5 views

Uploaded by dannavillafuente

- Triam Research: Third Rebuttal to HK 0633 China All Access
- SBI
- DOF Local Finance Circular 03-93
- APR_or_EAR
- Introduction
- CIBIL Finess
- Loan Pricing
- CASE - Krishna Steels- 2013
- pdy loans
- Interest Rate on Advances
- Airtel Final
- Recollected Questions
- Index
- 14 x11 Financial Management B
- WORKING CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT START.docx
- Interest Sheet Solutions
- Fast formula for Education loan - Oracle HRMS
- ACCOUNTING STANDARD 16
- Crismina Garments Inc vs CA _ 128721 _ March 9, 1999 _ J. Panganiban _ Third Division
- US Federal Reserve: afdr a7

You are on page 1of 13

18-1. As was done in Checkpoint 18.1 in the text, we can evaluate Deere & Co.’s liquidity using net

working capital and the current ratio. Net working capital is simply the difference between current

assets and current liabilities, while the current ratio can be found as (using 2008 as an example):

current assets

current ratio =

current liabilities

$9,197,400

= = 0.61.

$15,083,300

Since Deere’s current ratio is less than 1, its current assets are less than its current liabilities; this,

then, implies that its net working capital is negative.

Here are the values for Deere for 2006–2008:

A B C=A-B D = A/B

CA CL net working capital current ratio

2006 $7,152,900 $12,787,500 ($5,634,600) 0.559

2007 $9,920,100 $15,921,500 ($6,001,400) 0.623

2008 $9,197,400 $15,083,300 ($5,885,900) 0.610

All of Deere’s net working capital values for this period are negative. While the magnitude of

2008’s is smaller than 2007’s, it is still higher than 2006’s initial value. Looking at Deere’s

accounts for 2007 and 2008, we see that Deere’s cash fell very slightly, but its short-term

investments completely disappeared (Deere didn’t have any of these in 2006, either). Net

receivables rose; inventory rose significantly. These last two accounts were extremely influential

on the company’s liquidity position. Deere might want to tighten up its credit policy (to reduce

accounts receivable) and investigate its inventory position.

There are some issues on the current liability side, too. Deere’s accounts payable doubled in 2008,

its short-term debt fell slightly, and its other current liabilities disappeared. Deere’s A/P increase

undoubtedly helped fund its increases in inventory and A/R. However, ominously, the dollar

increase in A/P is much larger than the increases in these two CA accounts.

Overall, Deere’s liquidity position is fairly consistent: Net working capital is negative throughout

the period, with the current ratio improving slightly in 2007.

Solutions to End of Chapter Problems—Chapter 18 445

$19,000,000 0.800

0.700

$14,000,000

0.600

$9,000,000

current assets

current liabilities

0.500

net working capital

current ratio

$4,000,000

0.400

0.300

($6,000,000) 0.200

18-2. This question is similar to 18-1, and we will use the same two relationships: net working capital =

current assets − current liabilities, and current ratio = (current assets/current liabilities). However,

we will note significant differences between Deere’s situation in the last problem and Microsoft’s

in this one: Microsoft’s net working capital is always positive, so that its current ratio is always

greater than 1.

Here are the liquidity measures for Microsoft:

A B C=A-B D = A/B

CA CL net working capital current ratio

2006 $49,010,000 $22,442,000 $26,568,000 2.184

2007 $40,168,000 $23,754,000 $16,414,000 1.691

2008 $43,242,000 $29,886,000 $13,356,000 1.447

Thus, if I were the lead banker evaluating Microsoft’s line of credit, I would say that Microsoft is

quite liquid, although its liquidity is declining (see below).

While Microsoft is more liquid that Deere (from Problem 18-1), Microsoft’s position is not as stable

as Deere’s. While Deere’s current ratio (while less than 1) is fairly stable, Microsoft’s is declining

steadily. Its CA have increased slightly in 2008 from 2007 (while they are much lower than 2006’s):

Cash is up and accounts receivable are up, but short-term investments are down very significantly.

