## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Econ 487

Outline

•

CAPM Assumptions and Implications

•

CAPM and the Market Model

•

Testing the CAPM

•

Conditional CAPM

CAPM Readings

•

Zivot, Ch. 8 (pp. 185-191) (page #’s at top

of page)

•

Benninga, Ch. 10 (pp. 221-228)

•

Perold (2004) (pp. 288-289)

What is the CAPM?

•

Theory of asset price determination for

ﬁrms

•

Based on portfolio theory and Market

Model

•

The only thing that matters is Beta (co-

movement with the market)

•

Alternative to valuation theory for

individual ﬁrms

CAPM Assumption #1

•

Many investors who are all price takers

•

I.e., ﬁnancial markets are competitive

•

Returns provide full summary of

investment opportunities

CAPM Assumption #2

•

All investors plan to invest over the same

time horizon

•

Abstracts from heterogeneity in investors

(i.e., risk averse have different time

preferences than the risk tolerant)

•

Helps address any deviations from CER

model

CAPM Assumption #3

•

No distortionary taxes or transaction costs

•

Clearly a false assumption (debt vs.

equity)

CAPM Assumption #4

•

All investors can borrow/lend at same risk-

free rate

•

Again, clearly false

•

But we can consider Zero-Beta version

of CAPM with short-sales

CAPM Assumption #5

•

Preferences: Investors only care about

expected return (like) and variance (dislike)

•

Consistent with portfolio theory and

CER model under Normality

•

False if assets have different co-

movements with state of the economy

(i.e., recession vs. boom)

CAPM Assumption #6

•

All investors have same information and

beliefs about distribution of returns

•

E.g., CER model, with same beliefs about

parameters

CAPM Assumption #7

•

Market portfolio that determines Beta

consists of all publicly traded assets

Implication #1

•

Investors will use Markowitz algorithm to

determine same set of efﬁcient portfolios

Implication #2

•

Risk-averse investors will put most of their

wealth in risk-free asset

•

Risk-tolerant investors will put most of

their wealth in risky assets

•

In equilibrium, no net borrowing

=> risk-free rate and tangency portfolio

Implication #3

•

Tangency portfolio = market portfolio

•

Note: implies positive weights on all assets

in tangency portfolio, even allowing for

short sales

Implication #4

•

Market portfolio is mean-variance efﬁcient

•

I.e., highest Sharpe Ratio

Implication #5

•

“Security Market Line”(SML) pricing holds

for all assets and portfolios

•

I.e., expected return on asset i is fully

determined by three things:

1. risk-free rate

2. market risk premium

3. Beta for asset i

Security Market Line (SML)

!

E[R

it

] = r

f

+ "

i,M

(E[R

Mt

] # r

f

)

where i refers to an individual asset or portfolio

Beta-Portfolio

!

E[R

pt

] = (1" x

m

)r

f

+ x

m

E[R

Mt

]

= r

f

+ x

m

(E[R

Mt

] " r

f

)

Set

!

x

m

= "

i,M

for a given asset i to compare

!

E[R

pt

] on Beta-Portfolio to

!

E[R

it

].

Log-Linear Present Value Relationship

!

p

t

=

c

1" #

+ E

t

#

j"1

(1" #)d

t + j

j=1

$

%

&

'

(

(

)

*

+

+

" E

t

#

j"1

r

t + j

j=1

$

%

&

'

(

(

)

*

+

+

Market Model

!

R

it

="

i

+ #

i,M

R

Mt

+$

it

!

"

it

~ iidN(0,#

"i

2

)

!

cov(R

Mt

,"

it

) = 0

Subtract

!

r

f

from both sides

!

R

it

" r

f

=#

i

" r

f

+ $

i,M

R

Mt

+%

it

Add and subtract

!

"

i,M

r

f

from right-hand-side:

!

R

it

" r

f

=#

i

"(1"$

i,M

)r

f

+ $

i,M

(R

Mt

" r

f

) +%

it

Is the CAPM Useful?

