CONTENTS 1.Introduction 2.Literature review 3. Daily effect on Hong Kong stock exchange 3.1Methodology 3.2.Descriptive analysis 3.3 .

Regression analysis 3.4 Explanation of daily effect on Hong Kong stock exchange 4. Monthly effect on Hong Kong stock exchange 4.1 Methodology 4.2 Data analysis 4.3 Hypothesis 4.4 Results 5 Conclusion and Summary 2 3 5 5 6 6 8 8 8 9 10 10 11

Introduction Calendar effects are anomalies in stock returns that relate to the calendar.The Daily and Monthly Calendar Effect in the Hong Kong Stock Exchange Abstract This paper investigates daily effects and monthly effects in Hong-Kong stock market. returns on stocks are not identically distributed and may vary according to periodic pattern. In this paper the study conducts an analysis regarding whether the investment behavior of most of the Hong Kong investors is different on Fridays and Mondays as well as monthly seasonality. at least for a short time according to Haugen and Jorion (1996) suggested that calendar effects should not be long lasting. especially January effect is not significant based on regression analysis. Through regression analysis. If the calendar effects exists. This study observes the change of the calendar effect over time under using daily and monthly data from the Hang seng index for the period 1988 to 2008. the study found daily return of Monday significantly low comparing to the other day in the week. this should be BEAM 040 Group ID-5I Page 2 . so that calendar effects violate the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) theory that was developed by Fama in 1960. And studying monthly effects. this study found that the January effect of other month effect is not statistically significant for most of the resent 20 years time periods. The Efficient Market Hypothesis states that is impossible to outperform the broad stock market over the long haul. At last this study tries to explain reasons about the Monday anomaly and why the monthly. and market participants cannot make extraordinary profits due to returns on the stock markets.

he acknowledged Monday to be the worst day to buy stocks. Gibbons and Hess (1981) documented the day of the weeks effects that strong and persistent negative mean returns on Monday for stocks and below average returns for bills on Mondays in assets return after studying the S&P 500 and the value and equal weighted portfolios constructed by the Centre for Research in Security Prices (CRSP). the Monday effects was identified as early as the 1920s. the calendar effect should break down. which demonstrates significant differences in average daily returns across days of the week. The day of the week effects also known as the Monday effects. Agarwal and Tandon (1994) and Mills and Coutts (1995) suggests mean stock returns are unusually high on Fridays and low on Mondays. those researchers have reported evidence of abnormal returns related to calendar effects. Keim and Stambaugh (1984) found that the Monday effect is a weekend effect and that it is closely related to the January effects: during January. This study devote to investigating anomalies in stock return on Monday among the week for the purpose of demonstrating day of week effect exits in Hong Kong stock market. Merrill (1966) documented that the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) rose only 43. Hirsch (1968) reported average weekday returns and identified negative average returns for Monday. This study constructs a test to evaluate whether there is monthly seasonality. presents a summary. Kelly (1930) presented a study based on the US market for a three years period. while they become negative during the remaining part of the year. This test incorporates daily return data for each month to test for persistence of any monthly seasonality. Hawawini and Keim (1995). Cross (1973) found that the mean return on Friday was higher than the mean return on Monday of the S&P 500 index verified this finding for the period from 1953 to 1977. The monthly effect refers to the tendency of the market to do well on any month within year.Also.6 percent of the Friday trading days in his sample. moreover. best known are probably the Monday effects and January effects.0 percent of Monday trading days. the DJIA increased 64. If returns on stocks do not change by a particular date.random and it should not follow any periodic pattern. Monday returns are positive. The Monday effect confirmed by reasons that Fortune (1991) suggested BEAM 040 Group ID-5I Page 3 . Literature Review There are lots of empirical literature published calendar effects. Under day of week effects we try to examine that there is low mean return on Mondays and the high mean return on Fridays.