The only issue of real concern for CA is the increase in net receivables. However, on the CL side,

the increase in accounts payable—almost double in 2008 from 2007—should be evaluated.

446 Titman/Keown/Martin • Financial Management, Eleventh Edition

$54,000,000 3.000

$44,000,000 2.500

$34,000,000 2.000

current assets

current liabilities

$24,000,000 1.500

net working capital

current ratio

$14,000,000 1.000

$4,000,000 0.500

($6,000,000) 0.000

18-3. Temporary assets are current assets that will be liquidated—and not replaced—within one year.

An example is a seasonal increase in inventories, which is exactly what we have in part (a).

Accounts receivable increases can also be temporary, as long as they are liquidated (and not

replaced) within the year. In part (c), we have an increase in A/R, but since these come from an

increase in the firm’s customer base, we wouldn’t expect this increase to disappear within the

year. Instead, we’d expect those accounts that were paid within the year to be replaced with new

charges from the newly larger customer base. We will therefore classify this A/R increase as

permanent.

Permanent assets also include fixed assets. Since our firm will keep its truck (from part b) for five

years, we will classify that as permanent.

(a) seasonal increase in inventory: TEMPORARY

(b) purchase of new truck that will last for 5 years: PERMANENT

(c) increase in A/R from increase in customer base: PERMANENT

(See Panel A of Figure 18.1.)

18-4. Spontaneous sources of financing are created automatically as the firm conducts business. For

example, if a firm buys raw materials from a supplier and charges them to their trade account, it

has just generated an increase in accounts payable. This is exactly what happens in situation (b)

here. On the other hand, temporary sources of financing are also short-term, but they are created

by a specific decision to raise funding—for example, by a decision to get a short-term loan from

a bank, or to issue commercial paper in the money market. Permanent financing sources are

intermediate- and long-term debt and equity sources, such as the 4-year bank loan in part (a) and

the common stock issue in part (c).

(a) 4-year bank loan: PERMANENT

(b) increase in inventory charges to trade credit: SPONTANEOUS

(c) new common stock issue: PERMANENT

(See Panel B of Figure 18.1.)

Solutions to End of Chapter Problems—Chapter 18 447

18-5. Network Solutions’ cash conversion cycle is the difference between its operating cycle and its

accounts payable deferral period—that is, the length of time between its payment to suppliers for

its inventory (when it experiences a cash outflow) and its receipt of cash from its customers (the

resulting cash inflow). We can visualize the firm’s operating and cash conversion cycles using a

schematic like the one found in the text’s Figure 18.3:

inventory inventory

purchased sold

period (45 days) period (25 days)

deferral period

(30 days)

inventory accounts receivable

A. Thus, Network Solution’s cash conversion cycle is 40 days: the difference between its

operating cycle of 70 days and its accounts payable deferral period of 30 days. The firm is

financing its sales during this period: It has already paid its suppliers, but has not yet been paid

by its customers. It must have sufficient other resources to operate during this period.

B. If the firm were able to delay payment to its suppliers, then it would be able to hold on to its

cash longer, decreasing the period that it must finance its sales—that is, decreasing its cash

conversion cycle. Paying its A/P after 50 days instead of after 30 would decrease its cash

conversion cycle to only 20 days.

