7 views

Uploaded by Dominico Roi De Castro

- LN08Brooks671956_02_LN08
- Ch-4 Risk and Return-Latest
- Chap009 Test Bank(1) Solution
- The Evolution of Quantitative Investment Strategies
- SAPM Capital Asset Pricing Model
- Harold Evensky's Blog 1
- MK 1 Kuliah 2 Financial Environment
- A Test of the Efficiency of a Given Portfolio Gibbons M R Ross S a and Shanken J
- Chapter 8
- risk and return
- Beta_risk-1
- financial instruments
- CAPM Review
- CAPM - Theory and Evidence
- tb05
- Equity bond valuation.pptx
- Syllabus
- 19752
- Risk and Rates of Returns (FM Ppt) by Vikas
- Sample Chapter

You are on page 1of 10

13.1

Introduction

We have made two first attempts (Chapters 10 to 12) at asset pricing from

an arbitrage perspective, that is, without specifying a complete equilibrium

structure. Here we try again from a different, more empirically based angle.

Let us first collect a few thoughts as to the differences between an arbitrage

approach and equilibrium modeling.

In the context of general equilibrium theory, we make hypotheses about

agents consumers, producers, investors; in particular, we start with some form

of rationality hypothesis leading to the specification of maximization problems

under constraints. We also make hypotheses about markets: Typically we assume that supply equals demand in all markets under consideration.

We have repeatedly used the fact that at general equilibrium with fully

informed optimizing agents, there can be no arbitrage opportunities, in other

words, no possibilities to make money risklessly at zero cost. An arbitrage

opportunity indeed implies that at least one agent can reach a higher level of

utility without violating his/her budget constraint (since there is no extra cost).

In particular, our assertion that one can price any asset (income stream) from

the knowledge of Arrow-Debreu prices relied implicitly on a no-arbitrage hypothesis: with a complete set of Arrow-Debreu securities, it is possible to replicate

any given income stream and hence the value of a given income stream, the

price paid on the market for the corresponding asset, cannot be different from

the value of the replicating portfolio of Arrow-Debreu securities. Otherwise an

arbitrageur could make arbitrarily large profits by short selling large quantities

of the more expensive of the two and buying the cheaper in equivalent amount.

Such an arbitrage would have zero cost and be riskless.

While general equilibrium implies the no-arbitrage condition, it is more restrictive in the sense of imposing a heavier structure on modeling. And the

reverse implication is not true: No arbitrage opportunities1 the fact that all

arbitrage opportunities have been exploited does not imply that a general

equilibrium in all markets has been obtained. Nevertheless, or precisely for that

reason, it is interesting to see how far one can go in exploiting the less restrictive

hypothesis that no arbitrage opportunities are left unexploited.

The underlying logic of the APT to be reviewed in this chapter is, in a sense,

very similar to the fundamental logic of the Arrow-Debreu model and it is very

much in the spirit of a complete market structure. It distinguishes itself in two

major ways: First it replaces the underlying structure based on fundamental

securities paying exclusively in a given state of nature with other fundamental

securities exclusively remunerating some form of risk taking. More precisely, the

APT abandons the analytically powerful, but empirically cumbersome, concept

of states of nature as the basis for the definition of its primitive securities. It

1

An arbitrage portfolio is a self-financing (zero net-investment) portfolio. An arbitrage

opportunity exists if an arbitrage portfolio exists that yields non-negative cash flows in all

states of nature and positive cash flows in some states (Chapter 11).

replaces it with the hypothesis that there exists a (stable) set of factors that are

essential and exhaustive determinants of all asset returns. The primitive security will then be defined as a security whose risk is exclusively determined by

its association with one specific risk factor and totally immune from association

with any other risk factor. The other difference with the Arrow-Debreu pricing

of Chapter 8 is that the prices of the fundamental securities are not derived from

primitives supply and demand, themselves resulting from agents endowments

and preferences but will be deduced empirically from observed asset returns

without attempting to explain them. Once the price of each fundamental security has been inferred from observed return distributions, the usual arbitrage

argument applied to complex securities will be made (in the spirit of Chapter

10).2

13.2

Factor Models

The main building block of the APT is a factor model, also known as a returngenerating process. As discussed previously, this is the structure that is to

replace the concept of states of nature. The motivation has been evoked before:

States of nature are analytically convincing and powerful objects. In practice,

however, they are difficult to work with and, moreover, often not verifiable,

implying that contracts cannot necessarily be written contingent on a

specific state of nature. We discussed these shortcomings of the ArrowDebreu pric- ing theory in Chapter 8. The temptation is thus irresistible to

attack the asset pricing problem from the opposite angle and build the concept

of primitive secu- rities on an empirically more operational notion, abstracting

from its potential theoretical credentials. This structure is what factor models

are for.

The simplest conceivable factor model is a one-factor market model, usually

labeled the Market Model, which asserts that ex-post returns on individual assets

can be entirely ascribed either to their own specific stochastic components or to

their common association in a single factor, which in the CAPM world would

naturally be selected as the return on the market portfolio. This simple factor

model can thus be summarized by following the equation (or process):3

rj = j + j rM + j ,

(13.1)

0, j = k.

This model states that there are three components in individual returns: (1)

an asset-specific constant j ; (2) a common influence, in this case the unique

factor, the return on the market, which affects all assets in varying degrees,

with j measuring the sensitivity of asset js return to fluctuations in the market return; and (3) an asset-specific stochastic term j summarizing all

other stochastic components of rj that are unique to asset j.

2

The arbitrage pricing theory was first developed by Ross (1976), and substantially interpreted by Huberman (1982) and Conner (1984) among others. For a presentation emphasizing

practical applications, see Burmeister et al. (1994).

3 Factors are frequently measured as deviations from their mean. When this is the case,

j

becomes an estimate of the mean return on asset j.

Equation (13.1) has no bite (such an equation can always be written) until

one adds the hypothesis cov (j ,k ) = 0, j = k, which signifies that all

return characteristics common to different assets are subsumed in their link

with the market return. If this were empirically verified, the CAPM would be

the undis- puted end point of asset pricing. At an empirical level, one may

say that it is quite unlikely that a single factor model will suffice.4 But the

strength of the APT is that it is agnostic as to the number of underlying factors

(and their iden- tity). As we increase the number of factors, hoping that this

will not require a number too large to be operational, a generalization of

Equation (13.1) becomes more and more plausible. But let us for the moment

maintain the hypothesis of one common factor for pedagogical purposes.5

13.2.1 About the Market Model

Besides serving as a potential basis for the APT, the Market Model, despite all

its weaknesses, is also of interest on two grounds. First it produces estimates for

the s that play a central role in the CAPM. Note, however, that estimating s

from past data alone is useful only to the extent that some degree of stationarity

in the relationship between asset returns and the return on the market is present.

Empirical observations suggest a fair amount of stationarity is plausible at the

level of portfolios, but not of individual assets. On the other hand, estimating

the s does not require all the assumptions of the Market Model; in particular,

a violation of the cov(i , k ) = 0, i = k hypothesis is not damaging.

The second source of interest in the Market Model, crucially dependent on

the latter hypothesis being approximately valid, is that it permits economizing

on the computation of the matrix of variances and covariances of asset returns

at the heart of the MPT. Indeed, under the Market Model hypothesis, one can

write (you are invited to prove these statements):

2 = 2 2 + 2 , j

j

j M

j

ij

2

i j M

This effectively means that the information requirements for the implementation of MPT can be substantially weakened. Suppose there are N risky assets under consideration. In that case the computation of the efficient fron2

tier requires knowledge of N expected returns, N variances, and N 2N covari2

ance terms (N is the total number of entries in the matrix of variances and

covariances, take away the N variance/diagonal terms and divide by 2 since

ij = ji , i, j).

4

Recall

5

Fama (1973), however, demonstrates that in its form (13.1) the Market Model is inconsistent in the following sense: the fact that the market is, by definition, the collection of all individual assets implies an exact linear relationship between the disturbances j ; in other words,

when the single factor is interpreted to be the market the hypothesis cov (j ,k ) = 0, j

= k cannot be strictly valid.

While we ignore this criticism in view of our purely

pedagogical objective, it is a fact that if a single factor model had a chance to be

empirically verified (in the sense of all the assumptions in (13.1) being confirmed) the unique

factor could not be the market.

Working via the Market Model, on the other hand, requires estimating Equation (13.1) for the N risky returns producing estimations for the N j s and

2

the N j

and estimating the variance of the market return, that is, 2N + 1

information items.

13.3

13.3.1

A Quasi-Complete Market Hypothesis

a second major hypothesis that is akin to assuming that the markets are quasicomplete. What is needed is the existence of a rich market structure with a

large number of assets with different characteristics and a minimum number of

trading restrictions. This market structure, in particular, makes it possible to

form a portfolio P with the following three properties:

Property 1: P has zero cost; in other words, it requires no investment.

This is the first requirement of an arbitrage portfolio.

Let us denote xi as the value of the position in the ith asset in portfolio P .

Portfolio P is then fully described by the vector xT = (x1 , x2 ,..., xN ) and

the zero cost condition becomes

N

X

xi = 0 = x

1,

i=1

with 1 the (column) vector of 1s. (Positive positions in some assets must be

financed by short sales of others.)

Property 2: P has zero sensitivity (zero beta) to the common factor:6

N

X

xi i = 0 = x

.

N

X

totally eliminated:

2

x2

=

i i

0.

i

The APT builds on the assumed existence of such a portfolio, which requires a

rich market structure.

6

Remember that the beta of a portfolio is the weighted sum of the betas of the assets in

the portfolio.

The APT relationship is the direct consequence of the factor structure hypothesis, the existence of a portfolio P satisfying these conditions, and the

no-arbitrage assumption. Given that returns have the structure of Equation

(13.1), Properties 2 and 3 imply that P is riskless. The fact that P has zero

cost (Property 1) then entails that an arbitrage opportunity will exist unless:

r P = 0 = xT r

(13.2)

there must exist scalars 0 , 1 , such

that:

r = 0 1 + 1 , or

r i = 0 + 1 i for all assets i

(13.3)

Equation (13.3) and Properties 1 and 2 are statements about 4 vectors: x,

, 1, and r.

Property 1 states that x is orthogonal to 1. Property 2 asserts that x is

orthogonal to . Together these statements imply a geometric configuration

that we can easily visualize if we fix the number of risky assets at N = 2, which

implies that all vectors have dimension 2. This is illustrated in Figure 13.1.

Insert Figure 13.1

Equation (13.3) no arbitrage implies that x and r are orthogonal.

But this means that the vector r must lie in the plane formed by 1 and , or,

that r can be written as a linear combination of 1 and , as Equation (13.3)

asserts.

More generally, one can deduce from the triplet

N

X

xi =

N

X

NX

xi i =

xi ri =0

ri = 0 + 1 i for all

i.

This is a consequence of the orthonormal projection of the vector ri into

the subspace spanned by the other two.

13.3.3

Meaning of 0 and 1

Suppose that there exists a risk-free asset or, alternatively, that the sufficiently

rich market structure hypothesis permits constructing a fully diversified portfolio with zero-sensitivity to the common factor (but positive investment). Then

rf = rf = 0

.

That is, 0 is the return on the risk-free asset or the risk-free portfolio.

Now let us compose a portfolio Q with unitary sensitivity to the common

factor = 1. Then applying the APT relation, one gets:

rQ = rf + 1

1

Thus, 1 = rQ rf , the excess-return on the pure-factor portfolio Q. It is

now possible to rewrite equation (13.3) as:

ri = rf + i (rQ rf ) .

(13.4) If, as we have assumed, the unique common factor is the return on the

market

portfolio, in which case Q = M and rQ rM , then Equation (13.4) is

simply the CAPM equation:

ri = rf + i (rM

rf ) .

13.4

however, provide any clue as to what these factors should be, or any particular

indication as to how they should be selected. This is both its strength and its

weakness. Suppose we can agree on a two-factor model:

(13.5)

+ bj2F2 +

rj = aj + bj1 F1

ej

j

with Ee = 0, cov F , = cov F , = 0, j, and cov ( , ) = 0, j =

k.

As was the case for Equation (13.1), Equation (13.5) implies that one cannot

reject, empirically, the hypothesis that the ex-post return on an asset j has two

stochastic components: one specific, (ej ), and one systematic, (bj1 1 + bj2F2 ).

F

What is new is that the systematic component is not viewed as the result of

a single common factor influencing all assets. Common or systematic issues

may now be traced to two fundamental factors affecting, in varying degrees, the

returns on individual assets (and thus on portfolios as well). Without loss of

generality we may assume that these factors are uncorrelated.

As before, an expression such as Equation (13.5) is useful only to the extent

that it describes a relationship that is relatively stable over time. The two

factors F1 and F2 must really summarize all that is common in individual asset

returns.

What could these fundamental factors be? In an important article, Chen,

Roll, and Ross (1986) propose that the systematic forces influencing returns

must be those affecting discount factors and expected cash flows. They then isolate a set of candidates such as industrial production, expected and unexpected

inflation, measures of the risk premium and the term structure, and even oil

prices. At the end, they conclude that the most significant determinants of asset returns are industrial production (affecting cash flow expectations), changes

in the risk premium measured as the spread between the yields on low- and

high-risk corporate bonds (witnessing changes in the market risk appetite), and

twists in the yield curve, as measured by the spread between short- and longterm interest rates (representing movements in the market rate of impatience).

Measures of unanticipated inflation and changes in expected inflation also play

a (less important) role.

Let us follow, in a simplified way, Chen, Roll, and Rosss lead and decide that

our two factors are industrial production (F1 ) and changes in the risk premium

(F2 ). How would we go about implementing the APT? First we have to measure

our two factors. Let I P (t) denote the rate of industrial production in month

t; then M P (t) = log I P (t) log I P (t 1) is the monthly growth rate of I

P . This is our first explanatory variable.

To measure changes in the risk premium, let us define

U P R(t) = Baa and under bond portfolio return(t) LGB(t)

where LGB(t) is the return on a portfolio of long-term government bonds. With

these definitions we can rewrite Equation (13.5) as

rjt = aj + bj1 M P (t) + bj2 U P R (t) + ej

The bjk , k = 1, 2, are often called factor loadings. They can be estimated

di- rectly by multivariate regression. Alternatively, one could construct pure

factor portfolios well-diversified portfolios mimicking the underlying factors

and compute their correlation with asset j. The pure factor portfolio P1

would be

a portfolio with bP1 = 1 and bP2 = eP1 = 0; portfolio P2 would be defined

similarly to track the stochastic behavior of U P R(t). Let us go on

hypothesizing (wrongly according to Chen, Roll, and Ross) that this two-factor model

satisfies the necessary assumptions (cov(ei , ej ) = 0, i = j) and further

assume the existence of a risk-free portfolio Pf with zero sensitivity to either of

our two factors and zero specific risk. Then the APT states that there exist

scalars 0 , 1 , 2 such that:

r j = 0 + 1 bj1 + 2 bj2

.

That is, the expected return on an arbitrary asset j is perfectly and completely

described by a linear function of asset js factor loadings bj1 , bj2 . This can

appropriately be viewed as a (two-factor) generalization of the SML.

Furthermore the coefficients of the linear function are:

0

rf

r P 1 rf

r P 2 rf

The APT agrees with the CAPM that the risk premium on an asset, r j 0 ,

is not a function of its specific or diversifiable risk. It potentially disagrees with

the CAPM in the identification of the systematic risk. The APT decomposes

the systematic risk into elements of risk associated with a particular assets

sensitivity to a few fundamental common factors.

Note the parallelism with the Arrow-Debreu pricing approach. In both contexts, every individual asset or portfolio can be viewed as a complex security,

or a combination of primitive securities: Arrow-Debreu securities in one case,

the pure factor portfolios in the other. Once the prices of the primitive securities are known, it is a simple step to compose replicating portfolios and, by a

no-arbitrage argument, price complex securities and arbitrary cash flows. The

difference, of course, resides in the identification of the primitive security. While

the Arrow-Debreu approach sticks to the conceptually clear notion of states of

nature, the APT takes the position that there exist a few common and stable

sources of risk and that they can be empirically identified. Once the corresponding risk premia are identified, by observing the market-determined premia on

the primitive securities (the portfolios with unit sensitivity to a particular factor

and zero sensitivity to all others) the pricing machinery can be put to work.

Let us illustrate. In our two-factor examples, a security j with, say, bj1 =

0.8 and bj2 = 0.4 is like a portfolio with proportions of 0.8 of the pure

portfolio P1 , 0.4 of pure portfolio P2 , and consequently proportion 0.2 in

the riskless asset. By our usual (no-arbitrage) argument, the expected rate

of return on that security must be:

rj

= 0.2rf + 0.8rf + 0.4rf + 0.8 (r P1 rf ) + 0.4 (r P2 rf )

= rf + 0.8 (r P1 rf ) + 0.4 (r P2 rf )

=

0 + bj1 1 + bj2 2

The APT equation can thus be seen as the immediate consequence of the linkage between pure factor portfolios and complex securities in an arbitrage-free

context. The reasoning is directly analogous to our derivation of the value additivity theorem in Chapter 10 and leads to a similar result: Diversifiable risk

is not priced in a complete (or quasi-complete) market world.

While potentially more general, the APT does not necessarily contradict

the CAPM. That is, it may simply provide another, more disaggregated, way

of writing the expected return premium associated with systematic risk, and

thus a decomposition of the latter in terms of its fundamental elements. Clearly

the two theories have the same implications if (keeping with our two-factor

model, the generalization is trivial):

j (r M rf ) = bj1 (r P1 rf ) + bj2 (r P2 rf )

(13.6) Let P1 be the (market) beta of the pure portfolio P1 and similarly

for P2 .

Then if the CAPM is valid, not only is the LHS of Equation (13.6) the expected

risk premium on asset j, but we also have:

r P1 rf

r P2 rf

= P1 (r M

rf )

= P2 (r M rf )

bj1 [P1 (r M rf )] + bj2 [P2 (r M r f )] = (bj1 P1 + bj2 P2 ) (r M

rf )

j = bj1 P1 + bj2 P2

In other words, CAPM and APT have identical implications if the sensitivity of

an arbitrary asset j with the market portfolio fully summarizes its relationship

with the two underlying common factors. In that case, the CAPM would be

another, more synthetic, way of writing the APT.7

In reality, of course, there are reasons to think that the APT with an arbitrary number of factors will always do at least as well in identifying the sources

of systematic risk as the CAPM. And indeed Chen, Roll, and Ross observe that

their five factors cover the market return in the sense that adding the return on

the market to their preselected five factors does not help in explaining expected

returns on individual assets.

13.5

The APT helps to identify the sources of systematic risk, or to split systematic

risk into its fundamental components. It can thus serve as a tool for helping the

portfolio manager modulate his risk exposure. For example, studies show that,

among U.S. stocks, the stocks of chemical companies are much more sensitive

to short-term inflation risk than stocks of electrical companies. This would be

compatible with both having the same exposure to variations in the market

return (same beta). Such information can be useful in at least two ways. When

managing the portfolio of an economic agent whose natural position is very

sensitive to short-term inflation risk, chemical stocks may be a lot less attractive

than electricals, all other things equal (even though they may both have the

same market beta). Second, conditional expectations, or accurate predictions,

on short-term inflation may be a lot easier to achieve than predictions of the

markets return. Such a refining of the information requirements needed to take

aggressive positions can, in that context, be of great use.

13.6

Conclusions

We have now completed our review of asset pricing theories. At this stage it may

be useful to draw a final distinction between the equilibrium theories covered in

Chapters 7, 8, and 9 and the theories based on arbitrage such as the Martingale

pricing theory and the APT. Equilibrium theories aim at providing a complete

theory of value on the basis of primitives : preferences, technology, and

market structure. They are inevitably heavier, but their weight is proportional

to their ambition. By contrast, arbitrage-based theories can only provide a

relative theory of value. With what may be viewed as a minimum of

assumptions, they

7

The observation in footnote 5, however, suggests this could be true as an approximation

only.

underly- ing asset, the stochastic behavior of the latter being taken as

given (and unexplained);

risk- neutral measures extracted from the market prices of a set of

fundamental securities, or in the same vein, using Arrow-Debreu prices

extracted from a complete set of complex securities prices;

explain expected returns on any asset or cash flow stream once the price

of risk associated with pure factor portfolios has been estimated from

market data on the basis of a postulated return-generating process.

Arbitrage-based theories currently have the upper hand in practitioners circles where their popularity far outstrips the degree of acceptance of equilibrium

theories. This, possibly temporary, state of affairs may be interpreted as a

measure of our ignorance and the resulting need to restrain our ambitions.

References

Burmeister, E., Roll, R., Ross, S.A. (1994), A Practitioners Guide to Arbitrage Pricing Theory, in A Practitioners Guide to Factor Models, Research Foundation of the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts, Charlottesville, VA.

Chen, N. F., Roll R., Ross, S.A. (1986), Economic Forces and the Stock

Market, Journal of Business 59(3), 383-404.

Connor, G. (1984), A Unified Beta Pricing Theory, Journal of Economic

Theory 34(1).

Fama, E.F. (1973), A Note on the Market Model and the Two-Parameter

Model, Journal of Finance 28 (5), 1181-1185

Huberman, G. (1982), A Simple Approach to Arbitrage Pricing, Journal of

Economic Theory, 28 (1982): 183191.

Ross, S. A. (1976), The Arbitrage Pricing Theory, Journal of Economic

Theory, 1, 341360.

- LN08Brooks671956_02_LN08Uploaded bynightdaze
- Ch-4 Risk and Return-LatestUploaded byshakilhm
- Chap009 Test Bank(1) SolutionUploaded byEric Fu
- The Evolution of Quantitative Investment StrategiesUploaded bySuperquant
- SAPM Capital Asset Pricing ModelUploaded bySam Rcosta
- Harold Evensky's Blog 1Uploaded bymoneyguidepro
- MK 1 Kuliah 2 Financial EnvironmentUploaded byRizkyka Waluyo Putri
- A Test of the Efficiency of a Given Portfolio Gibbons M R Ross S a and Shanken JUploaded byAzeriboye
- Chapter 8Uploaded byKad Saad
- risk and returnUploaded byabinash234
- Beta_risk-1Uploaded byEvans Okoh Agyemang
- financial instrumentsUploaded bySara Ijaz
- CAPM ReviewUploaded bymohsen55
- CAPM - Theory and EvidenceUploaded bySubha Ranjani
- tb05Uploaded byCsb Finance
- Equity bond valuation.pptxUploaded byvinitha
- SyllabusUploaded byohaipear
- 19752Uploaded byEvans Okoh Agyemang
- Risk and Rates of Returns (FM Ppt) by VikasUploaded byVikas Dubey
- Sample ChapterUploaded byAbhilasha Bhaskar
- Arbitrage Pricing Theory.docxUploaded byKate Alvarez
- emqpaperUploaded byraju990
- Research Proposal on Empirical Analysis of Validity of Capital Assets Pricing ModelUploaded byNepal Bishal Shrestha
- Smart BetaUploaded bydrussell524
- Lec 05 Portfl Thry CAPMUploaded byMarvin Celedio
- CAPM FIXXXXXXUploaded byNadiani Nana
- Investments Revision NotesUploaded bykajsdkjqwel
- Finc361_Lecture_6_Risk and Return, Equity Cost of Capital(1).pdfUploaded byLondonFencer2012
- SSRN-id2358Uploaded byluv_y_kush3575
- fmch06[1]Uploaded byaudityaeros

- Automatic Millionare PaperUploaded byJosh Kabins
- ECO 2Uploaded bysubhankar da
- Chapter 11 - Earnings ManagementUploaded byMohammed El Malki
- Jayaashree Industries Making Meaning to the SocietyUploaded byPankaj Gaurav
- macroeconomics noteUploaded byArif Yucel
- Chapter 12 Managing Relationships and Building LoyaltyUploaded byKay Bautista
- gfdgdfUploaded byRohit Kumar
- Meadow Creek CommonsUploaded byRyan Sloan
- Standard CDS ExamplesUploaded byXiaohu Peng
- Receivable Management1Uploaded bySagarTalreja
- 365 Ways to Get RichUploaded byRobert Maximilian
- The Five Stages of Denial-AllUploaded bytheglobalist2003
- Financial Analysis of Ashok LeylandUploaded byBhavya
- Boq TenderUploaded byLeilani Johnson
- Migration_to_New_GLUploaded bypreetibhavsar
- A Comparative Analysis of Public and Private Sector MutualUploaded byprincess
- Local Water UtilitiesUploaded byadslee
- Payroll ProcessingUploaded byVikas Varshney
- types of wagesUploaded byDr. Mohammad Noor Alam
- Ch 1 SolutionsUploaded byKyprix
- Social Security: ANNUAL%20RE%202003%20final%20copyUploaded bySocial Security
- 6.2014ImpactofDividendAnnouncementonthestockPricesofIndianCompaniesAnEmpiricalEvidencesUploaded bySumitas
- Organisational Study Routine Work Problem Centered Study MBA 2015-17Uploaded bySara
- Drywall Feasibility Study 1Uploaded byFiras Absa
- ACCT1501 Accounting and Financial Management a NoteUploaded byYuxuan Chen
- Financial Analysis of Semirara Mining Corporation for the years ended December 2011 and 2010.Uploaded byMaryam Aleni BV
- Accrual ConceptUploaded bySam Anu
- Complete Annual Report 2014Uploaded bySadafYaseen
- Contracts UploadUploaded byJohn Smith
- Eft MandateformUploaded byAhsan Zaman