The Capital Asset Pricing Model is an elegant theory with profound implications

for asset pricing and investor behavior. But how useful is the model given the idealized

world that underlies its derivation? There are several ways to answer this question. First,

we can examine whether real world asset prices and investor portfolios conform to the

predictions of the model, if not always in a strict quantitative sense, and least in a strong

qualitative sense. Second, even if the model does not describe our current world

particularly well, it might predict future investor behavior—for example, as a conse-

quence of capital market frictions being lessened through ﬁnancial innovation, im-

proved regulation and increasing capital market integration. Third, the CAPM can

serve as a benchmark for understanding the capital market phenomena that cause

asset prices and investor behavior to deviate from the prescriptions of the model.

Suboptimal Diversiﬁcation

Consider the CAPM prediction that investors all will hold the same (market)

portfolio of risky assets. One does not have to look far to realize that investors do

not hold identical portfolios, which is not a surprise since taxes alone will cause

idiosyncratic investor behavior. For example, optimal management of capital gains

taxes involves early realization of losses and deferral of capital gains, and so taxable

investors might react very differently to changes in asset values depending on when

they purchased the asset (Constantinides, 1983). Nevertheless, it will still be a positive

sign for the model if most investors hold broadly diversiﬁed portfolios. But even here

the evidence is mixed. On one hand, popular index funds make it possible for investors

to obtain diversiﬁcation at low cost. On the other hand, many workers hold concen-

trated ownership of company stock in employee retirement savings plans and many

executives hold concentrated ownership of company stock options.

One of the most puzzling examples of suboptimal diversiﬁcation is the so-

Figure 4

The Securities Market Line (SML)

Beta of market ϭ 1.0 Beta

SML

E

x

p

e

c

t

e

d

r

e

t

u

r

n

Market

portfolio

In equilibrium, all

assets plot on the SML

E

M

Ϫ r

f

ϭ slope of SML

E

M

r

f

18 Journal of Economic Perspectives

Intuition for CAPM

•

Investors should not be compensated for

diversiﬁable risk

E.g., Beta=0

•

If expected return > risk-free, borrow at

risk-free to buy zero-beta asset

•

If expected return < risk-free, sell zero-beta

asset short and buy more risk-free

•

Both cases imply higher portfolio return

without higher risk (at the margin)

Equilibrium for Beta=0

•

Risk-free rate and price of zero-beta asset

adjust to equate expected return and risk-

free rate

•

E.g., if expected return < risk-free rate,

price falls today to make future expected

returns higher

•

recall log-linear present-value relationship

between price and expected returns

Security Market Line (SML)

!

E[R

it

] = r

f

+ "

i,M

(E[R

Mt

] # r

f

)

where i refers to an individual asset or portfolio

Beta-Portfolio

!

E[R

pt

] = (1" x

m

)r

f

+ x

m

E[R

Mt

]

= r

f

+ x

m

(E[R

Mt

] " r

f

)

Set

!

x

m

= "

i,M

for a given asset i to compare

!

E[R

pt

] on Beta-Portfolio to

!

E[R

it

].

Log-Linear Present Value Relationship

!

p

t

=

c

1" #

+ E

t

#

j"1

(1" #)d

t + j

j=1

$

%

&

'

(

(

)

*

+

+

" E

t

#

j"1

r

t + j

j=1

$

%

&

'

(

(

)

*

+

+

Market Model

!

R

it

="

i

+ #

i,M

R

Mt

+$

it

!

"

it

~ iidN(0,#

"i

2

)

!

cov(R

Mt

,"

it

) = 0

Subtract

!

r

f

from both sides

!

R

it

" r

f

=#

i

" r

f

+ $

i,M

R

Mt

+%

it

Add and subtract

!

"

i,M

r

f

from right-hand-side:

!

R

it

" r

f

=#

i

"(1"$

i,M

)r

f

+ $

i,M

(R

Mt

" r

f

) +%

it

E.g., Beta=1

•

If expected return > market, sell other

assets to buy high-return asset

•

If expected return < market, sell asset to

buy more of market portfolio

•

Both cases imply higher portfolio return

without higher risk (at the margin)

•

Prices adjust to bring about equilibrium

In general

•

Investors can choose mix of risk-free asset

and market portfolio to achieve any desired

expected return => “Beta Portfolio”

•

Weight on market portfolio is Beta in

SML

•

If expected return on asset i is different

than SML, prices will adjust as investors

buy/sell Beta portfolio and asset i.Security Market Line (SML)

!

E[R

it

] = r

f

+ "

i,M

(E[R

Mt

] # r

f

)

where i refers to an individual asset or portfolio

Beta-Portfolio

!