C. Network Solutions buys raw materials worth $100,000 per day (2000 routers /day at $50 cost

per router) and uses trade credit for the purchase. If payables were extended an additional 20

days, the a/p deferral period would increase 20 days and the cash conversion cycle would go

down from 40 days to 20 days. Net working capital would decrease by $2,000,000 ($100,000

a/p per day ∗ 20 additional days)

The chart below outlines the two scenarios we have considered:

A B C=A+B D E=C-D

inventory average A/P cash

conversion collection operating deferral conversion

period period cycle period cycle

(a) 45 25 70 30 40

(b) 45 25 70 50 20

higher lower

448 Titman/Keown/Martin • Financial Management, Eleventh Edition

18-6. Carraway Seeds is financing its inventory for 115 days of its 120-day operating cycle. By not

taking advantage of its suppliers’ offer to finance its inventory—by allowing Carraway to delay

their payment—for an extra 40 days essentially means that Carraway is walking away from an

interest-free, 40-day loan. (It pays the same dollar amount to its suppliers regardless of when it

pays.) Carraway should definitely take full advantage of its suppliers’ terms, increasing its A/P

deferral period to the full 45 days, thereby decreasing its cash conversion cycle to 75 days.

Below is a schematic depicting Carraway’s initial situation (part a). The big horizontal arrow near

the bottom depicts the suppliers’ credit terms—the benefit that Carraway is passing up by paying

after 5 days.

inventory inventory

purchased sold

collection

period

(30 days)

payable

deferral

period

(5 days)

inventory accounts receivable

The following chart quantifies the change in the firm’s cash conversion cycle from delaying its

payments to suppliers (part b).

A B C=A+B D E=C-D

inventory average A/P cash

conversion collection operating deferral conversion

period period cycle period cycle

(a) 90 30 120 5 115

(b) 90 30 120 45 75

higher lower

Solutions to End of Chapter Problems—Chapter 18 449

18-7. As in the example from Checkpoint 18.3, we’ll assume that Paymaster Enterprises currently has

no account with this bank, and that it will borrow the amount required for its compensating balance

(increasing its borrowing beyond the $100,000 actually needed for financing its seasonal working

capital). If the firm wants to use $100,00 for its purposes, after leaving 10% of the total loan amount

in the bank, then it must be that the $100,000 desired is only (100% − 10%) = 90% of the total amount

borrowed. Thus it must have borrowed $100,000/(0.90) = $111,111. (Ten percent of $111,111 is

$11,111; leaving this balance at the bank means that Paymaster has use of the remainder, $100,000.)

However, its turns out that Paymaster does not have the full use of the $100,000, because the interest

on this loan is calculated on a discount basis. That is, the company will have to pay all of its interest

up front, from the proceeds of the loan. Using equation 18-7, we can calculate this interest amounts as:

interest = principal ∗ rate ∗ time

= $111,111 ∗ (0.12) ∗ (3/12) = $3,333.33.

Thus, Paymaster will only receive proceeds of ($100,000 − $3,333.33) = $96,666.67. Now, we can

calculate the APR of this loan using equation 18-8:

APR = (interest/principal) ∗ (1/time)

$3,333.33 1

= ∗ = 13.79%.

$96,666.67 3 /12

The compensating balance requirement—which makes Paymaster borrow more than its wants—and

the discounting of interest—which forced Paymaster to pay interest on funds it never receives—makes

the cost of the loan much higher than the stated 12% rate.

But there’s still a problem here. Even though Paymaster pays interest on $111,111, it only receives

$96,666.67, which is not enough to finance its working capital. The company needs to take home

$100,000. How can we determine the amount it must borrow for a loan that would allow it to get

all the money it needs? And what would be the APR for that loan?

If Paymaster needs $100,000, then:

$100,000 = total loan amount − compensating balance − interest charge

= loan − (10% ∗ loan) − [loan ∗ 12% ∗ (3/12)]

= loan − (0.10 ∗ loan) − (0.03 ∗ loan)

= loan ∗ (1 − 0.10 − 0.03)

= loan ∗ (0.87),

which implies that the loan amount is ($100,000/0.87) = $114,942.53. Interest on this loan would be

($114,942.53) ∗ (12%) ∗ (3/12) = $3,448.28, and the compensating balance would be (10%) ∗

($114,942.53) = $11,494.25. Paymaster would then be able to take home ($114,942.53 − $11,494.25

− $3,448.28) = $100,000. Its APR for this loan would be:

$3,448.28 1

= ∗ = 13.79%,

$100,000 3 /12

the same as before! This is because we haven’t changed the relative values here—we’ve just

scaled the loan up.

