12 views

Uploaded by Reeza Seedat

Essay on KMV and credit metrics

- Currency Risk Management
- Greeks- Theory and Illustrations
- slides.pdf
- Work 564
- Females Students.pdf
- sheet1
- Calculus for MF
- Exotic Electricity
- Gender, Compensation n Comp Performance
- FOREIGNEXCHANGEINSTRUMENTS (1)
- FE
- Risk Man Using Options
- variance_swaps_jumps_200903.pdf
- FFM - Q4
- Assignment 2
- ENER-G Launches Collective Energy Purchasing Service
- Otay Mesa Plant -- Resolution E-4981 Option A_Issuance Date Feb 22 Highlights
- ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS APPLIED.pdf
- Options trading
- fnmana

You are on page 1of 16

Credit risk can be defined as the risk of loss arising from a borrowers or counterpartys

inability to meet its obligations. The majority of a financial institutions credit risk arises from

its lending activities. Borrowers expect to use future cash flows to pay current debts however

it is near impossible to ensure that borrowers will have the funds to repay their debts (Young

and Associates, 2009).

For this reason credit risk management has become an important tool for lenders in order to

mitigate losses. It does so by understanding the adequacy of both a banks capital and loan

loss reserves at any given time which is a process that has long been a challenge for

financial institutions (Credit risk management, n.d).

High failure of banks and the significant credit problems they faced during the Global

Financial Crisis put credit risk management into the regulatory spotlight (Credit risk

management, n.d). This caused regulators to demand more transparency. Regulators

wanted to ensure that a bank has thorough knowledge of customers and their associated

credit risk. New Basel III regulations have further created a bigger regulatory burden for

banks.

With a variety of available credit modelling techniques, banks are faced with the dilemma of

deciding which model to choose (Allen and Powell, 2011). The two main approaches to

modelling credit risk in the finance literature are the Structural and Reduced form approach:

Structural approach

Merton (1974) was one of the first to present the idea of structural models with regards to

modelling credit risk. Structural models, make assumptions about the dynamics of a firms

assets, its capital structure, its debt and shareholders. The structural approach treats the

firms liabilities as a contingent claim issued against underlying assets. Ie, a liability is

characterized as an option on the firms assets. It therefore provides an explicit relationship

between default risk and capital structure (Allen and Powell, 2011).

Reduced form approach

Reduced form models are based on an assumption that default is a rare event. A companys

time to default is modelled as a stochastic process whose parameters are estimated by

fitting the model to past bond price data. It is called a reduced form model because it

models default as a statistical event without providing an economic explanation for why a

default occurs. Reduced form models originated to overcome structural models weakness

(Phelps, 2006)

Merton Model

Merton proposed a model, which is based on the option pricing theory of Black-Scholes. The

intuition of treating a companys equity as a call option on its assets is the real beauty of the

Merton model. By doing this, it allows for applications of Black-Scholes option pricing

methods. Merton (1974) assumes that the default event occurs at the maturity date of debt if

the value of assets are less than the value of debt. To better understand this model we will

review the following scenario:

If at time t a company has an asset At financed by equity Et and zero-coupon debt Dt with a

face value of K, maturing at time T>t with the capital structure given by a balance sheet

relationship:

= +

(1)

A debt maturity T is chosen such that all debts are mapped into a zero-coupon bond. In the

situation where At > K, the companys debtholders can be paid the full amount K, and

shareholders equity still has value At - K. On the other hand, if the company defaults on its

debt at T if At < K, in which case debtholders have the first claim on residual asset At and

shareholders are left with nothing. Therefore, the equity value at time T can be written as:

= max( , 0)

(2)

The above equation gives us the exact payoff of a European call option written on underlying

asset At with strike price K maturing at T. The Black-Scholes option pricing formulas can be

applied if corresponding modelling assumptions are made. If we assume that the asset value

follows a geometric Brownian motion (GBM) process, with risk-neutral dynamics given by the

stochastic differential equation:

= +

(3)

Brownian motion under risk-neutral measure, and A is the assets return volatility. It should

be noted that At grows at risk-free rate under the risk-neutral measure and thus has drift r in

(3), implicitly assuming the continuous tradability of corporate assets. Now if we apply the

Black-Scholes formula for European call option, it gives us:

= (1 ) (2 )

(4)

1 =

1

2

2

ln( )+(+

)

2

ln( )+12

(5)

2 = 1

(6)

Taking this framework into consideration, a credit default at time T is triggered by the event

that shareholders call option matures out-of-money, with a risk-neutral probability:

( < ) = (2 )

(7)

Which can be converted into a real-world probability by extracting the underlying market

price of risk.

Even though debtholders are exposed to default risk, their position can be hedged

completely by purchasing a European put option written on the same underlying asset At

with strike price K. The value of such a put option will be: K AT if AT < K, and worth nothing

if AT > K. If these two positions are combined (debt and put option), it would guarantee a

payoff of K for debtholders at time T, thus forming a risk-free position:

+ =

(8)

Here, Pt denotes the put option price at time t. It can be determined by applying the BlackScholes formula for European put option:

= (2 ) . (1 )

(9)

Corporate debt is represented by a risky bond, and thus should be valued at a credit spread

(risk premium). Let s denote the continuously compounded credit spread, then bond price Dt

can be written as:

= (+)()

(10)

Combining (8), (9) and (10) together gives a closed-form formula for s:

= ln((2 ) +

. (1 ))

(11)

The above equation allows us to solve for credit spread when asset level and return volatility

(At and A ) are available for given T, K, and r . A common way of extracting At and A

involves using the following formula:

(1 ) =

(12)

Equity price Et and its return volatility E are both observed from the equity market. Finally,

(4) and (12) can be solved simultaneously for At and A, which are used in (11) to determine

credit spread s.

KMV Model

The KMV model was developed by Keaholfer, McQuown and Vasicek in 1974. It is an

extension of Mertons model. Models such as the KMV have only begun to achieve a certain

popularity in the last few years, largely due to the fact that the empirical application of these

types of model is relatively recent (Miankov, Katarna and Koiov, 2014).

Similar to what was explained for the Merton model, default happens when the value of

assets falls below a certain value, called the default point. The assets of the firm will earn a

certain return and trend with a given mean and volatility over time. Under KMV model, we

assume that the value of the firms assets are log-normally distributed. We can utilize the

option pricing theory to derive both the market value and the volatility of the assets

KMV follows a three step process in order to calculate credit risk:

Step 1: Determine the value of assets (A) and their volatility (A)

The value of a firms equity is driven by five variables:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

E Volatility of a firms equity

L structure of liabilities of the company, defined by the leverage ratio

C coupon paid by the debt in the long term

r risk free rate of interest

As previously discussed, the analyst can use equations (4) and (12) simultaneously to solve

for At and A . Of the above, the last three variables are known, and so is the stock

price. KMV then uses an iterative approach to find out V and , given a knowledge of the S,

L, c and r.

Step 2: Calculate the distance to default (DD)

Recognizing that a firm does not have to default the moment its asset value falls below the

face value of debt is a key concept underlying the KMV approach. Default occurs when the

value of the firms assets falls somewhere between the value of the short term debt and the

value of the total debt. In other words, it is possible to not have default even if the value of

the assets has fallen to less than the total debt. This makes sense intuitively since it is

generally the current cash needs (driven by short term debt) that cause default. Even though

the total liabilities may be greater than the total assets, the firm may have enough cash to

keep paying all liabilities as they come due.

The KMV model sets the default point as somewhere between short term debt (STD) and

the total debt as the total of the short term debt and half the value of the long term debt.

= +

(13)

LTD long-term debt

STD short-term debt

The KMV approach then determines what the distance-to-default is. The distance to default

can be defined as the number of standard deviations assets have to lose before getting to

the default point (DPT). It is calculated as follows:

+(12 2 )

(14)

DPTt default point at time horizon T

rf risk free rate

A annualized asset volatility

The DD can also be expressed in absolute dollar terms, ie, the numerator E(A) DPT

represents the dollar value that needs to be lost to hit the default point. Dividing that by the

standard deviation (in dollars) gives you the number of standard deviations away you are

from the default point:

()

NB: The greater the distance-to default is, the lower the probability of default will be, and

vice versa.

According to Zheng, 2005 KMV tries to obtain the empirical value of the EDF rather than

the theoretical value of the models. This is because in practice, the distribution of the value

of the assets is difficult to measure, which leads KMV to reject the normal or normal

logarithmic density functions.

The KMV Company studied the relationship between the distance-to-default and the

probability of default over a historical series of bankruptcies in order to determine the

probability of insolvency. They collected and analysed data on close to 250,000 companies,

of which nearly 4,700 resulted in insolvency or problems of default. From these data, they

generated a table of frequencies to relate probability of default to different levels of distanceto-default, which is easy to obtain when the market value of the company, its volatility and

the point of insolvency are known. We thus obtain an "empirical" probability.

So, if we want to calculate the probability of default one year ahead for a company whose

distance-to-default (DD) is seven times the variability of its asset value, we refer to the

historical series of companies in the same situation that became insolvent in the following

year. We then divide the number of those insolvent companies by the total population of

companies with the same DD and this gives us a probability of default.

Strengths of the KMV model

It provides you with accurate and timely information from the equity market allowing

for a continuous credit monitoring process that is difficult and expensive to duplicate

using traditional credit analysis.

EDFs calculated on a monthly or a daily basis provide us with a greater degree of

vigilance that annual reviews and other traditional credit processes cannot maintain.

Prior to Moodys purchasing KMV, Changes in EDF tended to anticipate at least one

year earlier than the downgrading of the issuer by rating agencies like Moodys and S

& Ps.

The only way to calculate Private firms EDFs is by using some comparability

analysis based on accounting data.

The KMV model does not distinguish among different types of long-term bonds

according to their seniority, collateral, covenants, or convertibility.

CreditMetrics

CreditMetrics was introduced in 1997 by JP Morgan to evaluate credit risk. The first of its

kind, this framework was put together with the help of Co-sponsors in the name of the

following 5 leading banks; Bank of America, BZW, Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Swiss Bank

corporation and Union Bank of Switzerland and a Leading credit risk analytics firm, KMV

Corporation.

CreditMetrics is a framework that has the ability to quantify credit risk for all firms that carry

some form of credit risk, from a number of instruments, during the life of their business. Its

main outputs is standard deviation (a measure of symmetrical dispersion from the mean

portfolio value) and percentile levels (the likelihood that the portfolio value will fall below a

specified value).

JP Morgan identified, at the time, that the Global economy was rapidly growing and

companies were more willing to take on credit, and more complex credit instruments.

Creating a need for a more sophisticated credit framework which came about in the form of

the JP Morgan CreditMetrics.

(McBride, 2009)

The graph above by Reuters shows the level of growth of credit (debt) over the specified

period. Taking a closer look at the 1990s we see that there was a clear rise in debt that

would create the need to calculate the type of exposure people/companies were taking on at

the time.

The specific aim of JP Morgans CreditMetrics is to:

1. Create a benchmark for credit risk measurements; making risk comparable.

2. Promote credit risk transparency and better risk management tools, leading to

improved market liquidity- transparency and understanding risk management tools.

3. Encourage regulatory capital framework that closely reflects economic risk; a model

which will encourage regulators to look closely at credit factors that impact economic

risk as opposed to capital requirements.

4. Complement other elements of credit risk management decisions- creating a

systematic approach for measuring portfolio risk which takes into account the

relationship between assets and existing portfolios. It attempts to compliment other

risk analysis and not alleviate them.

CreditMetrics takes a portfolio approach to risk analysis which enables the model to quantify

the benefits of diversification and the costs of concentrations. This is done by 1. Restating

and aggregating the credit risk for each obligor across the portfolios so that they may be

treated consistently regardless of the asset class 2. Taking into account the correlation of

credit quality across each obligor. This approach quantifies concentration risk from an

additional obligor; considers concentrations amongst most dimensions; creates a benchmark

for estimating market risk; evaluates investment decisions, credit extensions, and risk

mitigating actions more precisely; sets consistent risk-based credit limits based on

exponential amounts; and makes rational risk-based capital allocations.

The framework uses a mark-to-market framework which is important as it includes upgrades

and downgrades in credit quality of the obligor, not just outright defaults, and it included

Value of at risk caused by these movements and not just expected losses.

An important feature of this model is the ability to make credit risk comparable with market

risk. As we can see below the distribution between the two are quite different therefore they

do this by looking into the future and estimating different values across market and credit

outcome distributions.

(Morgan, 1997)

The fat tail in the credit return distribution causes one of the problems encountered in

modelling portfolio credit risk as it is neither analytically nor practically easy. The problem is

caused as deriving the fat tails of credit returns is much more complex than using means

and standard deviations. The other difficulty in modelling credit risk comes in when trying to

calculate correlation, as they must be derived from other sources such as equity prices, or

tabulated at relatively high level of aggregation.

The CreditMetrics methodology can be seen by the Road Map below.

(Morgan, 1997)

including bonds, loans, swaps and fixed rate swaps and in the case of undrawn

instruments such as commitments, the exposure is based on changes in the drawn

amounts upon defaults, upgrades or downgrades

obligor defaulting or shifting from a one rating to another is estimated using credit

spread data and in default recovery rates. The values are weighted and then

computed on a distribution in order to obtain the standard deviation and expected

value

Correlations; the distributions for each are put together to yield the portfolio results

Certain modelling features have been incorporated into CreditMetrics to make it more

precise these include, 1. Taking into account the volatility of recovery rates, 2. Evaluates

market exposures at the risk horizon, derived from market rates and volatility, 3. Simulates

values to estimate the distribution of the credit portfolio.

Estimating portfolio risk faces many challenges;

1. Unexpected loss is the volatility of the portfolio, it is the loss that cant be predicted

and has to be diversified away. Expected loss on the other hand is a function of the

probability of loss and expected size of loss.

2. The skewness of a credit return distribution is a problem as it cannot be derived

simply from mean and standard deviation calculations, simulation thus computes the

distribution by sampling random outcomes across all possibilities.

3. Low default correlations in credit portfolios means systematic/diversifiable risk is

small. This making the portfolio a lot riskier and creates a risk over-diversifying which

leads to lower returns.

4. The high consequence of illiquidity in credit risk portfolio is a lot higher than for equity

portfolios as we have seen that the probability of default for an individual debt

obligation increases as more debt obligations default.

The difference that CreditMetrics brought, at the time, was its ability to measure

value at risk at the risk horizon (uses a one-year risk horizon) due to events to events

such as upgrades, downgrades and defaults. It is a probabilistic model based on the

assumption that ratings migrations have occurred at all levels and then computes

that to get a migration likelihood

(Morgan, 1997)

Step 1- Calculating credit exposure amounts

When looking at exposure the change in value can be attributed to direct changes to

characteristics of the obligation, i.e. upgrades or downgrades, or to market related

changes such as rate hikes for swaps/forwards. This is a flexible model that looks at

all types of instruments but focuses on; receivables, bonds, loan, commitments to

lend, financial letters of credit and swaps and forwards.

Types of exposure, 1. Receivables- they have a horizon shorter than year and their

exposure is the full face value, so change in value is based on default or no default.

Revaluation upon upgrade and downgrade will only be applicable for horizons

greater than 1 year. 2. Bonds and Loans- their value at risk is the present value of

cash flows the exposure is the changes in rates as it will take the current value away

from par. 3. Commitments- the exposure on loan commitments are linked to the

underlying credit rating/quality. CreditMetrics captures this exposure from the

changes in the quality of the commitment (either downgrade/upgrade or default). 4.

Financial letter of credit- these are guarantees against default so the exposure is

seen as the whole amount whether drawn or not. 5. Market-driven instrumentsinstruments such as swaps, forwards, and fixed rate bonds whose exposure is

dependent on underlying market rates. This exposure unexpectedly and constantly

changes over the life of the instrument.

below shows a graph that JP Morgan sourced from standard and poors CreditWeek

(15 April 96). It shows the likelihood that of debt migrating between different rating

qualities and default in a one-year horizon.

(Morgan, 1997)

Revaluation in default- recovery rates are given to the different classes of ratings

based on seniority observed from historical data the table below shows the

percentage of par obtained after a category defaults.

(Morgan, 1997)

From the above graph it can be seen that the more senior the debt the higher the value

obtained at default although it also comes with the greatest standard deviation.

2. Revaluation upon downgrade and upgrades (credit spreads)- in order to obtain the

values at horizon after an upgrade or downgrade one must derive the forward zero curves

for each rating category, set at horizon until bond maturity. The curves will be used to

revaluate the remaining cash flows, after upgrades or downgrades, at the risk horizon.

Step C: Compute distribution of bond value- the next three diagrams will illustrate

how to compute the distribution of bond values;

1. Shows the probabilities of a BBB rated bond migrating to another ratings category in

the one ear horizon and then revaluates the Bond value should the migrating occur

for each category.

2. Computes the mean, standard deviation and variance due the changes in credit

quality, which useful in illustrating the distribution for that single exposure

3. Illustrates the distribution for the 5-year bond at the one-year horizon. Note that this

distribution does not incorporate the uncertainty in recovery rates and uncertainty in

the value of the default state caused by volatility in credit spreads.

Step 3- Estimating credit quality correlations and calculating portfolio risk

The rating outcomes on different instruments are not independent of each other as

they are affected by similar economic factors. CreditMetrics incorporates measures

of correlation/interdependence between rating outcomes when estimating joint

likelihood of changes. Theres a number of approaches in calculating correlation as

the inputs available are not the most desirable (complex, controversial, sparse and

poor quality). CreditMetrics advocates for an of the following correlation approaches;

Actual rating and default correlations, bond spread correlations, uniform constant

correlation and equity price correlations. The risk of default arising from the decline of

asset value is part of an extension of CreditMetrics where they find that asset

volatilities also drives the joint default probability between firms.

When calculating portfolio correlation, the model uses an approach which maps the credit to

a set of industries and countries that are most probable to impact their performance. This

mapping is most desirable as it can also be used for unlisted instruments as long as they

participate in some sort of industry or country, the managers can relate them.

In order to obtain the distribution CreditMetrics uses simulation as it would be infeasible to

go through all portfolio states to determine this distribution. The simulation is still complex

and time consuming as it tracks the mean, variance, skewness, kurtosis and percentile

levels. The graph below shows the simulated distribution of credit returns with its famous fat

tails.

(Morgan, 1997)

Risk measures (model output)

Standard deviation- likelihood can now be derived using diagram 2, where standard

deviation is multiplied by z-values from normal distribution graphs. What is found

from this exercise is that risk is more understated, when using a given number of

standard deviations of portfolio value, than for a normally-distributed market portfolio.

Percentile levels- can be interpreted as the likelihood that the portfolio value falls

below the 5th percentile is 5%. The amount of risk due to credit is obtained by adding

up the probability of state values starting from the bottom until it reaches the required

percentile value, that bond value subtracted from the mean will give you the value at

risk due to credit.

CreditMetrics also uses standard deviation and percentile levels to calculate the

marginal risk to a portfolio from an additional credit exposure.

Practical applications

1. Prioritizing risk-reducing actions: Credit risk managers must balance their portfolios

based on the percentage risk of an asset and its exposure to the portfolio. Typically,

manager prefer high percentage risk assets to have low absolute size and vice versa.

2. Risk-based exposure limits: based on the premise of risk-return of a portfolio. The

managers have a responsibility to limit absolute risk by selecting a balanced portfolio.

3. Risk-based capital allocation: percentile levels can be used to estimate the maximum

expected loss to capital. With this approach a manager can manage how much more

risk he is willing to take on.

Weakness of Credit metrics (Crouhy, Galai, & Mark, 2000)

defaults and credit migration

Accuracies of the model are based on two key assumptions (which is also applied to

transition probabilities); 1. All firms within the same rating class have the same

default rate, 2. The actual default rate is equal to the historical average default rate.

Conclusion

Credit ratings by firms such as Moodys and S&P have become a key indicator in

determining the risk levels of debt. This can be seen as an advantage as it can guide

investors to limit their risk and exposure. But can be a disadvantage as high

dependence in these models have shown to be detrimental in the past.

(Griffin & Tang, 2012), shows how Credit rating agencies played a part in the global

financial crisis of 2007. The paper attributes it to the downgrades and upgrades of

certain debt instruments that left some banks more exposed than they had accounted

for, and thus were not prepared for the defaulting of many of the instruments. It

concludes that model inputs should be transparent and consistent as changes in in

credit quality, as seen in CreditMetrics discussion above, can substantially affect

default rates.

The weaknesses found in CreditMetrics also demands more models such as KMV

and Merton models to give more accurate readings.

Reference list

Allen D. E. and Powell R. J. (2011). Credit risk measurement methodologies. Retrieved from

http://mssanz.org.au/modsim2011

http://riskarticles.com/credit-risk-management/

Bruce D. Phelps, (2006), Reduced Form vs. Structural Models of Credit Risk: A Case Study

of Three Models. Retrieved from

http://www.cfapubs.org/doi/pdf/10.2469/dig.v36.n2.4103

Crouhy, M., Galai, D., & Mark, R. (2000). A comparative Analysis of Current Credit Risk

Models. Journal of Banking & Finance 24, 59-117.

Griffin, J. M., & Tang, D. Y. (2012). Did Subctivity Play a Role in CDO Credit Ratings. The

Journal of Finance .

McBride, B. (2009, December 15). Calculated Risk; Finance & Economics. Retrieved from

Calculated Risk Blog: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/12/

BLACK AND COX MODEL AND KMV MODEL. Retrieved from

http://www.bm.vgtu.lt/index.php/bm/bm_2014/paper/viewFile/228/489

Morgan, J. (1997). Introduction to CreditMetrics; The Benchmark for understandng credit risk

.

New York : JP Morgan .

http://www.sas.com/en_za/insights/risk-fraud/credit-risk-management.html

- Currency Risk ManagementUploaded byTomas
- Greeks- Theory and IllustrationsUploaded byczarina210
- slides.pdfUploaded byedyacc
- Work 564Uploaded byTBP_Think_Tank
- Females Students.pdfUploaded byAseel Aseel
- sheet1Uploaded by6doit
- Calculus for MFUploaded bySujeethraj Koppolu
- Exotic ElectricityUploaded byElijah Kabson
- Gender, Compensation n Comp PerformanceUploaded byEric Rhaki Tika
- FOREIGNEXCHANGEINSTRUMENTS (1)Uploaded byTum Kaun
- FEUploaded byKenadid Ahmed Osman
- Risk Man Using OptionsUploaded byerererezizuzuoui
- variance_swaps_jumps_200903.pdfUploaded byHang Li
- FFM - Q4Uploaded byTan Tze Chiang
- Assignment 2Uploaded bysurajit_dg
- ENER-G Launches Collective Energy Purchasing ServiceUploaded byassociate12
- Otay Mesa Plant -- Resolution E-4981 Option A_Issuance Date Feb 22 HighlightsUploaded byRob Nikolewski
- ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS APPLIED.pdfUploaded byAmrYassin
- Options tradingUploaded byasadrekarimi
- fnmanaUploaded byleng
- Options and Futures (F & O) Tips for the WeekUploaded byDasher_No_1
- Akin SecurityAnalysisPresentation2014 1p80bskUploaded bygarych72
- A STUDY ON STRADDLE OPTIONS STRATEGY, A GUIDE TO THE EQUITY DERIVATIVES INVESTORS.Uploaded byIJAR Journal
- HedgingUploaded byadityachatla
- SMC_17Q_Jun2011Uploaded byAnna Rhea
- basicRforFinance.pdfUploaded byduc anh
- SG - Oil Driver 8May13Uploaded byNattapat Bunyuenyongsakul
- Project Appraisal Options in Investment AppraisalUploaded byapi-3757629
- CrmUploaded byanand5486
- reg-rik-07-07-23Uploaded byCore Research

- cxnvcx,mnv,cxmUploaded byChristopher Medina Alcantara
- Corporate Governance - The Case of AMECUploaded byRouny Nightfly
- Maine Citizen Centric Powerpoint PresentationUploaded bytcsauls
- Alphaliner Newsletter No 32 - 2012 FullUploaded byKhoo Beng Kiat
- Irctc Ticket PNB To BarhUploaded byMohammad Ataullah
- The MTEF Was Introduced in Ghana to Provide a Tool for Better DeficitUploaded byKaizer David-angelo
- Integrated Alpha Modelling (2011)Uploaded byron_guido73
- Tesla Motion to AmendUploaded byDave Lee
- Advertisment CBLRUploaded byAnand Chudasama
- MBA 3 Yrs 1Semester SyllabusUploaded byAshish Ranjan
- negoUploaded bylaiza
- bobadsUploaded byElaine Yap
- Technology Minerals_The Rare Earths Race is On_PDFUploaded byEliane Lovise
- 2. Ocampo v. DomalantaUploaded byKeren del Rosario
- Market WrapUploaded byOrang Kampung
- TSR.highlightsKeyPoints1Uploaded bybillybyrd_99
- Growth Through M&AUploaded byHariVenkateswaran
- Turnaround Management an Overview for MBAUploaded bylnpillai
- Auditor's ReportUploaded byJoanna Caballero
- Financial Times Europe - Friday, October 12th 2012Uploaded byŞtef Ania
- SAP Accounting 2Uploaded bysonavaness
- 211370621-Case-Sales-Senga-docx.pdfUploaded byAlexandra Nicole Cabael
- Exam Full Time (3)Uploaded byRebecca Simpson
- Talent MgtUploaded bysueme
- India's Fiscal PolicyUploaded byRoshan Jachuck
- TOR for Audit FirmUploaded byKamran Rasool
- Financial Accountant JournalUploaded byburhan_qureshi
- Bronstein - The Hospitallers and the Holy Land; Financing the Latin East, 1187–1274 (2005)Uploaded byMark Williamson
- 446A1Uploaded bySan Li
- ICMA Questions Apr 2011Uploaded byAsadul Hoque