6 VaR(P)] and observe that

the denition of U

c

gives

D 6

VaR(P) P

c

VaR(P cD) VaR(P)

c

onT

o

. (8)

for all c - c

0

. Integrate equation (8) over T

o

and divide by j(T

o

) to obtain

1

j(T

o

)

T

o

Ddj 6

1

c

1

j(T

o

)

T

o

[VaR(P) P] dj

VaR(P cD) VaR(P)

c

.

Take limits to see that

E[D [ P = VaR(P)] 6

o

os

VaR(P).

Apply an analogous argument using V

c

to show that

E[D [ P = VaR(P)] >

o

os

VaR(P).

Thus we have shown that the theorem holds for this case. Otherwise, assume

without loss of generality that j(U

c

) > 0 for c - c

0

. (If this does not hold, then

we can nd a subsequence for which it does.) Note from the denition of U

c

that

VaR(P cD) VaR(P)

c

6 D on U

c

. (9)

Integrate equation (9) over U

c

and divide by j(U

c

) to see that

VaR(P cD) VaR(P)

c

6

1

j(U

c

)

U

c

Ddj on U

c

.

Take limits to see that

o

os

VaR(P) 6 E[D [ P = VaR(P)].

Just as with the case above, apply an analogous argument using V

c

to show that

o

os

VaR(P) > E[D [ P = VaR(P)]. &

REFERENCES REFERENCES

Doob, J. L. (1990). Stochastic Processes. Wiley, New York.

Garman, M. (1996). Improving on VaR. Risk, 9(5), May, 6163.

Garman, M. (1997). Taking VaR into pieces. Risk, 10(10), October, 7071.

Journal of Risk

R. B. Carroll et al. 66

Hallerbach, W. G. (1999). Decomposing portfolio value-at-risk: A general analysis.

Working Paper, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.

Jorion, P. (2000) Value at Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk.

McGraw-Hill, New York.

JP Morgan (1996). RiskmetricsTechnical Document, 4th edn. JP Morgan, New York.

Kay, S. M. (1993). Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation Theory.

Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ.

Kelker, D. (1970). Distribution theory of spherical distributions and a location-scale

parameter generalization. Sankhya: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Ser. A, 32,

419430.

Laubsch, A. J. and Ulmer, A. (1999). Risk Management: A Practical Guide. RiskMetrics

Group, New York.

Lehmann, E. L., and Casella, G. (1998). Theory of Point Estimation. Springer, New

York.

Weisberg, S. (1985). Applied Linear Regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York.

Volume 3/Number 3, Spring 2001

A new approach to component VaR 67

- Forex riskUploaded byTaanzim Jhumu
- Calculating Value at RiskUploaded byLeen Barghout
- MBA (E) 2017-19 2nd Semester All Subjects Syllabus CopyUploaded bydahigaonkar
- Extreme Value Theory in RUploaded byAlexander Obi Davids
- Report on the Risks of Financial Modeling, VaR and TheUploaded bystan.jonas
- Bland 1986 LancetUploaded byhubik38
- new visonUploaded byNil Mukherjee
- CrisisUploaded byanon_73763753
- Swedbank's Interim Report Q2 2012Uploaded bySwedbank AB (publ)
- Statistics Assignment Sample SolvedUploaded byHebrew Johnson
- Taleb TestimonyUploaded byArmando Martins
- Cp&CpkUploaded bypandharinath
- VarUploaded byravi_nyse
- IAS Sample Risk ReportUploaded byPeter Urbani
- Syllabus.pdfUploaded byApril Kim
- ARF 116.0 Market RiskUploaded bycastluci
- Sinr_wireless Communication SystemsUploaded byOswaldo Estrada Arrenchú
- stress testsUploaded byRashmi Raj
- bcbs57Uploaded byratdan
- 41453Uploaded byVishal Vish
- Risk takerUploaded bycescsimo
- Diebolt, Guiraud (2005) a Note on Long Memory Time SeriesUploaded byJoão Victor Machado
- Intervals EstimateUploaded byedniel maratas
- Risks LibreUploaded byLuca Bottone
- Covariance DeterminantUploaded byMuhammad Sajid Ali
- hayashch3Uploaded byjim_channarong
- Statistical Properties of Population DifferentiationUploaded byAlexandre Korte
- Data AnalysisUploaded byDaniela Abisambra
- Abnormal Stock Returns Associated With Media Disclosures of Subject to Qualified Audit OpinionsUploaded byZhang Peilin
- Uji StatistikUploaded byFarras Amany Husna

- Oracle MDMUploaded byraja2jaya
- 9723 a Capone e G Addimando AccentureUploaded byrdouglas2002
- An option on options.pdfUploaded byrdouglas2002
- A Cds Options Miscellany PaperUploaded bywlannes
- Basel 3 in 5 QuestionsUploaded byrdouglas2002
- wp1290Uploaded byrdouglas2002
- Credit OptionsUploaded byQuant2020
- SFE Contract SpecificationsUploaded byrdouglas2002
- IR2.3 (Hughston)Uploaded byrdouglas2002
- Credit Approval Process Tcm16-23748Uploaded byibripi
- Msc ThesisUploaded byrdouglas2002
- Heston OriginalUploaded byLuca Ballestra
- DuffieCanabarro2004Uploaded byrdouglas2002
- C++ FinanceUploaded byolukaosky
- 2009 Credit AwardsUploaded byrdouglas2002
- OTCUploaded bylebron9877
- 2010-06 Funding valuation - a clear and present future - RBSUploaded byrdouglas2002
- 2009-07 Derivatives Compass - Are You On Course - JPMUploaded byrdouglas2002

- The Short Time Fourier Transform and Speech Denoising 1Uploaded byHamas Rahman
- 5016707 (1)Uploaded byRakesh GN
- MIT10_626S14_S11lec05.pdfUploaded bybabu
- Statistics S1 Revision Papers with AnswersUploaded byKothakonda Praveen Kumar
- Contract Tk 1_2011Uploaded byAziah Azmi
- EMI and AC TYPE 1Uploaded byNeeraj Misra
- The Effect of Second-Order Hydrodynamics on Floating Offshore Wind TurbinesUploaded bydhana_benz
- Driscoll J.C. Lecture Notes in Macroeconomics (Brown, 2001)(143s)_GKUploaded byfirdaus_pranoto
- Validation - LTBeamUploaded bySimone Alfieri
- QM-DATA300.pdfUploaded byArgel Linard Francisco Mabaga
- FMAA Bachelor of Commerce Guide - 2015 EditionUploaded byTom Trowse
- 253466754-Australian-Math.pdfUploaded byTom Tung Le
- ICAS-96Uploaded byGiannis Giorgos
- CS488 Notes - Spring 2016Uploaded byagmedia95
- MiddleSchool_InfoMeeting_10dec13Uploaded bymurpicantik
- multiplication and divisionUploaded byapi-207317283
- ffUploaded bydf
- NS13-Public Ciphers RSAUploaded byRaja Ohri
- Partial fractions and solving with Ti-89 Ti-83 and so onUploaded byroankaelan
- ANGULOS+Y+POLIEDROSUploaded byJorge Solano
- A 1Uploaded byEyah Valentin
- Frunzulica ARA 35Uploaded byAlexandru Dumitrache
- Compiled Lecture JavaUploaded bySharmini Gopinathan
- SERRATED CHIP MORPHOLOGY AND COMPARISON WITH FINITE ELEMENT SIMULATIONSUploaded bykindaimomo
- A Review of Wind Turbine NoiseUploaded bybenlynch
- w-1-cant-beamUploaded byjose antonio
- PPT FUZZYUploaded byRama Krishna
- Lab Manual UOH EE370Uploaded byAlberto Saldivar
- Locus AnswerUploaded bySyed Salman
- Tacheometry FinalUploaded byUsman Ghani