450 Titman/Keown/Martin • Financial Management, Eleventh Edition

annualized opportunity of forgoing the discount = ∗ ,

1− a c−b

where we are considering a trade discount of the form a/b, net c. For example, in part (a), we are

offered terms of 2/10, net 30, which means that we can take a 2% discount (a) if we pay within

10 days (b); otherwise, we have to pay the full amount in 30 days (c). The cost of not taking

advantage of this offer would be:

0.02 360

annualized opportunity of forgoing the discount = * ,

1 − 0.02 30 − 10

or 36.73%. This is much higher than just 2%—because the 2% applies to only 10 days. Two percent

over 10 days means a lot more than 2% over a full year! (Note that part a has the same terms as

the example in the text presented just after equation 18-9, but we have gotten a different answer.

That’s because our annualization—the second term—assumes a 360-day year, while the text’s

example assumed 365.)

The rest of the results are presented below. We have also added to extra parts, (e) and (f), for

expositional purposes.

# of days/year = 360

a b c [a /(1-a )]*[360/(c -b )]

net

days for due in opportunity

part discount % discount (days) cost

(a) 2% 10 30 36.73%

(b) 3% 15 30 74.23%

(c) 3% 15 45 37.11%

(d) 2% 15 60 16.33%

(e) 2% 15 30 48.98%

(f) 3% 10 30 55.67%

• As the net due date (c) increases, the opportunity cost of forgoing the discount falls (compare

parts b and c)

• As the days for discount (b) increases, the opportunity cost rises (compare parts a and e)

• As the discount percentage (a) rises, the opportunity cost rises (compare parts a and f)

Solutions to End of Chapter Problems—Chapter 18 451

18-9. First, let’s consider Alternative A. Morin has sufficient balances in the bank to allow us to ignore

the loan’s compensating balance requirement (for the moment—we’ll consider the need for new

balances below). If the firm simply borrows $100,000 it will pay ($100,000) ∗ (14%) ∗ (12/12) =

$14,000 in interest immediately (since the loan requires discount interest), leaving the firm with

just $86,000. The cost of this loan is found as follows:

APR = (interest/principal) ∗ (1/time)

$14,000 1

= ∗ = 16.28%.

$86,000 12 /12

If they want to take home $100,000, then they must borrow more than this to start; they would

need to solve for the loan amount such that [loan amount ∗ (1 − 0.14)] = $100,000 $116,279.07.

(They would still have adequate compensating balances.) For this scenario, the APR is:

APR = (interest/principal) ∗ (1/time)

$16,279.07 1

= ∗ = 16.28%,

$100,000 12 /12

as before (because we are simply scaling the same loan).

Now, let’s compare this to Alternative B. In this case, the firm borrows $100,000, then repays

$116,300 after 1 year. The total interest charge is therefore ($116,300 − $100,000) = $16,300, and

the APR is:

APR = (interest/principal) ∗ (1/time)

$16,300 1

= ∗ = 16.3%.

$100,000 12 /12

This is essentially the same deal that Morin is getting from its bank. If we want to play the

rounding error, then Morin should go with its bank. (Although Morin might evaluate why it’s

keeping such a large amount of money at its bank. Perhaps it should simply borrow from its

equipment dealer, then invest the $25,000 from its checking account; the proceeds on the

investment—no matter how small—would mean that this strategy would dominate both

Alternatives A and B. [Of course, this assumes that Morin could maintain sufficient liquidity with

such a strategy, and that there would be no negative consequences from the bank.])

If Morin did not keep sufficient compensating balances on hand as a matter of course, then the cost

of Alternative A would be much higher. In this case, Morin would have to borrow enough to pay

interest, establish the compensating balance, and fund its equipment purchase. If we assume that it

can accept less than the full $100,000 for the latter purpose, then it will borrow only enough more

than the desired $100,000 to establish the compensating balance. It will therefore consider $100,000

to be (100% − 15%) = 85% of the loan amount, so that it must borrow $100,000/(0.85) = $117,647.06.

Fifteen percent of this, or $17,647.06, will establish the compensating balance. Then,

interest = principal ∗ rate ∗ time

= $117,647.06 ∗ (0.14) ∗ (12/12) = $16,470.59.

452 Titman/Keown/Martin • Financial Management, Eleventh Edition

Thus Morin will only receive proceeds of ($100,000 − $16,470.59) = $83,529.41. Now we can

calculate the APR of this loan using equation 18-8:

APR = (interest/principal) ∗ (1/time)

$16,470.59 1

= ∗ = 19.72%,

$83,529.41 12 /12

making the equipment dealer a better source of funds.

If Morin wanted to ensure that it received the full $100,000 after establishing the compensating

balance and paying interest, it would need to borrow $140,845.07, of which 15%, or $21,126.76,

would establish the balance. Total interest charges would be 14% of the total $140,845.07 borrowed,

or $19,718.31, leaving Morin with ($140,845.07 − $21,126.76 − $19,718.31) = $100,000. As

explained in Problem 18-7 above, the APR would not change; it would remain at 19.72%.

18-10. A. Southwest keeps at least 20% of $100,000 (its desired line of credit maximum) in the bank at

all times, so the firm won’t need to worry about the compensating balance requirement.

Assuming that the firm borrows the full $100,000 at (12% + 1%) = 13% for 12 months, then:

interest = principal ∗ rate ∗ time

= $100,000 ∗ (0.13) ∗ (12/12) = $13,000,

and

APR = (interest/principal) ∗ (1/time)

$13,000 1

= ∗ = 13%.

$100,000 12 /12

We have assumed that interest is paid one time, all at the end of the period (as opposed to the

discount interest we’ve considered in earlier problems).

B. What if the compensating balance requirement were binding? Since Southwest cannot borrow

more than $100,000, it will not be able to boost the loan amount enough to allow it to borrow

both the compensating balance and the full $100,000 for other corporate purposes. It will

therefore have to accept less than $100,000 for its proceeds. Using the same analysis as in

problem 18-7, but assuming that interest is not discounted, we have:

amount borrowed = $100,000

compensating balance required = (20%) ∗ ($100,000) = $20,000

proceeds to Southwest = $100,000 − $20,000 = $80,000

interest charge = $100,000 ∗ (13%) = $13,000

$13,000 1

APR = ∗ = 16.25%.

$80,000 12 /12

By reducing the funds available for Southwest’s use, while not reducing the interest charge,

the compensating balance requirement has significantly increased the cost of this funding.

Solutions to End of Chapter Problems—Chapter 18 453

18-11. A. If there is no compensating balance, and if interest is not discounted, then we note that the

interest charge would be:

interest = principal ∗ rate ∗ time

= $20,000 ∗ (0.10) ∗ (6/12) = $1,000,

and

APR = (interest/principal) ∗ (1/time)

$1,000 1

= ∗ = 10%.

$20,000 6 /12

Again, we’re assuming that interest is paid all at once, at the very end of the loan.

B. If there were a 15% binding compensating balance requirement, then you’d need to put up

(15%) ∗ ($20,000) = $3,000. You will still borrow the full $20,000 from the bank (since

you’re using “your money” to create the compensating balance), but because you were going

to use your money to invest in your business, you’ve now reduced the amount available to

your business by $3,000. After the whole bank arrangement is considered, you only have

$17,000 new dollars to invest in your business, and you have incurred interest charges of

$1,000. Thus:

$1,000 1

APR = ∗ = 11.76%.

$17,000 6 /12

Tying up idle funds has significantly increased the cost of this loan arrangement.

C. If you had not only a compensating balance, but also faced discount interest, then you’d borrow

$20,000, set aside $3,000 as a compensating balance, and pay $1,000 up front, netting you only

$16,000 at the loan’s inception. (It doesn’t matter that the $3,000 is “your” money—after the

whole series of transactions, you only have $16,000 new dollars to invest in your business.

Thus, using “with/without” analysis, we see that the net proceeds from the loan are $16,000.)

Now, your APR is:

$1,000 1

APR = * = 12.5%.

$16,000 6 /12

As the available loan proceeds fall, while total interest charges stay the same, the cost of the

funding rises. Borrowers must be careful to analyze the effects of all of a loan’s terms, not just

the “top-line” stated rate.

18-12. Mr. Hale’s rate is 8% (the 7% prime rate plus the 1% margin). Assuming that he will not borrow

more than $240,000, then his interest charge will be:

interest = principal ∗ rate ∗ time

= $240,000 ∗ (0.08) ∗ (3/12) = $4,800.

If he needs a compensating balance of 20% of the loan amount, then he needs (20%) ∗ ($240,000)

= $48,000; since he already has a $4,000 balance, this means that he’d need to use $44,000 of the

loan proceeds to satisfy this requirement. This would leave him with only ($240,000 − $44,000) =

$196,000. His APR in this case would be:

$4,800 1

APR = ∗ = 9.796%.

$196,000 3 /12

454 Titman/Keown/Martin • Financial Management, Eleventh Edition

If, instead, Mr. Hale wanted to ensure that he received $240,000 in proceeds after meeting the

compensating balance requirement, then he’d have to increase his loan amount. In this case, he’d

have to borrow as follows:

= loan − [(20%) ∗ (loan) − $4,000]

= loan ∗ (1 − 0.20) + $4,000

$236,000 = (0.80) ∗ loan

loan = $295,000.

(To verify: A $295,000 loan would require (20%) ∗ ($295,000) = $59,000 in compensating balances.

Since Mr. Hale already has $4,000, he would need to add $55,000. This would leave him with

($295,000 − $55,000) = $240,000.)

This loan will require ($295,000) ∗ (0.08) ∗ (3/12) = $5,900 in interest. Mr. Hale’s APR in this

case would be:

$5,900 1

APR = * = 9.833%.

$240,000 3 /12

Unlike in earlier problems (e.g., 18-9), our “scaling up” of the loan did not leave the APR

unchanged. This is because we are not really scaling up the loan. Mr. Hale’s $4,000 introduces a

wedge that precludes our simply scaling all of the loan terms up or down by a single factor. In

particular, since his $4,000 balance is a smaller proportion of the larger loan, it satisfies less of the

compensating balance requirement, making the requirement more onerous (that is, more costly).

The APR therefore rises in the larger-scale case. (If Mr. Hale had no initial balance, then his APR

in both cases would be 10%. We can see that the APRs above are approaching this limit.)

What if the bank changed the terms, lowering the rate by 100 bp to prime, but requiring discount

interest? Now, his interest charge is:

interest = principal ∗ rate ∗ time

= $240,000 ∗ (0.07) ∗ (3/12) = $4,200,

which is less than before (by 12.5%). However, now his proceeds will be (assuming a total loan

amount of $240,000) only ($240,000 − $44,000 − $4,200) = $191,800 (2.14% less than in our

initial scenario above), for an APR of:

$4,200 1

APR = * = 8.76%.

$191,800 3 /12

The decrease in the interest rate had more effect on the numerator of our first term (the total

interest charges) than the initial discounting had on the denominator (the proceeds). Mr. Hale

would therefore be better off with these second terms than with the initial prime +100bp loan.

(The new loan terms are still better under the following changes, taken one at a time:

• Increase of the loan term to 12 months (new loan’s relative benefit declines, but still better than original)

• Decrease of Mr. Hale’s initial balance to $0.

• Decrease in required compensating balance proportion.

Solutions to End of Chapter Problems—Chapter 18 455

However, decreasing the spread on the initial loan to approximately 15 bp or less would make the

original terms more attractive to Mr. Hale.)

a days in year

annualized opportunity of forgoing the discount = ∗ ,

1− a c−b

where we are considering a trade discount of the form a/b, net c. The cost of not taking advantage

of our offer would be:

0.02 360

annualized opportunity of forgoing the discount = ∗ ,

1 − 0.02 50 − 10

or 18.37%. This is much higher than just 2%—because the 2% applies to only 10 days.

a days in year

annualized opportunity of forgoing the discount = ∗ ,

1− a c−b

we find:

# of days/year = 360

a b c [a /(1-a )]*[360/(c -b )]

net

days for due in opportunity

part discount % discount (days) cost

(a) 1% 10 20 36.36%

(b) 2% 10 30 36.73%

(c) 3% 10 30 55.67%

(d) 3% 10 60 22.27%

(e) 3% 10 90 13.92%

(f) 5% 10 60 37.89%

456 Titman/Keown/Martin • Financial Management, Eleventh Edition

59.00%

54.00%

49.00%

44.00%

39.00%

34.00%

29.00%

24.00%

19.00%

14.00%

9.00%

30 60 90

net days

• As the number of days until the net payment is required increase, the opportunity cost falls.

105.00%

95.00%

85.00%

75.00%

65.00%

55.00%

45.00%

35.00%

25.00%

2% 3% 5%

discount %

- Triam Research: Third Rebuttal to HK 0633 China All AccessUploaded byTriam Research
- SBIUploaded byAjay Chauhan
- DOF Local Finance Circular 03-93Uploaded byPeggy Salazar
- APR_or_EARUploaded bymaher6kassab
- IntroductionUploaded byk eswari
- CIBIL FinessUploaded bysensibledevesh
- Loan PricingUploaded bySudhansuSekhar
- CASE - Krishna Steels- 2013Uploaded byambady_mm
- pdy loansUploaded byAnthony Seaton
- Interest Rate on AdvancesUploaded byRohit Gautam
- Airtel FinalUploaded byAbhimaurya
- Recollected QuestionsUploaded bysunil251
- IndexUploaded bymrinal halder
- 14 x11 Financial Management BUploaded bykheymi
- WORKING CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT START.docxUploaded bychettiyar_rajan2693
- Interest Sheet SolutionsUploaded byRaghav Rathi
- Fast formula for Education loan - Oracle HRMSUploaded byAravind Alavanthar
- ACCOUNTING STANDARD 16Uploaded bytharunhim
- Crismina Garments Inc vs CA _ 128721 _ March 9, 1999 _ J. Panganiban _ Third DivisionUploaded byDeric Macalinao
- US Federal Reserve: afdr a7Uploaded byThe Fed
- Long Term FinanceUploaded byNisha Baranwal
- 36 Sprint Training - Unnati +Uploaded bySomesh Kumar
- RossFCF8ce SM Ch18Uploaded byAlan Gaines
- DI 2Uploaded bySudhanshu Jaiswal
- Dis Ques4 Nov'14Uploaded byaisect123
- 10 Math 550 Percents PacketUploaded bykarin
- US Federal Reserve: afdr a8Uploaded byThe Fed
- CEE4100 01 Homework 06 2013 Fall SchedulingUploaded byjhnelson2014
- Community Loan Program Info Sheet Promise and AgreementUploaded byAdam Fischer
- Payday and Auto Title Lending in Texas: Time to Close the Loophole and Level the Playing FieldUploaded byProgressTX

- Part 2_TKM0844_11E_IM_Ch17Uploaded bydannavillafuente
- IPPTChap010.pptxUploaded bydannavillafuente
- Part 2_TKM0844_11E_IM_Ch19.pdfUploaded bydannavillafuente
- M05_TKM0844_11E_IM_Ch05Uploaded bydannavillafuente
- M01_TKM0844_11E_IM_Ch01Uploaded bydannavillafuente
- A02_TITM0847_11e_IM_CPYUploaded bydannavillafuente
- Part 2_TKM0844_11E_IM_Ch20.pdfUploaded bydannavillafuente
- M02_TKM0844_11E_IM_Ch02.pdfUploaded bydannavillafuente
- Titman TPUploaded byBea Blanco
- IPPTChap009.pptxUploaded bydannavillafuente
- IPPTChap003.pptxUploaded bydannavillafuente
- IPPTChap008.pptxUploaded bydannavillafuente
- F01_TKM0844_11E_IM_TOC.pdfUploaded bydannavillafuente
- M03_TKM0844_11E_IM_Ch03.1.pdfUploaded bydannavillafuente
- M04_TKM0844_11E_IM_Ch04.pdfUploaded bydannavillafuente
- IPPTChap007.pptxUploaded bydannavillafuente
- M05_TKM0844_11E_IM_Ch05Uploaded bydannavillafuente
- IPPTChap006.pptxUploaded bydannavillafuente
- Standard Chartered BankUploaded bydannavillafuente
- 2013 Annual ReportUploaded bydannavillafuente
- IPPTChap001-1Uploaded bydannavillafuente
- SCB Botswana Anual Report 2010Uploaded bydannavillafuente
- IPPTChap002.pptxUploaded bydannavillafuente
- NIRC.pdfUploaded byCharlie Magne G. Santiaguel
- IPPTChap001-1.pptxUploaded bydannavillafuente
- IPPTChap010Uploaded bydannavillafuente
- Stair Chapter 2_croppedUploaded bydannavillafuente
- IPPTChap005.pptxUploaded bydannavillafuente
- IPPTChap004.pptxUploaded bydannavillafuente

- AmexUploaded byMohammad Bilal
- Chapter 08Uploaded byLBL_Lowkee
- Best Practices for Cash ForecastingUploaded byYasaswi Gopaluni
- 20170525 KESMUploaded bybijue
- Curriculum Vitae(Sourav Dalal)Uploaded bysouravdalal85
- MG 61Uploaded byAravind Phoenix
- Efas and Ifas Air AsiaUploaded byRasyid Romadhony
- Pharma Industry M&A Activity AnalysisUploaded byPradeep Sundaram
- basics of insurance and people awareness towards birla sunlife insuranceUploaded byRajan Bhatti
- 2Q19 Washington DC Local Retail ReportUploaded byWilliam Harris
- Current Practices in Active Data WarehousingUploaded bycoolseen
- FATCA Take 2_NavigantUploaded byivan_mitev9979
- 2010_&_2008Uploaded byselvakaninadar
- 40906682_1530265996294Uploaded byKabir Shelke
- Equity Mutual Funds ProjectUploaded bymanoranjanpatra
- Cash BudgetingUploaded byNadya Restu Mayestika
- 11D.pdfUploaded byakram1978
- Vocabulary ExercisesUploaded byAlexandra Mihai
- Barriers and Drivers of GlobalisationUploaded byViknesh Kumanan
- Kalb_As_records_-_batch_1.pdfUploaded byRecordTrac - City of Oakland
- Performance Appraisal System of HDFCUploaded byn_walia832610
- The Consonance of Organizational Ergonomics in Indian ConstructionUploaded byPiyush Sharma
- Fiat 2013 Annual ReportUploaded bylberetta2011
- Malaysia and Islamic Economics ProjectsUploaded bySaiful Azhar Rosly
- ISC Accounts Stock ValuationUploaded bybcom
- Gn08 Continuous DisclosureUploaded bydw258
- Great BurgerUploaded byRogier de Boer
- Dematerialisation Request FormUploaded byHemanth Aremanda
- ROKKO Holdings 2011 Annual ReportUploaded byWeR1 Consultants Pte Ltd
- CIR vs. Isabela Cultural Corp.Uploaded byNatsu Dragneel