E[R

pt

] = (1" x

m

)r

f

+ x

m

E[R

Mt

]

= r

f

+ x

m

(E[R

Mt

] " r

f

)

Set

!

x

m

= "

i,M

for a given asset i to compare

!

E[R

pt

] on Beta-Portfolio to

!

E[R

it

].

Log-Linear Present Value Relationship

!

p

t

=

c

1" #

+ E

t

#

j"1

(1" #)d

t + j

j=1

$

%

&

'

(

(

)

*

+

+

" E

t

#

j"1

r

t + j

j=1

$

%

&

'

(

(

)

*

+

+

Market Model

!

R

it

="

i

+ #

i,M

R

Mt

+$

it

!

"

it

~ iidN(0,#

"i

2

)

!

cov(R

Mt

,"

it

) = 0

Subtract

!

r

f

from both sides

!

R

it

" r

f

=#

i

" r

f

+ $

i,M

R

Mt

+%

it

Add and subtract

!

"

i,M

r

f

from right-hand-side:

!

R

it

" r

f

=#

i

"(1"$

i,M

)r

f

+ $

i,M

(R

Mt

" r

f

) +%

it

Is the CAPM Useful?

The Capital Asset Pricing Model is an elegant theory with profound implications

for asset pricing and investor behavior. But how useful is the model given the idealized

world that underlies its derivation? There are several ways to answer this question. First,

we can examine whether real world asset prices and investor portfolios conform to the

predictions of the model, if not always in a strict quantitative sense, and least in a strong

qualitative sense. Second, even if the model does not describe our current world

particularly well, it might predict future investor behavior—for example, as a conse-

quence of capital market frictions being lessened through ﬁnancial innovation, im-

proved regulation and increasing capital market integration. Third, the CAPM can

serve as a benchmark for understanding the capital market phenomena that cause

asset prices and investor behavior to deviate from the prescriptions of the model.

Suboptimal Diversiﬁcation

Consider the CAPM prediction that investors all will hold the same (market)

portfolio of risky assets. One does not have to look far to realize that investors do

not hold identical portfolios, which is not a surprise since taxes alone will cause

idiosyncratic investor behavior. For example, optimal management of capital gains

taxes involves early realization of losses and deferral of capital gains, and so taxable

investors might react very differently to changes in asset values depending on when

they purchased the asset (Constantinides, 1983). Nevertheless, it will still be a positive

sign for the model if most investors hold broadly diversiﬁed portfolios. But even here

the evidence is mixed. On one hand, popular index funds make it possible for investors

to obtain diversiﬁcation at low cost. On the other hand, many workers hold concen-

trated ownership of company stock in employee retirement savings plans and many

executives hold concentrated ownership of company stock options.

One of the most puzzling examples of suboptimal diversiﬁcation is the so-

Figure 4

The Securities Market Line (SML)

Beta of market ϭ 1.0 Beta

SML

E

x

p

e

c

t

e

d

r

e

t

u

r

n

Market

portfolio

In equilibrium, all

assets plot on the SML

E

M

Ϫ r

f

ϭ slope of SML

E

M

r

f

18 Journal of Economic Perspectives

Key Point

•

Even if there is an implicit present-value

model of stock price determination, there

is no need to forecast future dividends for

ﬁrm i

•

Given SML, all that matters for pricing ﬁrm i

is Beta (i.e., responsiveness to market

return)

•

Easier to estimate Beta than to forecast

future dividends

CAPM and the Market

Model

•

Market Model is a statistical model

•

CAPM is a theory that places parameter

restrictions on Market Model

•

Consider “excess return” version of Market

Model

Security Market Line (SML)

!

E[R

it

] = r

f

+ "

i,M

(E[R

Mt

] # r

f

)

where i refers to an individual asset or portfolio

Beta-Portfolio

!

E[R

pt

] = (1" x

m

)r

f

+ x

m

E[R

Mt

]

= r

f

+ x

m

(E[R

Mt

] " r

f

)

Set

!

x

m

= "

i,M

for a given asset i to compare

!

E[R

pt

] on Beta-Portfolio to

!

E[R

it

].

Log-Linear Present Value Relationship

!

p

t

=

c

1" #

+ E

t

#

j"1

(1" #)d

t + j

j=1

$

%

&

'

(

(

)

*

+

+

" E

t

#

j"1

r

t + j

j=1

$

%

&

'

(

(

)

*

+

+

Market Model

!

R

it

="

i

+ #

i,M

R

Mt

+$

it

!

"

it

~ iidN(0,#

"i

2

)

!

cov(R

Mt

,"

it

) = 0

Subtract

!

r

f

from both sides

!

R

it

" r

f

=#

i

" r

f

+ $

i,M

R

Mt

+%

it

Add and subtract

!

"

i,M

r

f

from right-hand-side:

!

R

it

" r

f

=#

i

"(1"$

i,M

)r

f

+ $

i,M

(R

Mt

" r

f

) +%

it

Excess-Return Market Model

!

R

it

" r

f

=#

i

$

+ %

i,M

(R

Mt

" r

f

) +&

it

,

where

!

"

i

#

="

i

$(1$%

i,M

)r

f

.

Take expectations of both sides and take

!

r

f

to right-hand-side:

!

E[R

it

] = r

f

+"

i

#

+ $

i,M

(E[R

Mt

] % r

f

)

The SML for CAPM implies

!

"

i

#

= 0 or, equivalently,

!

"

i

= (1#$

i,M

)r

f

.

Testing the CAPM

1. Test H0: !*=0 for excess-return Market

Model (t-test for one asset or F-test for a

joint test for a set of assets)

2. Check if market portfolio is efﬁcient and

equal to tangency portfolio for assets in

market portfolio

3. Check predictions for expected returns

based on Beta and SML

Why might tests reject

CAPM in practice? (I)

•

CAPM does not hold

•

restrictions on short sales

•

heterogeneous probability assessments

Why might tests reject

CAPM in practice? (II)

•

Maybe CAPM only holds for portfolios, not

individual assets

•

liquidity issues for individual assets

Why might tests reject

CAPM in practice? (III)

•

Set of assets in market portfolio proxy

incomplete

•

foreign assets, bonds, real estate

•

explains if market portfolio appears less

efﬁcient than tangency portfolio

•

Roll critique (only test is if true market

portfolio is mean-variance efﬁcient)

Why might tests reject

CAPM in practice? (IV)

•

Non-tradable assets matter

•

human capital

•

co-movement of traded assets with

business cycle (multiple factor model)

•

given same Beta, prefer less correlation

with labour income

Early Studies

•

Black, Jensen, Scholes (72), Fama and

MacBeth (73), Blume and Friend (73)

support mean-variance efﬁciency of market

portfolio

•

But estimated mean return on zero-beta

portfolio > risk-free rate

Anomalies Literature

•

Portfolios based on ﬁrm characteristics

appear to have higher ex-post Sharpe ratios

than market proxy

•

Portfolios emphasizing smaller size, lower

P/E ratios, and higher book/market ratios

appear to be better

Figuio 1: 1lo CA!M. Avoiago ioluins vs. Lolas on llo NYSL valuo-woiglloo poilfolio

foi 10 sizo-soiloo slock poilfolios, govoinmonl Lonos, ano coipoialo Lonos. Samplo 1047-

1000. 1lo solio lino oiaws llo CA!M piooiclion Ly nlling llo maikol pioxy ano lioasuiy

Lill ialos oxaclly (a limo-soiios losl) ano llo oasloo lino oiaws llo CA!M piooiclion Ly

nlling an OLS cioss-soclional iogiossion lo llo oisplayoo oala poinls (llo socono-pass oi

cioss-soclional losl). 1lo small nim poilfolios aio al llo lop iigll. As you movo oown ano

lo llo lofl, you soo incioasingly laigo-nim poilfolios, ano llo maikol inoox. 1lo poinls fai

oown ano lo llo lofl aio llo govoinmonl Lono ano lioasuiy Lill ioluins.

llo lino of avoiago ioluins vs. Lolas acioss llo slock poilfolios loo slallow ialloi

llan loo sloop.

[!nsoil Lox 1 noai loio[

615 Zk| zh h{shfw pxowlsoh idfwruv

!n ioliospocl, il is suipiising llal llo CA!M woikoo so woll foi so long. 1lo as-

sumplions on wlicl il is Luill aio voiy slylizoo ano simplinoo. Assol piicing llooiy

iocognizoo al loasl sinco Moilon (1071a,L) llo llooiolical possiLilily, inoooo pioLa-

Lilily, llal wo sloulo nooo idfwruv, vwdwh yduldeohv oi vrxufhv ri sulfhg ulvn, Loyono

movomonls in llo maikol poilfolio in oiooi lo oxplain wly somo avoiago ioluins aio

ligloi llan ollois.

Mosl impoilanlly, wkh dyhudjh lqyhvwru kdv d mre. 1lo CA!M (logolloi will llo

uso of llo NYSL poilfolio as llo maikol pioxy") simplinos mallois Ly assuming llal

llo avoiago invosloi only caios llo poifoimanco of lis invoslmonl poilfolio. Wlilo

lloio aio a fow invoslois liko llal, foi mosl of llo iosl of us, ovonlual woalll comos

ò

Counter-Attack

•

Little theory behind additional factors

•

data snooping? (alphabet experiment)

•

ﬁrms with long data on BM ratios have

survivorship bias

•

large econometric effects of even small

measurement error for true market

portfolio

Statistical Issues

•

We will consider validity of CER model

assumptions

•

For example, Beta not stable over time

•

Conditional CAPM?

Excess-Return Market Model

!

R

it

" r

f

=#

i

$

+ %

i,M

(R

Mt

" r

f

) +&

it

,

where

!

"

i

#

="

i

$(1$%

i,M

)r

f

.

Take expectations of both sides and take

!

r

f

to right-hand-side:

!

E[R

it

] = r

f

+"

i

#

+ $

i,M

(E[R

Mt

] % r

f

)

The SML for CAPM implies

!

"

i

#

= 0 or, equivalently,

!

"

i

= (1#$

i,M

)r

f

.

Conditional CAPM

!

E

t

[R

it +1

] = r

ft

+ "

it

(E

t

[R

Mt +1

] # r

ft

)

where

!

"

it

=

cov

t

(R

it +1

, R

Mt +1

)

var

t

(R

Mt +1

)

In practice

!

var

t

(R

Mt +1

) changes a lot over time.

Unconditional Expectations

!

E[R

it +1

] = r

ft

+ "

i

(E[R

Mt +1

] # r

ft

) + cov("

it

, E

t

[R

Mt +1

])

I.e.,

!

"

i

#

= cov($

it

, E

t

[R

Mt +1

]) if conditional CAPM holds

Excess-Return Market Model

!

R

it

" r

f

=#

i

$

+ %

i,M

(R

Mt

" r

f

) +&

it

,

where

!

"

i

#

="

i

$(1$%

i,M

)r

f

.

Take expectations of both sides and take

!

r

f

to right-hand-side:

!

E[R

it

] = r

f

+"

i

#

+ $

i,M

(E[R

Mt

] % r

f

)

The SML for CAPM implies

!

"

i

#

= 0 or, equivalently,

!

"

i

= (1#$

i,M

)r

f

.

Conditional CAPM

!

E

t

[R

it +1

] = r

ft

+ "

it

(E

t

[R

Mt +1

] # r

ft

)

where

!

"

it

=

cov

t

(R

it +1

, R

Mt +1

)

var

t

(R

Mt +1

)

In practice

!

var

t

(R

Mt +1

) changes a lot over time.

Unconditional Expectations

!

E[R

it +1

] = r

ft

+ "

i

(E[R

Mt +1

] # r

ft

) + cov("

it

, E

t

[R

Mt +1

])

I.e.,

!

"

i

#

= cov($

it

, E

t

[R

Mt +1

]) if conditional CAPM holds

Conditional CAPM

•

Lewellaen and Nagel (06) ﬁnd that short-

horizon estimates of time-varying betas and

the market risk premium do not explain

!*’s for B/M or momentum portfolios

Conclusions (I)

•

CAPM does not hold in simple form

•

Yet it can explain a large portion of

variation in expected returns

•

Normative model (investors should not

needlessly expose themselves to

diversiﬁable risk)

Conclusions (II)

•

Modern ﬁnance still mostly based on factor

approach instead of individual ﬁrm

valuation

•

Need to address statistical problems with

Market Model

•

For conditional CAPM, need good

estimates of time-varying betas and market

risk premium

- financetechankit1234
- Lecture 3-CAPM and APTInformation should be FREE
- fdhdfgsgjhdfhdshjdbabylovelylovely
- Risk and Returnirni
- Solutions to Ch 8 Intermediate Accounting INatazia Ibañez
- Development and Assessment of an Alternative Investment Productniteshkpatel
- Chapter3tome44
- 345 Danielsajidobry_847601844
- CHAPTER_8Monalisa Sethi
- Objective of ProjectShankey
- 02 -- Risk and CAPMFuego McFuego
- Capital AssetMaria Mumtaz
- Risk & Returnanushreego
- FM Project report on zee entertainmentKumar Rohit
- Chap7BKM[1]Portia Phillips
- The Thin Film of Gold_ The Limits of Mon - Niall Fergusondevoutskeptic
- Gmo_for Whom the Bond Tollsfreemind3682
- US Federal Reserve: ifdp771rThe Fed
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin7330.001 06s taught by Huibing Zhang (hxz054000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- 50 Management ToolsANZ
- measurement of cost of capitalMayank Tiwari
- TVM, Valuation, Risk and ReturnSreenivasan Padmanaban
- hw2_2015_bpes_solutions(2)Daryl Khoo Tiong Jinn
- BBA502 - Financial ManagementStudy Stuff
- Case Study LBOadarshraj
- Chr07 Investement Analysisfarrukhazeem
- The Cost of Capital for Early Stage Biotechnology VenturesKwa Liou
- AssignmentKwame Tetteh Jnr
- 69 ICSI Mysore eNewsletter October 2009Dattatri H M
- RISK_AND_RETURN_Problems1.docMeenakshi Sundaram

- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6301.501.10f taught by Michael Rebello (mjr071000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for opre7372.001.08f taught by Alain Bensoussan (axb046100)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ba3341.hon.10f taught by Robert Bender (rcb013000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6310.001.08f taught by Yexiao Xu (yexiaoxu)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- frbrich_wp78-2.pdfFRASER: Federal Reserve Archive
- ifdp1178TBP_Think_Tank
- frbclv_wp1986-11.pdfFRASER: Federal Reserve Archive
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin7330.001 06s taught by Huibing Zhang (hxz054000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6310.501 05f taught by Yexiao Xu (yexiaoxu)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6301.mbc.08s taught by Michael Rebello (mjr071000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ba3341.0u3.11u taught by Robert Bender (rcb013000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6301.002.11s taught by Michael Rebello (mjr071000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6301.501.09f taught by Michael Rebello (mjr071000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6301.503.10f taught by Michael Rebello (mjr071000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- 67199_1985-1989FRASER: Federal Reserve Archive
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ba3341.002.09s taught by Robert Bender (rcb013000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin7330.001.08s taught by Valery Polkovnichenko (vxp065000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6310.501.09f taught by Yexiao Xu (yexiaoxu)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6310.001.10f taught by Huibing Zhang (hxz054000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ba4346.001.10s taught by Yin Li (yxl062000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- Pacific-Power--2-Samuel-C-HadawayGenability
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6310.001.10f taught by Huibing Zhang (hxz054000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6310.501 06f taught by Huibing Zhang (hxz054000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6310.501.10f taught by Yexiao Xu (yexiaoxu)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ba3341.hon.09s taught by Robert Bender (rcb013000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- frbsf_let_19940408.pdfFRASER: Federal Reserve Archive
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6301.mbc.09s taught by Michael Rebello (mjr071000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6310.501.10f taught by Yexiao Xu (yexiaoxu)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6310.001.09f taught by Huibing Zhang (hxz054000)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- UT Dallas Syllabus for fin6310.502.11f taught by Yexiao Xu (yexiaoxu)UT Dallas Provost's Technology Group

- Yellow Belt Lean Six Sigma Sigma Plusyassine0077
- INCOTERMS SElyassine0077
- Haim Levy et alyassine0077
- PFC Roman Aguado DeLama Expositoyassine0077
- JDS-225yassine0077
- capm2004ayassine0077
- Capmyassine0077
- export_1431625763495yassine0077
- 2012PA090056.pdfyassine0077
- EDR Logistique 2011yassine0077
- Sample Personnel Planningyassine0077
- SCMyassine0077
- capm2yassine0077
- Chap 11 Dormieryassine0077
- Supply Chain Internationale 217yassine0077
- Management 39yassine0077
- fiche_scmyassine0077
- Livre Blanc Supply Chainyassine0077

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulRead Free for 30 Days

Cancel anytime.

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading