版权说明:本文档由用户提供并上传,收益归属内容提供方,若内容存在侵权,请进行举报或认领
文档简介
Fed
Transparency
andPolicy
Expectation
Errors:A
TextAnalysis
ApproachNO.
1081NOVEMBER
2023EricFischer
|
Rebecca
McCaughrin
|
Saketh
Prazad
|MarkVandergonFedTransparency
andPolicyExpectationErrors:ATextAnalysisApproachEricFischer,RebeccaMcCaughrin,SakethPrazad,andMarkVandergonFederalReserveBank
ofNew
YorkStaffReports,no.1081November2023/10.59576/sr.1081AbstractThispaperseekstoestimatethe
extenttowhichmarket-impliedpolicyexpectationscouldbeimprovedwith
furtherinformationdisclosurefromtheFOMC.Using
textanalysismethodsbased
onlargelanguagemodels,we
show
thatif
FOMCmeeting
materialswithfive-yearlaggedreleasedates—likemeetingtranscriptsandTealbooks—wereaccessibleto
thepublicin
realtime,
marketpolicyexpectationscouldsubstantiallyimproveforecastingaccuracy.Most
of
thisimprovementoccursduringeasing
cycles.Forinstance,at
thesix-monthforecasting
horizon,the
marketcould
havepredictedasmuch
as125basispointsof
additionaleasingduringthe2001and2008recessions,equivalenttoa40-50percentreductioninmean
squarederror.Thispotentialforecastingimprovementappearstobe
relatedto
incompleteinformation
abouttheFed’sreactionfunction,particularlywithrespecttofinancialstabilityconcernsin2008.Incontrast,
havingenhancedaccessto
meeting
materialswouldnot
haveimprovedthe
market’spolicyrateforecasting
duringtighteningcycles.JELclassification:
E43,E52,E58,C80Keywords:interestrates,
monetarypolicy,centralbankandpolicy,sentimentanalysis_________________Fischer,
McCaughrin:MarketsGroup,FederalReserveBankof
NewYork(email:eric.fischer@,
mccaughrin@).Prazad:ResearchAnalyst,ResearchGroup,FederalReserveBank
ofNewYork(email:saketh.prazad@).Vandergon:TechnologyGroup,FederalReserveBank
ofNewYork(email:mark.vandergon@).TheauthorsthankMichaelBauer,RyanBush,RichardCrump,MatthewGentzkow,SeungLee,EricOffner,ChiaraScotti,Adam
Shapiro,DerekTang,andseminarparticipantsattheFederalReserveBank
ofNewYork,theFederalReserveBoard,
theFederalReserveBankofAtlantaQuantitativeSkills
Conference,
andtheWesternEconomicAssociationInternational
Conferenceforhelpfulcomments.
TheyalsothankFederalReserveBankofNewYorkMarketsGroupanalystsforassistance
with
sentenceannotationandThiernoDialloforexcellentresearchassistance.Thispaperpresentspreliminaryfindingsand
is
beingdistributedto
economistsand
otherinterestedreaderssolely
to
stimulatediscussionandelicitcomments.Theviews
expressedinthispaperare
thoseoftheauthor(s)anddonotnecessarilyreflectthepositionoftheFederalReserveBankofNewYorkortheFederalReserveSystem.Anyerrorsoromissionsaretheresponsibility
ofthe
author(s).Toview
the
authors’disclosurestatements,visit/research/staff_reports/sr1081.html.1
IntroductionOver
the
last
few
decades,
central
banks
have
made
substantial
changes
to
their
communica-tions
and
transparency
practices
in
an
effort
to
improve
market
expectations
of
future
monetarypolicy.
Clear
and
effective
communications
help
to
ensure
that
policy
shifts
are
properly
transmit-ted
to
financial
conditions
and
the
real
economy.
Recent
work
on
monetary
policy
expectations
hasdocumented
that
while
market
expectations
may
often
be
unbiased
predictors
of
the
future
policyrate,
there
can
be
substantial
ex-post
predictability
of
market
expectation
errors,
particularly
dur-ing
significant
policy
easing
episodes
(Cieslak,
2018),
(Schmeling,
Schrimpf
and
Steffensen,
2022),(Bauer
and
Swanson,
2023).
These
expectation
errors
are
believed
to
be
ex-ante
unpredictable
anddriven
by
an
underestimation
of
the
central
bank’s
sensitivity
to
economic
downturns.
In
this
pa-per,
we
argue
that
Fed
transparency
plays
some
role
in
these
expectation
errors,
and
demonstratethat
a
portion
of
the
expectation
errors
are
predictable
ex-ante,
given
enhanced
access
to
informa-tion
from
monetary
policy
meetings.We
define
transparency
in
terms
of
information
loss
between
the
public
and
the
Fed
with
respectto
expectations
of
future
monetary
policy.
In
a
procedural
sense,
central
banks
are
not
fully
trans-parent.
Monetary
policy
meeting
deliberations
are
confidential.
Transcripts
and
related
briefingmaterials
are
only
released
to
the
public
with
a
significant
lag.
To
be
sure,
central
banks
have
legit-imate
reasons
to
maintain
confidentiality
or
institute
lags
in
providing
access
to
information.
Suchopacity,
which
we
define
as
the
inverse
of
transparency,
may
be
deemed
necessary,
for
instance,to
maintain
independence
and
encourage
objective
and
vigorous
debate
among
policymakers.
Ifinternal
discussions
and
staff
economic
forecasts
were
to
become
immediately
available
to
the
pub-lic,
market
participants
could
perceive
such
forecasts
as
a
commitment
to
certain
future
actions
bythe
central
bank,
which
could
in
turn
reduce
the
flexibility
of
the
central
bank
in
the
future.In
lieu
of
immediate
access
to
meeting
materials,
the
public
receives
a
wide
range
of
commu-nications
from
the
Fed,
including
statements,
meeting
minutes,
speeches,
interviews,
and
pressconferences.
If
these
communications
can
be
used
to
accurately
predict
the
Fed’s
future
policy
de-cisions,
despite
the
confidentiality
of
meetings,
then
we
posit
that
there
is
no
information
loss.
Inthis
paper,
we
do
not
attempt
to
weigh
the
trade-offs
of
increased
transparency
against
potentialimprovements
in
market
policy
forecasts.
Rather,
our
goal
is
to
highlight
potential
costs
of
opacitythat
have
been
previously
unacknowledged
by
the
literature.1We
measure
information
loss
by
comparing
actual
market
policy
expectations
with
our
pre-dictions
of
what
market
expectations
would
have
been
in
a
counterfactual
world
in
which
the
Fedreleases
meeting
transcripts
and
Tealbooks
immediately
instead
of
with
a
five
year
lag.1
Thesecounterfactual
predictions
are
generated
using
our
“FedSpeak
model”,
a
forecasting
model
thatpredicts
the
change
in
the
fed
funds
rate
h
months
after
meeting
t,
using
fed
funds
futures
fromthe
day
after
meeting
t,
confidential
sentiment
and
topic
content
from
meeting
t,
and
confidentialTealbook
forecasts
from
meeting
t.2
One
day
after
a
meeting,
the
futures
market
should
have
pricedin
all
relevant
information
released
before
the
meeting,
including
meeting
minutes,
speeches,
andmacroeconomic
data
releases.We
produce
time-varying
measures
of
sentiment
and
topic
content
of
meeting
transcripts
andTealbooks.
Topic
modeling
and
sentiment
analysis
are
standard
machine
learning
techniques
thatallow
for
a
detailed
quantitative
assessment
of
how
subjective
content
of
text
changes
over
time.We
measure
sentiment
and
topic
at
the
sentence-level.
A
sentence
can
have
a
sentiment
label
of“Positive”,
“Negative”,
or
“Neutral”.
The
same
sentence
can
also
have
a
topic
label
of
“EconomicGrowth”,
“Inflation”,
“Labor
Markets”,
“Financial
Stability”,
and
“Monetary
Policy”.
A
sentencemay
also
have
no
associated
topic
label.
The
text
analysis
is
conducted
using
supervised
machinelearning
methods
and
large
language
models,
which
we
train
using
a
dataset
of
sentences
fromFOMC
speeches,
statements,
minutes,
transcripts,
and
interviews.
The
topic
and
sentiment
la-bels
for
this
training
dataset
were
determined
by
analysts
from
the
Markets
Group
at
the
FederalReserve
Bank
of
New
York.
We
show
that
our
machine
learning-based
approaches
generate
im-provements
in
accuracy
on
a
held-out
test
set
relative
to
the
lexical
approaches
commonly
used
ineconomics.We
show
that
the
out-of-sample
predictions
of
the
FedSpeak
model
significantly
outperformfed
funds
futures
at
three-,
six-,
and
nine-month
forecasting
horizons,
thus
indicating
opacity.
Theoutperformance
we
find
for
the
full
1996
to
2016
period
reveals
an
important
asymmetry
betweentightening
and
easing
cycles.
During
the
2001
and
2008
easing
cycles,
the
gap
between
fed
fundsfutures
and
the
FedSpeak
model’s
predictions
was
as
much
as
125
basis
points
at
the
six
month1Before
2010,
the
two
main
staff
briefing
documents
were
the
Greenbook,
which
summarized
economic
develop-ments,
and
the
Bluebook,
which
summarized
monetary
policy
options.
In
2010,
the
two
documents
were
merged
intothe
Tealbook.
For
the
rest
of
this
paper,
when
we
refer
to
“Tealbook”,
we
refer
to
the
pre-2010
Greenbooks
and
thepost-2010
Tealbooks.
We
do
not
consider
Bluebooks.2In
this
counterfactual
world,
we
assume
that
the
Fed
does
not
adjust
the
contents
of
its
meetings
in
response
togreater
transparency.2horizon,
equivalent
to
a
40-50%
reduction
in
mean
squared
error.
We
find
no
such
outperformanceduring
tightening
cycles
and
during
the
zero
lower
bound.
These
results
imply
that
Fed
communi-cations
may
be
less
informative
during
easing
cycles,
to
the
extent
that
meeting
materials
containedpolicy-relevant
information
not
reflected
in
market
pricing.One
potential
explanation
for
our
results
is
that
although
the
market
takes
into
account
com-munications
released
before
meeting
t,
a
large
portion
of
the
important
information
within
meetingtranscripts
is
released
to
the
public
in
the
speeches
and
minutes
released
after
meeting
t.
If
post-meeting
communications
are
highly
informative,
then
the
opacity
we
identify
in
our
main
resultsmay
be
temporary.
To
account
for
this
possibility,
we
implement
our
forecasting
exercise
with
amodified
FedSpeak
model
that
pairs
market
expectations
one
day
after
meeting
t
with
meeting
ma-terials
from
meeting
t
−1
(rather
than
from
meeting
t).
If
post-meeting
communications
eliminateopacity,
then
information
from
meeting
t
−1
should
no
longer
be
important
since
Fed
communi-cations
released
between
meeting
t
−
1
and
meeting
t
would
have
been
priced
in
by
the
market.Instead,
we
find
the
modified
FedSpeak
model
continues
to
outperform
the
market
during
easingcycles,
though
by
a
somewhat
lower
magnitude.
This
suggests
that
opacity
persists
many
weeksafter
a
meeting.Using
an
alternative
metric
of
transparency,
we
verify
the
implication
that
the
outperformanceof
the
FedSpeak
model
reflects
less
informative
communications
during
easing
cycles.
To
do
this,we
test
whether
a
hypothetical
investor
could
have
used
meeting
minutes
in
real
time
to
predictthe
contents
of
confidential
meeting
transcripts.
The
investor
estimates
the
historical
relationshipbetween
the
contents
of
meetings
minutes
and
the
contents
of
meeting
transcripts
and
then
ap-plies
that
historical
relationship
to
new
minutes
observations
in
order
to
generate
predictions
oftranscript
content.
We
compare
these
predictions
with
actual
transcript
content
in
order
to
assesstransparency.
We
continue
to
find
an
asymmetry
between
tightening
cycles
and
easing
cycles.
Inparticular,
predicted
transcript
sentiment
tends
to
be
more
positive
than
actual
transcript
sentimentduring
easing
cycles,
which
we
posit
may
explain
why
the
market
underestimated
future
rate
cuts.We
offer
two
main
caveats
to
our
analysis.
First,
our
results
cannot
identify
whether
recentinnovations
in
Fed
communications,
like
the
Summary
of
Economic
Projections
(SEP)
and
pressconferences,
have
improved
Fed
transparency.
Due
to
the
lagged
release
of
meeting
transcripts,we
can
simultaneously
observe
the
SEP,
press
conferences,
and
meeting
transcripts
only
from
20113through
2017.
These
years
were
mostly
characterized
by
the
zero
lower
bound
(ZLB)
and
explicitforward
guidance,
both
of
which
effectively
reduce
the
scope
for
market
expectation
errors.
Evalu-ating
the
effects
of
the
SEP
and
press
conferences
would
require
more
post-ZLB
meeting
transcriptsto
be
released.
Second,
our
results
do
not
consider
the
possibility
that
FOMC
members
could
re-spond
to
enhanced
transparency
by
altering
the
content
discussed
at
monetary
policy
meetings.These
behavioral
responses
are
emphasized
in
Hansen,
McMahon
and
Prat
(2018),
who
study
theresponse
of
policymakers
to
the
transparency-enhancing
reforms
in
1993.The
asymmetry
we
find
between
tightening
and
easing
cycles
is
consistent
with
the
results
ofCieslak
(2018)
and
Schmeling,
Schrimpf
and
Steffensen
(2022),
who
find
large
excess
returns
inTreasuries
and
fed
funds
futures
during
easing
cycles,
but
not
during
tightening
cycles.
They
at-tribute
the
excess
returns
to
market
expectation
errors,
rather
than
to
changing
risk
premia.
Cieslak(2018)
argues
that
while
these
forecasting
errors
may
be
predictable
ex-post,
they
are
difficult
topredict
in
real-time,
even
for
policymakers.
Other
papers
finding
asymmetries
in
monetary
policyexpectations
between
tightening
and
easing
cycles
include
Bauer,
Pflueger
and
Sunderam
(2022),who
find
that
professional
forecasters
perceive
policy
decisions
to
be
less
dependent
on
macroe-conomic
conditions
during
easing
cycles
and
therefore
less
predictable.We
also
contribute
to
a
long-standing
literature
on
Fed
transparency.
Most
work
on
trans-parency
and
central
bank
communication
has
studied
the
optimal
level
of
transparency
and
theconditions
under
which
signaling
the
path
of
future
rates
is
welfare-enhancing.3
Less
work
hasbeen
done
on
the
extent
to
which
the
Fed
achieves
transparency
in
practice.
We
fill
this
gap
byempirically
testing
the
extent
to
which
markets
could
have
historically
improved
their
policy
rateforecasting
with
broader
access
to
information
from
central
bank
meetings.Many
prior
studies
of
central
bank
transparency
have
focused
on
relative
improvements
intransparency.
For
example,
Swanson
(2006)
finds
that
the
private
sector
has
become
better
at
fore-casting
monetary
policy
since
the
1980s,
likely
due
to
improved
Fed
transparency.
But
these
studiescan
only
measure
relative
changes
in
transparency
and
cannot
tell
us
how
transparent
communica-tions
are
overall.
The
only
studies
that
attempt
to
measure
central
bank
transparency
in
an
absolutesense
rely
on
a
qualitative
lens,
such
as
Eijffinger
and
Geraats
(2006)
and
Dincer
and
Eichengreen(2018),
who
develop
qualitative
indices
of
transparency
over
time
for
central
banks
around
the3For
details,
see
Woodford
(2005),
Cukierman
(2009),
Morris
and
Shin
(2005),
among
others.4world.
While
these
indices
are
useful
for
comparing
a
very
diverse
set
of
institutions,
they
rely
oncoarse
binary
criteria.Our
second
set
of
results
identifies
the
specific
pieces
of
information
within
meeting
transcriptsand
Tealbooks
that
explain
the
large
gaps
between
the
FedSpeak
model’s
predictions
and
marketexpectations
during
easing
cycles.
We
generate
variable
importance
measures
from
the
FedSpeakmodel
to
determine
which
pieces
of
information
within
meeting
deliberations
would
have
beenmost
valuable
for
policy-sensitive
rate
markets
to
have
known
in
real-time.
In
2007-2008,
the
mostimportant
variables
were
financial
stability
topic
frequency,
financial
stability
sentiment,
economicgrowth
sentiment,
and
the
sentiment
of
the
FOMC’s
leadership.
In
2000-2003,
the
most
importantvariables
were
aggregate
sentiment,
economic
growth
sentiment,
and
the
sentiment
of
leadership.In
both
periods,
the
importance
of
these
variables
often
far
surpassed
the
importance
of
marketexpectations.We
interpret
the
variable
importance
results
through
the
lens
of
a
simple
monetary
policy
rule,where
the
future
fed
funds
rate
is
determined
by
the
committee’s
economic
outlook
and
a
time-varying
reaction
function.
According
to
Nakamura
and
Steinsson
(2018),
Campbell,
Evans
andJustiniano
(2012),
and
Romer
and
Romer
(2000),
the
Fed
has
an
“information
advantage”
aboutthe
economy
and
can
therefore
make
better
forecasts
than
the
public
about
future
economic
condi-tions.
Based
on
this
view,
the
FedSpeak
model
might
outperform
the
market
because
the
meetingmaterials
contain
important
information
about
the
Fed’s
economic
forecasts.The
view
that
the
Fed
has
stronger
forecasting
abilities
than
market
participants
has
been
chal-lenged
by
Hoesch,
Rossi
and
Sekhposyan
(forthcoming)
and
Bauer
and
Swanson
(2023),
amongothers,
who
find
that
Tealbook
forecasts
have
not
been
more
accurate
than
private
sector
forecastsin
recent
years.
Consistent
with
these
findings,
we
show
that
Tealbook
forecasts
were
relativelyunimportant
within
the
FedSpeak
model
during
easing
cycles
and
pointed
towards
tighter
policyrather
than
looser
policy.
Since
Tealbook
forecasts
are
commonly
assumed
within
the
literature
toreflect
the
FOMC’s
economic
outlook
(see,
for
example,
Shapiro
and
Wilson
(2019)
and
Bauer
andSwanson
(2023)),
the
low
importance
of
these
forecasts
suggests
that
outlook-related
informationwas
unlikely
to
be
responsible
for
reduced
transparency
during
easing
cycles.As
an
additional
test
of
the
importance
of
outlook-related
information,
we
re-estimate
the
Fed-Speak
model
under
a
hypothetical
scenario
where
the
Fed
has
perfect
foresight
of
future
economic5conditions.
We
modify
the
FedSpeak
model
to
include
macroeconomic
data
releases,
like
nonfarmpayrolls
and
CPI
inflation,
from
the
month
after
meeting
t.
Even
with
such
extreme
assumptionsabout
the
Fed’s
knowledge
of
the
economy,
the
topic
and
sentiment
variables
retain
at
least
75%of
their
predictive
power.
This
suggests
that
the
text-derived
variables
are
capturing
informationunrelated
to
the
state
of
the
economy
and
are
thus
providing
information
about
policymakers’reactions
to
incoming
economic
news.We
find
that
sentiment
and
topic
frequency
variables
are
often
more
important
than
marketexpectations
for
forecasting
future
policy
during
easing
cycles,
providing
a
compelling
affirmativecase
for
a
reaction
function-based
explanation
of
easing
cycle
opacity.
Sentiment
is
important
be-cause
it
allows
us
to
directly
observe
the
reactions
of
FOMC
members
to
incoming
economic
datarather
than
having
to
infer
their
reaction
based
on
historical
relationships
between
macroeconomicvariables
and
monetary
policy.
Topic
frequency
variables
should
also
be
interpreted
as
related
tothe
reaction
function.
Holding
topic-specific
sentiment
constant,
if
the
FOMC
discusses
a
certaintopic
more
often,
then
the
members
may
implicitly
be
weighting
that
topic
more
heavily
in
theirreaction
function.Our
results
emphasizing
incomplete
information
about
policymakers’
reactions
are
consistentwith
a
growing
literature.
Bauer
and
Swanson
(2023)
propose
a
“Fed
response
to
news”
channelfor
explaining
monetary
policy
surprises.
Schmeling,
Schrimpf
and
Steffensen
(2022)
find
thatmarket
expectation
errors
occur
contemporaneously
with
Taylor
Rule
deviations.
Cieslak
(2018)finds
that
a
large
portion
of
unexpected
easing
comes
from
unscheduled
FOMC
meetings,
suggest-ing
that
FOMC
members
eased
more
aggressively
than
markets
expected
in
response
to
surpriseeconomic
news.
Bauer,
Pflueger
and
Sunderam
(2022)
find
that
professional
forecasters
updatetheir
beliefs
about
the
Fed’s
reaction
function
in
response
to
monetary
policy
shocks,
indicatingimperfect
information
about
the
reaction
function.
We
contribute
to
this
literature
by
providingthe
first
quantitative
evidence
of
the
magnitude
of
these
information
frictions.A
reaction
function-based
explanation
of
the
FedSpeak
model’s
performance
has
quite
differentimplications
for
Fed
transparency
policy
than
a
forecast
or
outlook-based
explanation.
Informa-tion
about
forecasts
may
be
relatively
easy
to
convey
to
market
participants,
through
instrumentslike
the
Summary
of
Economic
Projections.
But
as
Woodford
(2005)
emphasizes,
conveying
infor-mation
about
the
Fed’s
reaction
function
to
the
public
is
difficult
because
of
the
large
number
of6different
contingencies
and
scenarios
that
may
arise,
each
demanding
a
different
response
from
thecentral
bank.
The
easing
cycles
that
we
emphasize
may
be
examples
of
infrequent
contingencies,where
conveying
information
about
the
Fed’s
response
in
advance
may
be
difficult
in
practice.
Ina
similar
vein,
Schmeling,
Schrimpf
and
Steffensen
(2022)
argue
that
the
Fed’s
response
to
nega-tive
macroeconomic
shocks
is
inherently
difficult
for
markets
to
learn
because
of
the
relatively
fewobservations.Finally,
we
contribute
to
a
large
literature
that
uses
textual
analysis
of
FOMC
documents
andcommunications
to
study
FOMC
communications
and
the
transmission
of
communications
to
fi-nancial
markets.
Some
important
papers
include
Hansen
and
McMahon
(2016),
Acosta
(2015),Gardner,
Scotti
and
Vega
(2022),
Schmanski
et
al.
(2023),
Chernulich,
Li
and
McGinn
(forthcom-ing),
and
Hansen
and
Kazinnik
(2023).The
rest
of
the
paper
proceeds
as
follows:
in
Section
2,
we
discuss
the
text
analysis
methodsused
to
summarize
the
qualitative
content
of
Fed
documents.
In
Section
3,
we
describe
the
con-struction
of
the
FedSpeak
model
and
show
its
superior
forecasting
ability
relative
to
market
ex-pectations.
In
Section
4,
we
use
variable
importance
measures
to
argue
that
market
forecastingerrors
during
easing
cycles
were
due
to
incomplete
information
about
the
FOMC’s
reaction
func-tion
rather
than
the
economic
outlook.
Section
5
offers
concluding
remarks.2
Text
Analysis
MethodologyIn
this
section,
we
describe
the
text
analysis
methods
we
use
for
topic
classification
and
sentimentanalysis.
We
define
topic
as
the
subject
of
a
speaker’s
sentence,
as
it
relates
to
the
economy
ormonetary
policy.
For
example,
in
the
phrase
“market
liquidity
is
worsening”,
the
topic
is
clearlymarket
functioning,
or
financial
stability
more
broadly.
In
the
phrase,
“the
CPI
release
shows
mixedsignals”,
the
topic
is
clearly
inflation.We
define
sentiment
as
the
subjective
attitude
that
a
speaker
conveys
through
their
language.For
example,
the
phrase
“market
liquidity
is
worsening”
conveys
negative
sentiment
温馨提示
- 1. 本站所有资源如无特殊说明,都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
- 2. 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等,如果需要附件,请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
- 3. 本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸,网页内容里面会有图纸预览,若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
- 4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
- 5. 人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对用户上传分享的文档内容本身不做任何修改或编辑,并不能对任何下载内容负责。
- 6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容,请与我们联系,我们立即纠正。
- 7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。
最新文档
- 售后服务方案及措施
- 电力工程基础-第2章习题答案
- 广告宣传片策划脚本模板
- 电力企业安全文化理念
- DB37T 4717-2024 高速公路养护工程施工现场管理指南
- 三年乘除竖式计算题
- 小学班级管理中激励运用的创新策略探析
- 2024年陶瓷制零件相关陶瓷制品项目建议书
- 2024年全自动地热恒压供水设备项目建议书
- 2024年清洁车项目合作计划书
- (完整word)建筑工程施工许可证(模板格式)(word文档良心出品)
- 纯化水系统设备验证报告
- 提分有道-玩转外接球内切球
- 临床医学检验临床基础检验技术(副高)考试速记考点
- 公司人员结构分析及公司人员情况分析
- DB34∕T 679-2014 安徽省行业用水定额
- 民航危险品运输培训课件第七章 锂电池专项培训
- 风电场工程项目达标创优策划书
- 人教PEP版三年级英语上册第二单元教学计划及全部教案(共6课时)
- 部编版五年级语文阅读理解专项练习题【含答案】
- 粘土心墙专项施工方案
评论
0/150
提交评论