93 views

Uploaded by Gautam Bindlish

operating

operating

© All Rights Reserved

- L5 PROCESS SELECTION AND CAPACITY PLANNING.doc
- Financial Mangement Mcqs
- MB0042 Managerial Economics Assig Set-2
- Chapter 06
- MEFA
- Effectiveness of Agricultural Extension With Respect to Farm Size in Uganda
- Business As
- Cima Certificate Paper c4 Fundamentals of Business Economics Practice Revision
- Price Elasticity of Demand for Water Use
- AP Econ Practice Test #2, Chapters 5-9
- Technology and the great divergence: Global economic development since 1820
- Elastic i Ties
- Elasticity
- Capital Structure -Chapter 16, Eugene Brigham-General
- EC 1000 - Economics - Study Questions - Fall 2012
- Case Interviewing Tips and Techniques
- Executive Summary
- ped
- aleem.pdf
- Ch1_ManagementScience-3.ppt

You are on page 1of 10

Lord, Richard A. Issues in Accounting Education. Sarasota: Fall 1995. Vol. 10, Iss. 2; pg. 317

MOST business majors study the concept of break-even analysis at some point in their

accounting training. Many of these students are also exposed to the notions of operating leverage

and degree of operating leverage in their courses on managerial accounting and finance. It is

often implicitly suggested that operating leverage is a simple measure of the extent to which a

firm is employing fixed costs in its production function. This paper explores two aspects of the

firm's degree of operating leverage.

First, the theoretical relationship between changes in a firm's operating characteristics (unit price,

level of output, unit variable cost, and fixed costs) and its degree of operating leverage is

developed. It is found that conventional measures of degree of operating leverage do not

necessarily rise as fixed costs increase accompanied by a decrease in unit variable costs, but that

changes in the degree of operating leverage are positively related to increases in cost, whether

fixed or variable. Even more interesting, it is found that (for a given level of demand) each firm

has a natural rate of substitution at which it can increase fixed costs while lowering variable costs

without any change in the degree of operating leverage or break-even point. In fact, it is possible

to find a firm taking on higher levels of fixed costs with lower unit variable costs and have its

degree of operating leverage and break-even point decrease.

The second area of concern is the difference between measures of degree of operating leverage

as they are computed in practice, as compared to how they appear in most textbooks. There are

two computational nuances to consider. One is the simple difference between point elasticities

and point-to-point elasticities. The other is the tendency of point-to-point measures of degree of

operating leverage to produce numerical results less than one for small changes in unit output.

This is of extreme importance for researchers attempting to employ degree of operating leverage

as a simple linear or curvilinear proxy for a firm's operating leverage.

The relationship between fixed and variable cost technology, operating leverage, and the breakeven point is first outlined. Then, a theoretical analysis of degree of operating leverage is

developed. Next, the empirical performance of the various methods to calculate the degree of

operating leverage are presented, and in the final section, conclusions are summarized.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FIXED COST, VARIABLE COST, AND OPERATING

LEVERAGE

The principles of fixed and variable costs are usually introduced to students early-on in cost and

managerial accounting, as well as microeconomics courses. While these concepts are simple to

understand, practitioners know that they -- especially fixed costs -- are elusive in real life.

After exposure to the idea of fixed and variable costs, some students in managerial accounting

and finance are introduced to the concept of operating leverage. Characteristic is the statement

from Garrison and Noreen (1994, 295) that "If a company has high operating leverage (that is, a

high portion of fixed costs in relation to variable costs), then profits will be very sensitive to

changes in sales." Similar definitions can be found in managerial accounting texts by Hansen and

Mowen (1994, 350) and Hilton (1994, 339). They are also common in finance texts -- for

instance, the popular volume by Brigham (1994, 426). To demonstrate this relationship, authors

show a couple of hypothetical income statements. These examples usually leave the student

convinced that firms with high fixed costs and low variable costs will have high levels of

operating leverage.

Notice, however, that the word "portion" in Garrison and Noreen's definition makes the operating

leverage dependent on the level of the firm's rate of output, which, in turn, depends on quantity

demanded. For instance, imagine a firm with a production function involving a given (annual)

fixed cost and a per-unit variable cost. If it produced only one unit this year, it would clearly

have very high fixed costs relative to variable costs, hence it would have a high level of

operating leverage. As output begins to rise, however, the firm's level of operating leverage

would begin to fall. This definition of operating leverage depends as much (or more) on the

exogenous level of demand as it does on the endogenous fixed and variable cost technology the

firm has chosen to employ.

Most textbooks also present alternative measures to quantify the relationship between the

amounts of fixed cost and unit variable cost in a firm's production technology and the risks

associated with demand for the product. The most common and most simple is, of course, the

break-even point (BE). Cost accounting texts usually include a lengthy discussion of costvolume-profit (CVP) analysis. Many managerial accounting texts also feature a presentation of

degree of operating leverage (DOL). For instance, Garrison and Noreen (1994, 296) and Hansen

and Mowen (1994, 350) both include a discussion of DOL, while Hilton (1994) does not. In this

work, we will concentrate on the properties of DOL as a measure of the relative amounts of fixed

and unit variable costs employed by the firm in production (with occasional references to the

BE).

When a discussion of DOL is included in accounting texts, the most popular definition is:

DOL sub 1 =

(p - v)Q

/

(p - v)Q - F

, (1)

where p is the unit price of goods sold, v is the unit variable cost, F is the periodic fixed cost of

the firm, and Q is the unit output or quantity demanded for the period. From a practical point of

view, this presentation is not very useful, as the parameters necessary for the calculation are

usually unobservable.

A more workable alternative, presented by Brigham (1994, 440) in his finance text, which we

will dub DOL sub 2 is:

DOL sub 2 = % Delta EBIT / % Delta Q, (2)

where EBIT is the firm's earnings before interest and taxes ((p - v)Q - F). Again, since Q is often

unobservable to outside analysts, equation (2) is often presented as:

DOL sub 3 % Delta EBIT / % Delta Sales ($), (3)

where sales are pQ. Such definitions occur less frequently in the managerial accounting texts, but

they do occasionally appear. For instance, see Hansen and Mowen, (1994, 350) and Maher et al.

(1991, 917).

It is obvious from equations (2) and (3) that DOL is what an economist would call an elasticity

measure. As defined above, DOL sub 1 is a point estimate of the elasticity measure whereas DOL

sub 2 and DOL sub 3 are arc elasticities or estimates of the elasticity made from actual, observed

changes.

We wish to determine to what extent these elasticity measures of operating leverage tell us about

changes in the endogenous level of fixed and variable cost in the firm's production function. By

observing changes in the various measures of DOL, what can we predict about shifts in the

production function?

ESTIMATES OF DOL WITH OBSERVABLE & OPERATING PARAMETERS

In most textbook presentations, it is assumed that unit price (p), unit variable cost (v), and fixed

costs (F) are unchanging parameters and that DOL is a function of unit output (Q). Under these

conditions, equations (2) and (3) are interchangeable since, with prices given, the change in unit

sales and dollar sales are identical. The analysis implicitly assumes that p is determined in a

perfectly competitive economy and is not a function of Q and that there are no downward sloping

demand curves. If there were, the calculations would be much more complex.

Equation (1) is based on the (presumably observable) levels of three parameters (p, v, and F) and

the variable (Q). The reader can quickly confirm the relationship between the break-even point

and DOL, noting where Q > BE, then DOL sub 1 > 1, and if Q < BE, then DOL sub 1 < 0. This

relationship is obvious from the graphs usually presented in the CVP analyses of most

accounting texts explaining operating profit or loss as a function of units sold (see Horngren et

al. 1994, 64). Another, more informative graphical relationship between DOL sub 1 and Q

(assuming the parameters p, v, and F are given) is presented in chart 1, showing that DOL

converges to plus or minus infinity as output approaches the BE point. (All charts omitted)

Let's consider how the level of DOL sub 1 would change in response to changes in its various

subcomponents. First, it is obvious from chart 1 that DOL sub 1 decreases as the variable Q

increases (given the parameters p, v, and F). This result holds whether Q is above or below the

BE point (the one exception being the jump from negative to positive infinity as you "cross" the

BE point). To be precise, the partial derivative for DOL sub 1 , with respect to Q is:

deltaDOL sub 1 /deltaQ = -F(p - v)/

((p - v)Q - F) sup 2

. (4)

As long as (p-v) > 0, this derivative is negative.

Now let's consider what would happen if the parameters of the function change, which is, of

course, very possible in the real world. First, what if there were a change in price, assuming

constant v, F and Q? In this case,

deltaDOL sub 1 /deltap = -FQ/

((p - v)Q - F) sup 2

, (5)

then, DOL sub 1 decreases with increases in price. It should also be noted that where P < v, 0 <

DOL sub 1 < 1, a result that is impossible on chart 1, which was based on the assumption p > v.

The parameters of most interest are the fixed and variable costs. The partial derivatives in each

case are,

deltaDOL sub 1 /deltav = FQ/

((p - v)Q - F) sup 2

, (6)

and

deltaDOL sub 1 /de;taF = (p - v)Q/

((p - v)Q - F) sup 2

. (7)

These two derivatives imply that DOL sub 1 increases with an increase in either fixed or variable

cost (assuming p > v).

It is also interesting to note the interrelationships between these measures at any given level of

output. The measures deltaDOL sub 1 /deltap and deltaDOL sub 1 /deltav have exactly the same

magnitude but opposite signs. Also, the ratio between deltaDOL sub 1 /deltav and deltaDOL sub

1 /deltaF, is F/(p - v), which is equal to the BE point. Similarly, the ratio between deltaDOL sub 1

/deltav and deltaDOL sub 1 /deltaQ is -Q/(p - v) and that between deltaDOL sub 1 /deltaF and

DOL sub 1 /deltaQ is -F/(p - v).

Consider two firms, manufacturing the same product, where both sell their output for $8.00 per

unit, and both have annual demand for 200 units. Firm A employs a technology involving fixed

costs of $400 per year and variable costs of $4.00 per unit. Firm B, on the other hand, has a

variable cost of only $3.00 per unit, but has annual fixed cost of $500. Both of these firms have a

DOL sub 1 = 2, even though Firm B clearly uses a higher ratio of fixed costs to unit variable

costs in its production function.

Interestingly, these two different technologies have the same DOL sub 1 and BE point at every

level of output. There is, in fact, an associated family of fixed vs. variable cost production

functions that would all have the same DOL sub 1 at every level of output. This set of

technologies is linear in fixed cost vs. variable cost space (see chart 2). Technologies above and

to the right of the line have higher levels of DOL sub 1 than those on the line, and technologies

below and to the left have lower levels of DOL sub 1 (at a given level of demand). If fixed costs

are changed as a function of variable costs when a new production technology is introduced, the

slope of this line is,

deltaDOL/deltav = {

(pQ - vQ - F)(-Q)

(pQ - vQ)(-Q - deltaF/deltav)

}/

(pQ - vQ - F) sup 2

.

Setting deltaDOL/deltav = 0 and solving for deltaF/ deltav, deltaF/deltav =

(pQ - vQ - F)/(p - v)

- Q. Then, substituting DOL sub 1 back into the expression, deltaF/deltav = -Q(1- (1/DOL sub

1 )). When the firm substitutes fixed for variable cost at this rate, DOL sub 1 will remain constant

for a given level of output. If the firm adds new fixed costs at a higher rate than the

corresponding reduction in variable costs, DOL sub 1 will rise for a given level of demand. This

would be a shift from point A to point B on chart 2. These are the cases usually presented in

numerical examples of operating leverage, DOL or BE point. This gives students the impression

that these measures rise with an increase in the ratio between fixed cost and unit variable cost.

Notice, however, that it would be possible to shift from point A to point C, raising fixed costs and

lowering variable costs, yet DOL would fall at all levels of output.

ELASTICITY MEASURES OF DOL

Next, consider the arc elasticity measures of DOL represented by equations (2) and (3). First,

make the usual assumptions that price, fixed cost, and unit variable cost are constant and that

only the output is allowed to fluctuate. Consider a firm with a unit selling price of $8.00, unit

variable cost of $4.00 (p - v = $4.00), and fixed costs of $400 per year, implying a BE point of

100 units (these same initial conditions will be used in all subsequent examples).

Suppose that annual sales are at 97 units, (which is below the BE point), and that sales grow at

one percent per year. Results for Q, EBIT and each of the three estimates of DOL are presented

in table 1. (All table omitted) As predicted by equation (4), each DOL measure falls as Q

increases (with the exception of the jump over BE). Also, DOL never falls in the range between

zero and one. The relationship between the different DOLs is clear with DOL sub 2 and DOL sub

3 tracking DOL sub 1 exactly. This is not surprising, as these were the conditions under which

equations (2) and (3) were derived from equation (1).

It is necessary to point out a potential problem in the calculation of DOL sub 2 and DOL sub 3 .

As stated above, equation (1) is a point estimate of the DOL, while equations (2) and (3) are

based on actual ex post changes in the variables. Normally, formulas for percentage change are

presented as either,

% Delta Q = (Q sub 2 - Q sub 1 )/Q sub 1 , (8)

or,

% Delta Q = (Q sub 2 - Q sub 1 )/

(Q sub 1 + Q sub 2 )/2

. (9)

If the percentage changes used to calculate DOL sub 2 and DOL sub 3 were estimated by

equation (8), DOL sub 2 and DOL sub 3 would appear to lag DOL sub 1 by one period. If

equation (9) were employed to estimate the percentage changes used to calculate DOL sub 2 and

DOL sub 3 , the estimates would be an "average" of the current and preceding estimates of DOL

sub 1 . Therefore, care must be taken to line up the estimated percentage changes used in

calculating DOL sub 2 and DOL sub 3 with the point estimate of elasticity. This can be done, in

this example, by using the final value of the variables (where the point estimate is made) as the

denominator of the fraction,

% Delta Q = (Q sub 2 - Q sub 1 )/Q sub 2 . (10)

The results of the calculations of DOL sub 2 and DOL sub 3 in table 1 show that estimating the

percentage changes using equation (10) will align all the estimates of DOL.

Dugan and Shriver (1992) conducted an empirical study of elasticity-based measures of DOL

using accounting data. One of their efficiency tests of a measure of DOL was the percentage of

results greater than one. This follows a suggestion by O'Brien and Vanderheiden (1987).

Assuming most firms operate above their BE point, this seems to be a reasonable approach. The

very notion of this test, however, suggests that, in practice, estimates of DOL sub 2 and DOL sub

3 tend to produce a considerable number of observations less than one (which, according to the

logic in the last section, would imply a unit sales price less than variable cost) and even less than

zero (which implies the firm is operating below the BE point). Clearly, in practice, the estimates

of DOL sub 2 and DOL sub 3 over time do not behave as anticipated in chart 1 and table 1. This

is because the parameters, p, v, and F, are not constant. However, our earlier estimates of partial

derivatives (in equations (5), (6), and (7)) should give us some insight into the sensitivity of

changes in estimates of DOL sub 2 and DOL sub 3 to changes in the parameters.

Therefore, we will consider, analytically, the cases where these parameters are allowed to

fluctuate. Notice that in equations (2) and (3), we cannot hold output constant, as this would

result in a value of zero in the denominator. Therefore, we cannot conduct a true sensitivity

analysis of the impact of the changes in parameters on DOL sub 2 and DOL sub 3 in isolation.

For our examples, we will assume base levels for the parameters of p = $8.00, v = $4.00, and F =

$400 (the initial BE = 100 units). We will then consider cases with values above and below the

base level for each parameter in turn. Since unit output must also vary in order to calculate a

DOL sub 2 or DOL sub 3 , we will consider values of output around an initial base level of 110

units (in the profitable region of output). This base level of unit output was chosen for two

reasons. First, it is near the BE point, so changes in the level of DOL will be large for a change in

the variable or parameter (this would arguably be the area of most interest to a firm's manager).

Second, according to equation (4), this also happens to be the point at which deltaDOL/deltaQ =

-1. This should make it a bit more convenient to distinguish the impact of a change in output

from the impact of the change in the parameter of interest. Results for the cases where unit

variable costs are allowed to fluctuate along with unit output are presented in tables 2 and 3. The

levels of DOL sub 1 are presented in table 2 and the levels of DOL sub 2 and DOL sub 3 are

shown in table 3 (in this case, since unit price is constant, these values are identical). In table 2, it

is possible to see the impacts of changes in unit output and unit variable cost in isolation. In the

column with v = 4.00, we can observe the impact of changes in output on DOL sub 1 . Notice

that as Q decreases below the base level of 110 units, the levels of DOL sub 1 increase by

slightly more than two for each two-unit decrease in output. Also, as output increases above the

base level by units of two, DOL sub 1 decreases by increments of slightly less than two. As noted

earlier, deltaDOL sub 1 /deltaQ = -1. In this case, the slight discrepancies are, of course, based on

the convexity of the curve (as seen in chart 1).

In the row with Q - 110, we can see the impact of changes in unit variable cost in isolation. At

the initial levels of output deltaDOL sub 1 /deltav = 27.5. Since variable cost is changing in

increments of 2 cents, one would theoretically anticipate changes in the level of DOL sub 1 by

0.55 (27.5 x .02) across each column. Note that as unit variable cost increases above $4.00, the

changes in DOL are slightly greater than 0.55, and as v decreases below $4.00, the changes in

DOL sub 1 are slightly less than 0.55 (again, this is due to the convexity in the relationship

between v and DOL sub 1 ). Also note that the values of DOL sub 1 rise steadily along each row

and column as the level of unit output falls and the level of unit variable cost rises.

The values for DOL sub 2 and DOL sub 3 , in table 3, were calculated by taking the percentage

change from the initial base position (p 8.00, v - 4.00, F - 400, Q = 110, and DOL sub 1 = 11.00)

to the new level of output and unit variable cost using equation (10). As stated above, it is not

possible to calculate levels of DOL sub 2 and DOL sub 3 in the case where output does not

change. Also, notice that in the column with v = 4.00, the results in table 2 and table 3 are

identical. This is, of course, the same result seen in table 1.

What is most interesting is to observe the differences between table 2 and table 3 for the results

in the quadrants off the center row and column. In the extreme corner of each northern quadrant

(lower unit output), the values of DOL sub 1 and DOL sub 2 are both higher than the initial level

of DOL sub 1 = 11.00. In the northeastern quadrant, values of DOL sub 2 are greater than

corresponding values of DOL sub 1 . However, in the northwestern quadrant, values of DOL sub

2 are less than DOL sub 1 . In the southern quadrants, we observe the opposite conditions: values

are below DOL sub 1 = 11.00, while DOL sub 2 > DOL sub 1 in the southwestern quadrant and

DOL sub 2 < DOL sub 1 in the southeastern quadrant.

The other notable feature of table 3 is that, if one looks down the columns, as unit output rises,

DOL sub 2 does not steadily fall. There is an obvious "ridge" in the level of DOL sub 2 , where it

falls then rises then begins to fall again. Most of these dips appear near the center row, but in the

column with v - 4.04, it can be seen further down the column.

These two differences in the outcomes are caused by two separate computational nuances. The

source of the first bias is again an arc elasticity problem. Both measures of DOL are based on

equation (2), which can be rewritten as: DOL =

(EBIT sub 2 - EBIT sub 1 )/EBIT sub 2 /(Q sub 2 -Q sub 1

/Q sub 2

, but in calculating DOL sub 1 , it is implicitly assumed that p sub 1 , v sub 1 , and F sub 1 are

equal to p sub 2 , v sub 2 , and F sub 2 throughout:

(equation 11 and 12 omitted)

In tables 2 and 3, p sub 2 = p sub 1 and F sub 2 = F sub 1 , but v sub 2 -= v sub 1 . For instance,

in the northeastern quadrant, v sub 2 > v sub 1 -- therefore, DOL sub 2 > DOL sub 1 . Similar

reasoning, of course, explains the biases in the distant corners of the other three quadrants.

The second flaw, the existence of "a valley and a ridge" in the data near the row associated with

the base level of output (Q = 110), is also due to a problem involved in estimations of elasticity

from point-to-point. Notice that very small changes in unit output create relatively large changes

in EBIT as they are leveraged in the numerator, since they are multiplied by the operating

margin. In table 3, these effects are hidden, since at an output level of Q = 110, we are so near

the BE point that small changes in output cause relatively large changes in DOL sub 2 . In table

4, we see a case featuring much smaller changes in unit output, and here the very large positive

and negative levels of DOL sub 2 associated with small changes in unit output are clear. It is also

important to keep in mind that this problem can be quite serious at levels of output far from the

BE point, as the level of sensitivity to changes in unit output is even lower. Results for

calculations of DOL sub 2 for the area around an initial output level of 210 units are shown in

table 5. Here the negative results for DOL sub 2 are evident. Also, notice that for several

observations, 0 < DOL sub 2 < 1. According to standard theory, this should occur in cases where

p < v, which is, of course, unlikely, but such results will obviously be quite common when

equations (2) or (3) are employed to calculate DOL.

The estimates for levels of DOL sub 1 and DOL sub 2 associated with changes in unit output and

fixed costs are summarized in tables 6 and 7 respectively. At the initial conditions, the elasticity

deltaDOL sub 1 /deltaF = 0.275, which means that changes of $2.00 in the fixed costs should

cause changes of approximately 0.55 in the level of DOL sub 1 (notice, as stated above, that

DOL sub 1 /deltav

/

deltaDOL sub 1 /deltaF

= F/(p - v)). The results are clearly very close to those for changes in variable cost summarized in

tables 2 and 3. As expected, rising levels of DOL sub 1 are associated with falling levels of

output and rising costs. We also notice the same biases in the estimates of DOL sub 2 , where

small changes in output cause extreme results, and also the arc estimation problems for values of

DOL sub 2 associated with larger changes in output.

Results for the levels of DOL sub 1 , DOL sub 2 , and DOL sub 3 , when both unit output and

unit price change, are presented in tables 8, 9, and 10 respectively. Again, the familiar patterns

occur. In this case, DOL sub 1 increases with decreases in unit price. In fact, as discussed above,

deltaDOL sub 1 / deltap = -deltaDOL sub 1 /deltav, and comparison reveals that tables 8 and 9

are mirror images of tables 2 and 3. The results for both DOL sub 2 and DOL sub 3 reveal the

existence of extreme values for small changes in unit output. Both are also biased by the arc

elasticity problem for larger changes in unit output. An interesting feature of table 10 is that the

results from elasticity DOL sub 3 are closer to those for DOL sub 1 than are estimates of DOL

sub 2 . This helps reduce this bias to an extent, as DOL sub 3 is, in fact, the most commonly used

method in practice.

- L5 PROCESS SELECTION AND CAPACITY PLANNING.docUploaded byhussainnizzami
- Financial Mangement McqsUploaded byowaishazara
- MB0042 Managerial Economics Assig Set-2Uploaded byAli Asharaf Khan
- Chapter 06Uploaded byMax
- MEFAUploaded byvamsibu
- Business AsUploaded byCarmen Yong
- Cima Certificate Paper c4 Fundamentals of Business Economics Practice RevisionUploaded byMelanie Rekha
- Price Elasticity of Demand for Water UseUploaded byJayChristian Quimson
- Effectiveness of Agricultural Extension With Respect to Farm Size in UgandaUploaded byRaj K Adhikari
- AP Econ Practice Test #2, Chapters 5-9Uploaded byRodger12
- Technology and the great divergence: Global economic development since 1820Uploaded bylatela
- Elastic i TiesUploaded byCamilo Ochoa
- ElasticityUploaded byGaurav Somani
- Capital Structure -Chapter 16, Eugene Brigham-GeneralUploaded byMahmud Palash
- EC 1000 - Economics - Study Questions - Fall 2012Uploaded bygurth4ng
- Case Interviewing Tips and TechniquesUploaded byZaki Al-Tamimi
- Executive SummaryUploaded byDo Minh Tam
- pedUploaded bymyrank09
- aleem.pdfUploaded byAnonymous VD0shKtr
- Ch1_ManagementScience-3.pptUploaded byBob Rob
- Break Even AnalysisUploaded byPawan Biswa
- Ans for Extra QnUploaded byManFang Neo
- Project Handling- Answer SheetUploaded byacemuralinallawar
- Managerial EconomicsUploaded byPiyan Ghosh
- Week2.DiscussionQuestionsUploaded byFrederickPaigeIII
- managerial-economics-lecture-notesUploaded byapi-239303870
- 11 Facility Location and Layout PlanningUploaded byRahul Gupta
- 02a Facilities Planning February 2017Uploaded byBASHARUDDIN HASAN
- Term Paper on Capital Structure Determinants of IT Industry of BangladeshUploaded byShahed Faisal
- Financing BPLUploaded byGấu Isaac

- QUALITY ENGINEERINGUploaded byRamona
- six sigmaUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- Case 5 (1)Uploaded byGautam Bindlish
- Ds 161711Uploaded byGautam Bindlish
- Ch16HullOFOD9thEditionUploaded byseanwu95
- FnF GuidelinesUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- Accounting Standard Setting Update-Bob UhlUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- swap optionsUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- Crest LightUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- Sample Case 1Uploaded bySundeep Chauhan
- Foreign Exchange Hedging Strategies at GUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- ieee_scv_pses_may11.pptUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- acovaUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- A1 Q3 Capability.pdfUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- moCOQ ModelsUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- A1 Q5 Capability.pdfUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- COQ ModelsUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- A1 Q5 CapabilityUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- A1 Q3 CapabilityUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- A1 Q2 Capability.pdfUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- A1 Q1 CapabilityUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- Ch08HullOFOD9thEditionUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- Final Placement Report Batch of 2014 - 16Uploaded byGautam Bindlish
- Merged DocumentUploaded byGautam Bindlish
- Assignment 1Uploaded byGautam Bindlish
- Ips 5e Minitab ManualUploaded byVi Bi
- Mcdonald's Scm (Ppt)Uploaded byMaria Kerawala

- Minimum Requirements for Market Analysis in EmergenciesUploaded byOxfam
- Feenstra_Taylor_Econ_CH06.pptUploaded byJuan Tello
- BBA 1st Semester Syllabus.pdfUploaded byJp Kafle
- Meaning of Elasciticity of DemandUploaded byDonasco Casinoo Chris
- Market SegmentationUploaded byCh Rajkamal
- Services MarketingUploaded byVivek Singh Rana
- eco_mcq1Uploaded byRicha A. Shrivastava
- QABE Assorted QuestionsUploaded byBrendan J Wilson
- Sugar IndustryUploaded byOvais Chhipa
- Economics SyllabusUploaded byAlvin
- P2 Exam Practice KitUploaded byimmaculate79
- hello209.pdfUploaded byPaul Matshona
- 1111525196_292892Uploaded byStrategic Management
- Gillette IndonesiaUploaded byyasirghufran
- Papantoniou 1979 Foreign Trade and Industrial Development Greece and the EECUploaded byYiannis Gioukas
- Working Paper on Keynes Z functionUploaded byDustin Mineau
- Assign. 2 F-07Uploaded byapi-26315128
- Eco ProjectUploaded byNeel Narsinghani
- Second Midterm Spring 2015 Answer v 1Uploaded byToàn Phạm
- apollo anjuUploaded byMaria Ann Joseph
- C10 12ed Quantitative DataUploaded byAdam Lo
- Basic MicroeconomicsUploaded byJanzen Mark Gueta
- Credence Capital Sector Analysis 08-14Uploaded bysimar_iiml
- Mark. DefinatonUploaded bySyed Ikram Ullah Shah
- QQue1001PS1Uploaded byapi-3716695
- Chapter 1 EconUploaded byMajila Jean Asilo
- Microeconomics Homew OrkUploaded byTấn Lộc Louis
- Suryavanshi_5141400313Uploaded byHitechSoft Hitsoft
- What strategies can a local supermarket such as Shivraj Super Shoppee use to compete with a huge hypermarket such as Star Bazaar?Uploaded byAnam Ankolkar
- Colander Sample Ch05Uploaded bymischiefven