and announce bad news mainly after the close on Friday as investors cannot react until the Monday opening. generally. 1998). Canadian. Several explanations have been offered for the January effect. Agrawal and Tandon (1994). There are some factors offered for the strong Monday effect in stock returns data include delays between trading and settlements in stocks Lakonishok and Levi. Japanese and UK equity markets. Above mentioned for the day of week effect whether applies to HK stock market as well even this effect is a common phenomenon across different countries. institutional factors Flannery and Protopapadakis. Tokyo stock exchange and London stock exchange exhibits similar calendar effects. they could embezzle public money into stock market. Barone (1990) confirmed these results that identified the largest decline in Italian stock prices mostly on Tuesday. 1990 that explain only a small portion of the Monday effect as well. measurement error Keim and Stambaugh. Other major capital markets in developed countries exhibit similar calendar effects: Other researches on Australian stock exchange. confirmed the January and year-end effects. tax-loss selling strategies that realization of the losses in December to BEAM 040 Group ID-5I Page 4 . Rozeff and Kinney (1976) demonstrated that stock returns of the US stock markets are in the first month of the year significantly larger compared to other months. The day of the week effect is also observed in stock markets of other countries. Jaffe and Westerfield (1985) examined the weekend effect in Australian. 1984. Wachtel (1942) proposed that the January effect could be the result of year-end selling of stocks and a “general feeling of good fellowship and cheer” during Christmas holidays. But there is a phenomenon that is there are larger Chinese investors swarm into HK. and found that the lowest mean return for both Japanese and Australian stock markets were on Tuesdays. This kind of activity is whether affects stock market? This paper tries to find or reject this weekend effect through by our analysis.companies and governments make public good news on weekdays when market are open and when it is readily absorbed. On the other hand. The literature on the so-called disposition effect – that losers are hold too long and winners are sold to early – also refers to a year-end effect (see Odean. The literature on monthly effects. and trading patterns Lakonishok and Maberly. Watchel (1942) first observed that unusually high returns accrue to stocks during January. Solnik and Bousquet (1990) also demonstrated a strong and persistent negative return on Tuesday in the case of the Paris Bourse. and Balaban (1995) showed that the distribution of stock returns varies dependent on the respective day of the week for various countries. 1982. Canadian stock exchange. and based on Gibbons and Hess (1981). 1988. and those almost investors are amateurs and speculators. there may be possible biases on Friday prices such that errors for low Monday returns could be offset by upward biases in Friday. Afterwards. Alexakis and Xanthakis (1995).

Lunde (2003) find there is calendar effect primarily is end of the year effects that exhibit the largest anomalies in HK stock market. which is common in the literature. However. Our paper aims to contribute debate concerning monthly seasonality especially the January effect is available for HK or not by examining monthly seasonality in the Hang seng Index on the HK stock exchange. the study relies on the availability of data that is collected from the historical price. this study uses the market index of the Hong Kong’s Hang seng stock exchanges. to measure Monday and Friday effect of the stock market. BEAM 040 Group ID-5I Page 5 . There is not much paper based on Hong Kong stock exchange market. In this paper. Is any evidence for daily and monthly effect for Hang seng Index under our testing time period and regression analysis. P. but empirical research did point out the calendar effect in all different stock market. we try to test again the daily and monthly effect in Hong Kong stock exchange market. DAILY EFFECT ON HONG KONG STOCK EXCHANGE METHODOLOGY To analyze daily effects in stock returns.Reinhard Hansen and A. Much of debate concerning research into monthly seasonality has been undertaken using US data. and try to get the result that there is daily effect on the Hong Kong Hang seng stock exchange which is at least the price on one particular day is different than others in a week.decrease the speculative gains tax lead to there are higher returns in January and behavioral aspects that institutional investors tend to sell losers at the year end to avoid reporting losers in their portfolios and buy these stocks back at begin of year in order to hold their portfolio structure also explain January effect. This study uses 20 years index data downloaded from yahoo finance to continue the research. The regression analysis method will be taken to help us to text the daily effect.

75% -0.0.103% Thur 12. The estimated coefficient on the Monday dummy variable is -0.61% -8.02076 844 0.024% Fri 9.073% per day. which mean the average return on Tuesday to Friday is therefore 0.01543 53 0.122% lower than on Tuesday to Thursday.073% . on Monday it is -0. Regression Analysis: The starting point of the analysis is the hypothesis of an efficient market.000734-0. for example if there is Monday.33% -21. Now we start to do the regression analysis: After the computation: We got the formula Monday: Y=0.090% Wes 18. Specifically.015816 95 401 0. we will found that on every Monday the price of stock will always lower or higher than the other four days. Which is means the daily effect is exist.30% 0.05% Tue 14. Therefore. BEAM 040 Group ID-5I Page 6 .82% -8.0173301 0. on those two days.015221 397 0.Descriptive analysis: Table 1 Mon Highest Value Lowest Value Average return Standard deviation Variance Count 0. hence.126% Total Table1 shows that the return on Monday and Thursday are different than others.0003003 0. but it does not signify that Monday’s and Thursday’s return are significantly different than other three days.024%.70% 0.001216743X The estimated intercept is 0.122% = -0.000250 36 159 1055 1059 0.00122. these average results have been obtained from 5209 units of data.049%. the average return on Monday is 0.00023 82 1034 5209 14.000734.00043 133 1003 0.41% -0.82% -10.05% and on Thursday it is -0. randomness of returns can be assumed.35% -13.87% 0. the average return on Monday is equal to 0. the average return is minimum.000231 691 1058 0.

000496X The estimated intercept is 0. For the rest three days.0829. In other words. Now.96 (or equivalently. The t-statistic for the intercept is 1.05) and so we do not reject the hypothesis that the true value of the slope parameter on the Friday dummy variable is zero.05%= 0. we got the some result. Which is means there is no geometric relation between Friday to other days. The estimated coefficient on the Monday dummy variable is 0. Wednesday. Then.000404.04%+0. The t-statistic for the slope coefficient on the Monday dummy variable is -2.5409. which is greater in absolute value than the 5% critical value of 1.035. other words. so the conclusion is only the Monday have the significant effect for the Hong Kong stock market that is the average return on Monday is significantly less than the average return on Tuesday to Friday. which is less than the 5% critical value of 1. the average return on Monday to Thursday is therefore 0.96 (or equivalently.09%.96 (or equivalently. Specifically. the average return on Friday is equal to 0.000404+0. the p-value of 0.000496. Monday are weak trading days compared to the rest days of the week.05) and so we reject the hypothesis that the true value of the intercept is zero. Consequently. after we got the result as follows: The formula: Y=0.04% per day. The t-statistic for the slope coefficient on the Friday dummy variable is 0. which is less in absolute value than the 5% critical value of 1. the average return on Friday is 0. in Hong Kong BEAM 040 Group ID-5I Page 7 .000 is greater than 0. We also did the same test for other three days. Start from Tuesday the average market return tends to be positive.05% greater than on Monday to Thursday. the p-value of 0. In other words. the average return on Friday is not significantly less than the average return on Monday to Thursday.000 is less than 0. the average return on Tuesday to Friday is significantly greater than zero. the p-value of 0. we take Friday to do the test again.96 (or equivalently. Tuesday and Thursday but we got the same result as Friday. the p-value of 0.The t-statistic for the intercept is 2.000 is less than 0.05) and so we do not reject the hypothesis that the true value of the intercept is zero. every Monday the stock’s price will lower the price on last Friday. the average return on Monday is significantly less than the average return on Tuesday to Friday. In other words. the analysis above is make since that there is Monday effect for the stock market in Hong Kong. the average return on those three days are not significantly less or greater than the average return on the rest days.05) and so we reject the hypothesis that the true value of the slope parameter on the Monday dummy variable is zero. Therefore. the Friday is no effect for the stock market.798. which is greater than the 5% critical value of 1.000 is greater than 0.

04% -0.02% -0. The Monthly Effect in Hong Kong Hang seng stock exchange: METHODOLOGY In Hong Kong stock market.06% Mon Tue Wes Thur Fri Average return Source:Table 1 In Hong Kong markets.12% 0. One explanation for the observed daily patterns might be the fact that Chinese stock investors are amateur speculator" who often embezzles business fund for private trading and the environment of Hang seng stock is specially because most Chinese investor prefer to invest on this market.Hang seng stock exchange market.14% 0.02% 0. Explanation of daily effect on Hang Seng stock exchange market Figure 1 Average return 0. we pick up the most representative stock index Hang BEAM 040 Group ID-5I Page 8 .00% -0.08% 0.06% 0. Monday have lowest returns compare to the rest of the week.04% 0. there is just have Monday effect on it. but I believe that you have notice about the Thursday have a decline.10% 0. Friday have the highest returns in the week.

0628 -0. Here we exhibit the statistical summary of the data as following: Table 2 Observation Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 21 22 Mean Standard Deviation 3. On the other hand.36% 0. Data Analysis The monthly return data is primary adjusted after dividend.seng Index as our data source.45% 0. July.54 4.0536 -1. We can see that in January.73 2.21 -4.31% 0.42 7.27% 0.77 -103.0617 2.076251 -1.0817 CV 2. Taking thought of that there are not many empirical researches on monthly effect in Hong Kong stock market. CV is -103.95 3.0765 -0.05% 0. BEAM 040 Group ID-5I Page 9 .37 4.7278 1. May.21. 33 companies with a primary listing on the Main Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (SEHK) make up the composition of HSI.36 -4. in December.43% 0.07980 -0.08 0. we also will keep an eye on the other months . monthly return achieved greater standard deviation. Also.77% 0. the CV is 2. Usually we will specially pay attention to the coefficient of variation on January and December. These companies occupy more than 70% of market capitalization in Hong Kong stock market.43 -24. which provide us further test for the specific January Effect.91% 0.58 -18.25% 0. In March.39 2.0759 2. August and December have made negative mean return.42% 0.13% 0. The regression analysis method will be used to help us to test the monthly effect for the stock market. the return is relatively high comparing to most of the other months.1272 1.0668 2. After adjusted for the risk . February. the statistics of each month is like this.0675 2.10 Through this 20 years period.1 which make us more interested in the significance of January Effect. we attempt to avoid somewhat data mining by randomly pick up monthly return data from December in 1987 to September in 2008 for 20 years period .

Hypothesis: Ho: α1=0.287771 0. we say that there are monthly return anomalies on the given month. α1 measures the marginal contribution of dt.137698 0.011772 5.0148 0.24833 0. εt is the error term of the regression. α0 and α1 are the regression parameters to be estimated.02689 -0.505079 0. Where Rt is the monthly rate of return on Hong Kong Hang seng Index. including January.020371 0. About the parameter α1 and α0.01539 0. If the parameter α1 is significantly different from 0 at 95% of significance.820129 0. To open the possibility that the monthly return may be positive or negative. it can be assumed that there are no return anomalies in any month of the year during this 20 years period.450059 0.018762 -0. dt is the dummy variable that is equal to “1” for a given month and equal to “0” otherwise. Results Results of hypotheses testing : Table 3 Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Coefficient 0.026171 -0.997444 0. representing difference between the average return on the given month and the average monthly return excluding the given month.004108 0. BEAM 040 Group ID-5I Page 10 .486358 As we can see from the table. there are no P-values are less than 0.127225 0.We test for the monthly effect by estimating the following equation: Rt=α0 + α1dt + εt . Ha: α1≠0 .013339 -0.66E-05 -0. In other words.025 (two tailed test at 95% of significance). we use the “two tailed” hypotheses test.401819 0. during the 20 years period.155827 0.01229 P-value 0.383399 0.02503 0.

This means that there is no indication about the amount of money the investor will invest back in the market on Friday . A lot of papers suggested the January effect in US stock market. usually in February. And most firms make year bonuses at the end of the Chinese year. at the end of the year.Conclusion and Summary After critical analysis and hypothesis testing this study states that on Thursday the Chinese speculators have to lay the embezzled funds back before weekends. there is no deferred capital gain or loss cleared at the end of the year. and most economic news are announced on Saturday and Sunday. All the above analysis and findings proved an absence of January effect in Hong Kong stock market. BEAM 040 Group ID-5I Page 11 . this is the reason that on Monday the stock always start at the lowest point. But the study found that in Hong Kong . the study doesn’t find any anomalies . For the monthly effect. if there is no change on Thursday night. the investor will make the investment plan based on the news that the government issued.

R. Financial Analysts Journal vol 52. P. 431-450.1973. and R. Applied Economics Letters 2. Patterns in Japanese common stock returns. A. 883-889. Journal of Finance 40. The Behavior of Stock Prices on Fridays and Mondays. Jaffe.1991.34-105. Eugene F. J. J. J. Kelly. The weekend effect: trading patterns of individual and institutional investors.1984. New York: Analysis Press. J... pp. pp. The Stockholder's Almanac.12: 12-32. Journal of Finance 33. Anomalies or Illusions? Evidence from Stock Markets in Eighteen Countries. Balaban. 1990. Stock market efficiency: an autopsy. Hess. D.. Lakonishok. Journal of Business. Gibbons. Jorion. D.1994. Journal of Finance 37. A. pp. On the predictability of common stock returns: Worldwide evidence. Day of the week effects and asset returns. P. (1996) ‘The January effect: Still there after all these years’. M. From T-bills to common stocks: Investigating the generality of intra-week return seasonality.. and P. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 27-31. pp. F. 261-272. Tandon. and R. (1965) ‘The behavior of Stock Market Prices’. Old Tappan N. pp. Jaffe. Hirsch. 1995. market. Keim. Chappaqua. BEAM 040 Group ID-5I Page 12 . Haugen. 1988. and Maberly. Merrill. 67-69. Fama. Flannery. Why You Win or Loss: The Psychology of Speculation.. Keim. P.A.1983. Westerfield. pp. Stambaugh. Y. 1985. M. M. 1981. J. 1995. Day of the week effects: New evidence from an emerging Cross. vol 38.. The week-end effect in common stock returns: Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 20. Keim. J. 1982. and Levi.Reference Aggarwal.P.. Journal of Finance.. 43-50. Westerfield. New England Economic Review G..1966. Size Related Anomalies and Stock Market Seasonality. 579-596. Journal of Financial Economics. Day of the week effect on the Greek stock market. Applied Financial Economics 5. Further Empirical Evidence. Lakonishok. Journal of Business 54. The Behavior of Prices on Wall Street. and Xanthakis M.1930. 819-835. pp. Weekend effects on stock returns. 1985. Protopapadakis.83-106 Alexakis. Hawawini and D. 231-243. E. A Further Investigation of the Weekend Effect in Stock Returns. 139-143. Fortune. Financial Analysts Journal. B. A. and R. Journal of International Money and Finance. and K. E. F. The Hirsch Organization.1968.

1.Mills T. Journal of Finance 40. Wachtel. 15. Amsterdam. 1184-19. Capital market seasonality: the case of stock returns. BEAM 040 Group ID-5I Page 13 . Journal of Finance 43. T. 701-717. and Kinney Jr.. and Chopra. B.C. Are investors reluctant to realize their losses? Journal of Finance 53. volume 9: Finance. North-Holland. A. editors. Odean. N...A. Ritter. Journal of Business. R. The buying and selling behavior of individual investors at the turn of the year. 1775-1798.1995. 1976. 1995. Ritter.. Bousquet. W.. 1998. Maksimovic. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science. 79-93. 461-468. Anomalies and Calendar Affects in the New FT-SE Indices. S. and L.. Journal of Financial Economics 3. The Netherlands. Rozeff. 1990. The international evidence. Jarrow. and W. 379-402. M. 433-454. Solnik. J. Journal of Finance 43. Portfolio rebalancing and the turn-of-the-year effect. pages 497-544.R. Journal of Banking and Finance 14. and Coutts J.. V. Certain observations on seasonal movements in stock prices. J. 701-717. chapter 17. 1988. 1989.S. Day of the week effect on the Paris Bourse. Ziemba. T. pp. 1942. European Journal of Finance.

BEAM 040 Group ID-5I Page 14 .

3/ . .


03 2439 .:/390.032439   549088  4.8:708 90 2. 20.0 -09003 90 .07.. .4397-:943 41 /9  7057080393 /110703.07..73.02439709:730.3/ 90 .0 709:73 43 90 .


20907.7.  1905.

-05489.084390.3 800 1742 90 9.342.9  41 831.88:20/ 9.78 5074/  9070 .99070.7         ^[a\   SYW  .3 2439 41 90 0.04730.0  3 4907 47/8  9 .785074/ 3.7 /:73 98   0.03 2439 %44503905488-99.02-07 4011...9.7 .0/ 9089 .3 -0 .02-07 0.-0  439 .7 0-7:.9 9070 .70 34 709:73 . :30 : ::89 $05902-07 . 57 .:/3..-0  /:73 90   0.70 34 ! .8831.0 0 :8090 949..:0                   8 0 .039                   ! ..3.0/ 54908089089     #08:98 #08:9841549080890893                            %.70 088 9.3  94 9.941831.7.:08 .702439709:73.9..39/11070391742 .08 3 .3.94-07 4.342..0 08.9902439709:732.3:.3:.

9 90 4089 5439  47 90 2439 0110.0.50788:0890/90.3.943.8439.990708343/.70 .094.79 .3:.99003/419030800.:843. 90 3080850.3/$:3/.389..3-.00..-4.0/ 43$.08947 3.7 3/248917282..7 9070 8 34 /010770/ .30-7:.709437/.3.041. 308.090 3.59.88 .3:.70110. 903. ..-014700003/8 190708 34.08 49415.3/$:22..70110.347488.-803.94343/.7-43:808 .-4:990.70/.24:39 41 243090 3.709  :990 89:/14:3/9.7 90.3/ 549088 90893 98 89:/ 89.8 89.9 3 43 43 .073203988:0/ 9889070.9:7/.9002-00/1:3/8-.3/13/38 574..   43..9478.88.089-.39 %820.334:3.3043%:78/.342.:. 90 894.990 03/ 4190 0..79.7  1907 .7 :8:.9 43 %:78/. 390 2.93&$894.0892039 5.3.9904.2..9  90 89:/ /4083 9  13/  .08947  2. .0/.709                     ^[a\   SYW  ..4342.908 9.3.80/43903089.3/ 2489 0..0.934343894.2.99003/41900.

f ¾°– ° .0 ––ff  f°  @f° °  °¯f ¾¾°¾" °n €¯n.   #010703.

 f€   €€ n°  ¾n¯f  ½½  °f°nfn°¯n¾    ff f°   f€   €€ n¾ -   °n €¯f° ¯ –°–  .° ¾ °f€° °f°f.° f° °f°n ½½    f¾ 9 f° Of°f¾.

f° 9  ¾¾  f€   €€ n¾f° f¾¾  °¾ °f€ ¾° ¾¾     f– °  9 ° 9 %%#@ f°f €€ n   f€ f ¾  f¾# °f°nf°f¾¾ °f ½½    ¾n   @ n  ¾¯f°fn @ ¾n–f°f°  @f½½f°.f    @   °  €€ n f °–½f °¾€°  ff°  °¾°f° ¾¾ °f€°f°n  ½½    ¯f  ½½ n°¯n¾  ¾     .f  f¾°f  ¯½nf °n  °f€°f°nfn°¯n¾         JJ°¾¾ @ 9¾n–€½ nf°  ¾° –°.° f¾ °f°nf°f¾¾°f ½½     f¯f – °  %%#@  f€n.  9½f½f f¾    ¯@ ¾n¯¯°¾n¾ ° ¾–f°–  – ° f€°f   °¾ f¾°f °f€°f°n     ° 9  n¯f  €€n °n f°f½¾ - °–f° n°¯n     ff°f°    ¯ ° ½ nf €n¯¯°¾n °¾ J    °n    °¾ .¾¾   @  f€n9n ¾° f¾f° .   f€€  f°  J ¾ €   9f °¾°f½f° ¾ n¯¯°¾n °¾   f€€  f°  J ¾ €   @   °  €€ n°n¯¯°¾n °¾   °f€°f°nff° .  J  °  €€ n¾°¾n °¾ °f€°f°n  ½½     f°¾  f° .f°f °f¾¾     ¯  f°  f¯ f–   ° ¾–f°€ J  ° €€ n°n °¾  °f€°f°n ½½     ¯     f °¯f ¾f° n.    @  f€9n ¾°Jf  .f 9n ¾# °f€ ¾° ¾¾  ½½    f°°  .€€°  f°¾  f°   .

¾@ .f½½ff -  °f¾¾9 ¾¾  .

f° .

¾   °¯f ¾f° .

f ° f€€ n¾° - @ ° n ¾ ½ f° °f€°f°n          ^[a\   SYW  .

f°f– ¯ °n °n ¯  °f°n nf½  ½f– ¾  - f° ¯¾  f¯ @  -  f° ¾       @  °–f° ¾ °– f€°  f° ¾¾f °€  f °f €°f°n        f° .  f° @   ° ¾¾ nf° f  ¾¾ ¾"°f€°f°n       f I .f¾¯n f° J @  ¯ f  ¾ f° ¾°½ f°¾ ¾ fnf°  .

 f° °°  J   . 9€ ff°n°–f°  ° €   f €€ n °f€ °f°n      €€ .½f .

f½f¯f ¾ f¾°f  nf¾ €¾n °¾ °f €°f°nfn°¯n¾ ½½    °  f°   ¾   f€   €€ n° 9f¾ ¾ °f€ f°°–f°  °f°n     @ ° °f°f  °n °f€°f°n     Jfn    .

f° ¾ f°¾°¾ f¾°f¯ ¯ °¾°¾n½n ¾ °f€ ¾° ¾¾                                  ^[a\   SYW  .

                 ^[a\   SYW  .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful