Exam Questions Updated On :
examination questions are modified, wherein am i able to find new questions and answers?
Attempted masses to clear my MB5-627 exam taking assist from the books. However the hard motives and toughinstance made things worse and that i skipped the check two instances. Ultimately, my fine pal recommended me the question& answer via way of killexams.com. And consider me, it labored so nicely! The exceptional contents were awesome to undergo and apprehend the subjects. I must with out issues cram it too and answered the questions in barely a hundred and 80 minutes time. Felt elated to skip well. Thank you, killexams.com dumps. Way to my lovely friend too.
examination questions are modified, wherein am i able to find new questions and answers?
Many thanks on your MB5-627 dumps. I identified most of the questions and also you had all the simulations that i was asked. I were given 97% marks. After attempting several books, i was quite confused now not getting the right material. i was looking for a guideline for exam MB5-627 with easy and rightly-prepared questions and answers. killexams.com Q&A fulfilled my need, because it defined the complicated subjects within the most effective manner. in the actual exam I got 97%, which become past my expectation. thanks killexams.com, to your awesome guide-line!
what's simplest manner to prepare and pass MB5-627 exam?
I am ranked very excessive among my class buddies on the listing of remarkable college college students however it handiest happened after I registered on this killexams.com for some exam assist. It modified into the high ranking reading software in this killexams.com that helped me in becoming a member of the excessive ranks at the aspect of different super college students of my magnificence. The resources on this killexams.com are commendable because of the reality they may be unique and extremely beneficial for instruction through MB5-627, MB5-627 dumps and MB5-627 books. I am happy to install writing those phrases of appreciation due to the reality this killexams.com merits it. Thanks.
Get those MB5-627 real exam questions and solutions! Do now not get rippoff
I prepared the MB5-627 exam with the assist of killexams.com Microsoft test education dump. It changed into complicatedbut regular very helpful in passing my MB5-627 exam.
the way to put together for MB5-627 examination in shortest time?
They fee me for MB5-627 exam simulator and QA document however first i did no longer got the MB5-627 QA material. there has been some file blunders, later they constant the error. i organized with the exam simulator and it changed intorightly.
right location to get MB5-627 actual test exam paper.
I retained the equal quantity of as I may also want to. A score of 89% changed right into a respectable come approximately for my 7-day planning. My making plans of the exam MB5-627 changed into sad, as the problems were excessively excessive for me to get it. For immediate reference I emulated the killexams.com dumps aide and it gave exceptional backing. The fast-length solutions have been decently clarified in simple dialect. An awful lot preferred.
attempt out those real MB5-627 modern-day dumps.
I passed the MB5-627 exam 3 days decrease again, I used killexams.com dumps for buying geared up and i should efficaciously complete the exam with a excessive score of ninety eight%. I used it for over in keeping with week, memorized all questions and their solutions, so it have turn out to be easy for me to mark the right solutions inside the path of the stay exam. I thank the killexams.com organization for supporting me with the sort of high-quality training material and granting success.
it is really notable revel in to have MB5-627 today's dumps.
Great coverage of MB5-627 exam concepts, so I learned exactly what I needed during the MB5-627 exam. I highly recommend this training from killexams.com to everyone planning to take the MB5-627 exam.
it's miles outstanding to have MB5-627 actual test questions.
i was about to give up exam MB5-627 due to the fact I wasnt confident in whether i would pass or no longer. With just a week final I determined to interchange to killexams.com QA for my exam coaching. in no way idea that the topics that I had usually run away from would be so much fun to study; its clean and quick manner of having to the factors made my education lot simpler. All way to killexams.com QA, I in no way idea i might pass my exam however I did pass with flying colors.
the way to prepare for MB5-627 exam in shortest time?
im ranked very excessive among my class pals at the listing of wonderful college students but it handiest occurred after I registered in this killexams.com for a few exam assist. It changed into the high ranking analyzing application in this killexams.com that helped me in joining the high ranks at the side of different incredible students of my magnificence. The sources on this killexams.com are commendable due to the fact theyre specific and extremely beneficial for practise thru MB5-627, MB5-627 dumps and MB5-627 books. I am happy to put in writing these phrases of appreciation due to the fact this killexams.com deserves it. thanks.
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia — June 20, 2018 — Enfrasys Consulting Sdn. Bhd. these days proudly announced it has won the 2018 Microsoft country associate of the 12 months Award for Malaysia. The enterprise become honored amongst a global box of good Microsoft partners for demonstrating excellence in innovation and implementation of client solutions in response to Microsoft know-how.
established in 2010, Enfrasys Consulting is an answer integrator that owns and operates in Malaysia and Singapore. Enfrasys offers various solutions for cloud functions, datacenter management, machine management as well as cyber security. Enfrasys is among the most able system integrator associate for Microsoft in Malaysia, reaching Gold capabilities in Cloud Platform, Cloud productivity, Datacenter in addition to Silver in enterprise Mobility administration.
“Our vision at Enfrasys is to encourage the adoption and leveraging of key international general technologies and to do so innovatively,” pointed out Beh Chor How, Chief govt Officer of Enfrasys Consulting. “we have labored difficult to obtain this imaginative and prescient and it is basically an honor to have our achievements diagnosed during the Microsoft nation companion of the 12 months Award. relocating ahead, we hope to proceed working along with Microsoft to assist groups in Malaysia as well as worldwide on their road against digital transformation.”
To be eligible for the award, candidates would deserve to obtain Gold competency in any cloud competency software and must have validated market increase inside one year. Enfrasys had over the direction of 12 months, developed superior IOT based mostly options on the Azure Cloud platform for his or her valued clientele and noticed a rise in Microsoft Azure revenue consumption. This allowed Enfrasys to face out as one of the crucial most fulfilling performing solutions integrators in Malaysia and finally earned them the Microsoft accomplice of the 12 months for Malaysia Award.
Awards have been presented in a number of categories, with winners chosen from a collection of greater than 2,600 entrants from a hundred and fifteen countries international. Enfrasys turned into identified for offering brilliant solutions and features, in addition to representing amazing subsidiary engagement in Malaysia. Working intently with Microsoft Malaysia, Enfrasys leveraged their deep knowing of the inherent strengths of Microsoft options for the improvement of their purchasers.
Commending Enfrasys on the award became k. Raman, Managing Director of Microsoft Malaysia, who noted “i need to congratulate Enfrasys on being chosen because the Microsoft country accomplice of the 12 months for Malaysia. With such a pretty good music record in presenting built-in solutions to your purchasers the use of Microsoft’s choices, you have verified your innovation to the area. We hope that our efforts to empower every person and corporation in the world to achieve greater will continue to align as we head against the future.”
through the years, Enfrasys has developed a lot of built-in solutions to help their consumers kick-birth their digital transformation experience. Examples of those options consist of the ‘i-DO’, an industry four.0 able IOT solution that leverages Microsoft Azure and SYBA, an integration of Microsoft solutions with a number of different security application for a wholistic safety insurance. Enfrasys additionally deployed certified consultants to support their valued clientele and supplied person adoption trainings with unlimited 24-hour aid.
considering the fact that 2010, Enfrasys has provided integrated Microsoft solutions to a lot of high-profile shoppers which include the Penang development service provider (PDC) who mandatory a kind of finished catastrophe healing solution. Enfrasys answered via offering a cloud answer that leveraged Azure website healing (ASR) which now not simplest allowed cross platform disaster restoration, however additionally allowed the PDC to keep on fees. Enfrasys also has adventure in providing public cloud deployment the use of the windows Azure Pack for Shinjiru, a regional internet hosting provider.
The Microsoft country partner of the year Awards honor companions at the nation stage that have tested enterprise excellence in offering Microsoft options to assorted purchasers during the last yr. This award recognizes Enfrasys as succeeding in constructive engagement with its local Microsoft workplace while showcasing innovation and business influence, using consumer delight, and profitable new valued clientele.
“we're honored to respect Enfrasys Consulting of Malaysia as a Microsoft country partner of the 12 months,” referred to Gavriella Schuster, corporate vp, One commercial accomplice, Microsoft Corp. “Enfrasys has wonderful itself as a desirable companion, exemplifying the impressive capabilities and innovation we see in our Microsoft associate community to bring transformative solutions.”
The Microsoft accomplice of the year Awards appreciate Microsoft partners that have developed and delivered splendid Microsoft-based mostly solutions over the past yr.
About Enfrasys ConsultingEstablished in Kuala Lumpur in 2010, Enfrasys Consulting Sdn. Bhd is a solution integrator that owns and operates in Malaysia and Singapore. Enfrasys is an lively Gold and Silver Microsoft talents companion.
it be probably complex to find a company, enormous or small, that would not use Microsoft utility. even if it's Microsoft's workplace productivity suite or the alternate mail platform, Microsoft's software looks ubiquitous. however Microsoft is rarely practically very own productivity items. It also has a set of business purposes for commercial enterprise resource planning (ERP) and client relationship administration (CRM). Dynamics CRM 4 is Microsoft's flagship CRM product this is seeing stiff competition from standalone CRM items from organizations akin to Salesforce.com. Microsoft in early 2008 moved to further lengthen the enchantment of Dynamics CRM 4 with the aid of releasing a hosted version for purchasers that don't need to control an on-premises product. In November 2009, Microsoft launched an aggressive initiative aimed at luring Salesforce.com customers away.
Microsoft Dynamics CRM four Integration Unleashed written by means of Marc J. Wolenik and Rajya Vardhan Bhaiya, presents proven recommendations, most advantageous practices, and example code for going some distance beyond the out-of-the-field capabilities of Dynamics CRM four. The authors supply a step-via-step book to integrating Dynamics CRM with SharePoint, office Communicator, PerformancePoint, BizTalk, Silverlight, and different equipment.
Wolenik, MCP, PMP and MBS CRM certified knowledgeable, is the proprietor of Webfortis, a consulting company based mostly in Northern California. Webfortis makes a speciality of solutions around Dynamics CRM and is a Microsoft Gold licensed partner. Bhaiya, primarily based in San Francisco, Calif., is an IT solutions Architect with extensive journey supporting gigantic-scale Fortune 500 purposes that use and integrate Microsoft Dynamics CRM, SharePoint, and PerformancePoint.
I spoke with Wolenik and Bhaiya to talk about Dynamics CRM, its appeal to valued clientele, and how it stacks up towards the competition.
Linda Leung: Why should still purchasers consider Microsoft for their enterprise application needs?
Marc Wolenik: in case you trust Microsoft Servers and virtualization options, Microsoft already serves the business area with their utility. business ERP and CRM is an further offering that Microsoft has been offering for over 5 years now. The competencies to the use of Microsoft for ERP and CRM throughout the enterprise is that the application is supported by present infrastructure, expertise and talent units. constructed on .internet know-how, current clients can readily lengthen their software across the enterprise — something that is not at all times an choice with opponents.
Rajya Vardhan Bhaiya: Microsoft software gives a scalable and integrated gadget platform. The platform has capabilities to combine with applications across various systems and capabilities.
LL: Why may still shoppers opt for Dynamics CRM four compared to Salesforce.com or other centered CRM systems?
MW: first of all, Microsoft Dynamics CRM 4.0 IS an established CRM platform. Designed from the floor-up on .net expertise, it has been existence for over five years, and has over a million people using it. Secondly, Microsoft Dynamics CRM is a an awful lot greater than simply "client" relationship administration. The xRM initiatives that are available (whereby the "x" is anything administration), permit organizations to make use of Microsoft Dynamics CRM for greater than just customer management and we have considered organizations consolidate many LOB (line of enterprise) applications onto the one platform.
further motives to select Microsoft Dynamics CRM four.0 encompass:
RB: Microsoft Dynamics provides a customizable and agile foundation that can also be configured to the enterprise procedure for quite a lot of agencies across all industries. The greater-conclusion services from Salesforce.com or other vendors deliver configuration. however Microsoft Dynamics permits that on each version.
here's a small checklist of points which are sophisticated in Dynamics:
LL: Microsoft rolled out an on-demand version of CRM 4.0 in early 2008. Did this support to enhance cognizance and activity out there for Microsoft CRM?
MW: absolutely. shoppers are more and more interested in cloud or on-demand application. The incontrovertible fact that Microsoft offered this, adopted by means of SharePoint, alternate and now workplace as a hosted carrier suggests that the product is mature enough to be attainable on-demand.
RB: sure, this expanded consciousness and people were more comfortable to have faith this software as "business in a position." americans have a perception that if whatever thing can run in a hosted/cloud atmosphere, it's able to scale to the maximum diploma. Smaller corporations are considering the fact that this as the primary CRM system. This exchange is sprouting hobbies in medium dimension agencies to change to MS Dynamics CRM.
LL: what's the method that shoppers should still move through to make a decision even if to pick out on-premises or on-demand CRM?
MW: customarily this determination system is made based on a technology resolution — i.e. whether or not the infrastructure is in area to support an implementation. extra issues include "appoint or purchase" choices (there is always a damage-even element at simply below three years), and want (or lack) to integrate the device.
RB: The company will deserve to balance the can charge of preserving the servers vs. the charge of the community connectivity required for a hosted answer. it's suggested to have redundant community connections, in order that there's a backup connection for the consumers to use the hosted answer.
If an organization has offices across the globe they will deserve to have satisfactory network connections between the shoppers and the servers.
community connectivity is the important thing deciding on element between a hosted vs. non hosted solution.
other things to accept as true with are the integration required with different methods. as an example does the information need to synchronize with the backend system at all times?
LL: Integrating CRM with key Microsoft collaboration application akin to Outlook and SharePoint is a key requirement of many consumers. however based CRM suppliers, such as Salesforce.com, have been providing as deep an integration to Microsoft for a long time. How does Microsoft compete right here?
MW: i might question the factor about "deep" integration for a few factors. It is true that competitors have integration elements besides the fact that children it is not going that anyone can do it as smartly or as deep as Microsoft. in case you appear on the native Outlook integration offerings as an instance, you will not find anything else equal to that degree of integration.
RB: Microsoft Dynamics CRM provides native integration to Outlook and to different analytical tools like Excel and access. different CRM providers usually require either a developer-degree access, or always have an additional price associated with the manner.
additionally, on account that all items are from Microsoft, they've an improve roadmap with a purpose to make sure upgrades and long term steadiness.
LL: nevertheless, one of the vital usual barriers of hosted utility is that valued clientele have to work tough to integrate the application with different enterprise methods, corresponding to ERP, because the on-demand apps frequently do not comfortably aid the APIs of these functions. How can shoppers overcome this?
MW: Hosted software has an inherent challenge with integration as a result of the nature of ERP gadget — i.e. they tend to be on-premise. because of this, most agencies are looking at performing a multi-platform integration whereby the ERP is hosted in the community and the CRM is hosted and hence there may also be challenges with the supply, pace and reliability of the programs. Microsoft Dynamics CRM overcomes this difficulty with the aid of permitting you to operate an integration in a hosted ambiance, and if required carry the records in-condo/on-premise.
RB: In a hosted CRM, that you could run a synchronization utility on the identical network because the ERP system, that allows you to communicate with Microsoft Dynamics CRM's internet functions. All internet services are on the equal community port as the internet site, which makes the combination seamless.
LL: despite the fact that you use APIs to combine hosted apps with present enterprise application, how effective is that integration?
MW: depending on the integration technology you put into effect, the integration can also be very strong. we've three chapters on Scribe integration in our e-book and this application has full redundancy built in. here's basic not just for a hosted utility, but for an on-premise integration.
RB: APIs are the favourite approach for integration; this interface permits an abstraction layer between the records constitution and the enterprise procedures. When the usage of the APIs, the system can/will invoke any workflows linked to that object. this can permit all business techniques to be carried out accurately, consequently presenting a good and constant CRM gadget.
LL: Some observers say that a problem of CRM application is that it doesn't offer the entire spectrum of relationship administration, akin to transaction administration. How may still shoppers be certain their CRM methods provide everything they should run their enterprise?
MW: here's absolutely unfaithful in regards to Microsoft Dynamics CRM. Leveraging xRM, companies can take potential of any kind of administration, including transactions. we've considered implementations such as monetary, provide, scholar, seller and investment administration just to name a few.
RB: customarily, all transactions are managed during the ERP device, so it's informed to position the transaction management entities into examine-best mode, and create a one-means sync between the ERP equipment and the CRM device. This architecture will supply larger visibility to the records.
LL: Microsoft is getting fairly aggressive in its advertising of on-demand CRM 4.0. In November 2009, the enterprise provided purchasers six months' entry to CRM 4.0 at no charge if they signed a 12-month contract. is that this form of initiative eye-catching to shoppers? How should valued clientele take competencies of these and any retaliatory moves by using opponents?
MW: neatly, this providing is only accessible if you're an existing consumer of competing utility — comparable to Salesforce.com. New customers were provided the utility at a decreased rate — $forty four per person per thirty days, with the in the past separated superior performance (offline entry, elevated storage, and so on.). if you appear closely on the providing by way of competitors (where each module/feature has an further price) and also you examine the only charge of $44 per user per 30 days, and the 30 day free trial, there's a robust and compelling intent to go with Microsoft Dynamics CRM four.0.
RB: These forms of initiatives are in reality assisting the shoppers to undertake Microsoft Dynamics CRM; in spite of everything in cutting-edge market, every person is focused on saving can charge and getting the most for the investment.
valued clientele should evaluate the ROI between a considerable number of CRM techniques with promotions like this one. The other aspect to consider is that once a choice is made to invest in a particular CRM device, usually the lifespan of that device is three years. constantly with the aid of then the company manner wants variations, or perhaps a significant exchange has been made to the CRM device that the firm needs to optimize company techniques.
LL: Microsoft last 12 months eliminated restrictions that prevented customers from moving virtualized applications, which included CRM four.0, to a different server greater than as soon as each ninety days. What different licensing limit alterations or different initiatives should Microsoft put into effect to make CRM four.0 greater fascinating and flexible for clients?
MW: Microsoft Dynamics CRM licensing is very bendy and allows for agencies to re-use licenses if a person isn't any longer vital (the gadget will instantly circulate all statistics associated with that user when they are deactivated). moreover, with the business version, organizations can have unlimited "tenants" or groups inside the gadget — allowing for an enormous and robust xRM construct-out if preferred.
RB: Microsoft provides a versatile licensing structure, and the license is associated to every active consumer. When a person leaves, the company can reallocate that license to a different consumer. here is one of the vital more liberal license agreements for CRM equipment available in the market.
LL: remaining query: What has been your most memorable CRM 4.0 installation and why?
MW: My most memorable CRM four.0 installing become for a client observed in San Francisco. that they had complicated business necessities and expected the setting up to take several weeks. in its place we achieved the installing in half a day, made the configurations with the different half and that they had been up and running the next day. The client became amazed at how handy every thing changed into and eager to start using the equipment — not to point out reveal the surplus price range.
RB: essentially the most memorable installation was with a client who wanted to make use of Microsoft Dynamics CRM because the front conclusion to an SAP ERP device. The half that made this implementation pleasing changed into the conversations involving the enterprise processes and the requirement of specific attributes. We were no longer only defining the device, however also defining the enterprise technique for the company.
Whilst it is very hard task to choose reliable exam questions / answers resources regarding review, reputation and validity because people get ripoff due to choosing incorrect service. Killexams. com make it certain to provide its clients far better to their resources with respect to exam dumps update and validity. Most of other peoples ripoff report complaint clients come to us for the brain dumps and pass their exams enjoyably and easily. We never compromise on our review, reputation and quality because killexams review, killexams reputation and killexams client self confidence is important to all of us. Specially we manage killexams.com review, killexams.com reputation, killexams.com ripoff report complaint, killexams.com trust, killexams.com validity, killexams.com report and killexams.com scam. If perhaps you see any bogus report posted by our competitor with the name killexams ripoff report complaint internet, killexams.com ripoff report, killexams.com scam, killexams.com complaint or something like this, just keep in mind that there are always bad people damaging reputation of good services due to their benefits. There are a large number of satisfied customers that pass their exams using killexams.com brain dumps, killexams PDF questions, killexams practice questions, killexams exam simulator. Visit Killexams.com, our test questions and sample brain dumps, our exam simulator and you will definitely know that killexams.com is the best brain dumps site.
190-601 braindumps | 000-540 exam questions | 190-622 real questions | 000-593 real questions | P2070-055 VCE | HP0-753 real questions | HP2-K27 sample test | 1Z0-898 questions and answers | HP2-B76 practice exam | 000-N21 free pdf | 000-915 brain dumps | HP0-J20 practice test | 000-749 study guide | HP0-390 cheat sheets | 000-991 Practice test | 300-165 practice test | 312-50v8 dumps | P2070-072 study guide | HP2-Z15 practice questions | 000-105 braindumps |
Looking for MB5-627 exam dumps that works in real exam?
killexams.com suggest you to must attempt its free demo, you will see the natural UI and furthermore you will think that its simple to alter the prep mode. In any case, ensure that, the real MB5-627 exam has a larger number of questions than the sample exam. killexams.com offers you three months free updates of MB5-627 C5 4.0 System Consultant exam questions. Our certification team is constantly accessible at back end who updates the material as and when required.
killexams.com have its specialists operative ceaselessly for the gathering of real test questions of MB5-627. All the pass4sure Questions and Answers of MB5-627 accumulated by our team are appeared into and updated by our MB5-627 assured cluster. we have an approach to keep associated with the candidates showed up within the MB5-627 exam to induce their reviews regarding the MB5-627 exam, we have an approach to accumulate MB5-627 exam tips and tricks, their enjoy regarding the techniques applied as an area of the important MB5-627 exam, the errors they did within the actual test and presently modify our braindumps as required. Click http://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/MB5-627 killexams.com Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as underneath; WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for all tests on website PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders over $69 DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders larger than $99 SEPSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for All Orders When you fancy our pass4sure Questions and Answers, you will sense positive regarding each one of the topic matters of test and feel that your knowledge has been notably captive forward. These pass4sure Questions and Answers are not merely practice questions, those are actual test Questions and Answers that are sufficient to pass the MB5-627 exam at the first attempt.
At killexams.com, we give explored Microsoft MB5-627 tutoring assets which can be the best to pass MB5-627 test, and to get authorized by Microsoft. It is an incredible inclination to quicken your vocation as an expert in the Information Technology endeavor. We are content with our notoriety of supporting individuals pass the MB5-627 exam of their first endeavors. Our prosperity costs in the previous years had been really astonishing, on account of our happy customers presently ready to support their profession inside the rapid path. killexams.com is the essential decision among IT experts, particularly the individuals trying to move up the progressive system goes quicker in their separate companies. Microsoft is the undertaking pioneer in records age, and getting ensured by them is an ensured approach to win with IT vocations. We enable you to do precisely that with our unnecessary wonderful Microsoft MB5-627 tutoring materials.
Microsoft MB5-627 is inescapable all around the globe, and the business undertaking and programming arrangements given by utilizing them are grasped by method for about the greater part of the associations. They have helped in driving heaps of organizations on the beyond any doubt shot course of pass. Extensive data of Microsoft items are taken into preparation a totally urgent capability, and the specialists certified by method for them are very esteemed in all associations.
We offer genuine MB5-627 pdf exam inquiries and answers braindumps in positions. Download PDF and Practice Tests. Pass Microsoft MB5-627 digital book Exam rapidly and effortlessly. The MB5-627 braindumps PDF compose is to be had for perusing and printing. You can print more noteworthy and exercise typically. Our pass rate is high to 98.9% and the likeness percent between our MB5-627 syllabus study manual and genuine exam is 90% construct absolutely Considering our seven-yr instructing knowledge. Do you need accomplishments inside the MB5-627 exam in only one attempt? I am now dissecting for the Microsoft MB5-627 genuine exam.
As the only thing in any way important here is passing the MB5-627 - C5 4.0 System Consultant exam. As all which you require is a high score of Microsoft MB5-627 exam. The best one angle you have to do is downloading braindumps of MB5-627 exam courses now. We will never again will give you a chance to down with our cash back guarantee. The specialists moreover protect beat with the greatest forward exam so you can give the vast majority of updated materials. Three months free get passage to as an approach to them through the date of purchase. Each hopeful may likewise manage the cost of the MB5-627 exam dumps through killexams.com at a low cost. Regularly there might be a decrease for all individuals all.
Within the sight of the true exam substance of the brain dumps at killexams.com you may effortlessly grow your specialty. For the IT experts, it's far critical to adjust their abilities reliable with their calling necessity. We make it smooth for our clients to take accreditation exam with the assistance of killexams.com demonstrated and honest to goodness exam material. For a splendid future in its realm, our mind dumps are the great decision.
killexams.com Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under;
WC2017: 60% Discount Coupon for all exams on website
PROF17: 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
DEAL17: 15% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $99
DECSPECIAL: 10% Special Discount Coupon for All Orders
A best dumps composing is an absolutely imperative component that makes it simple a decent method to take Microsoft certifications. Be that as it may, MB5-627 braindumps PDF gives accommodation for hopefuls. The IT certification is a significant troublesome task on the off chance that one does now not find right direction inside the type of certifiable helpful asset material. Along these lines, we've genuine and state-of-the-art content material for the instruction of accreditation exam.
Killexams 9L0-837 test prep | Killexams VCP510-DT braindumps | Killexams 210-255 brain dumps | Killexams E20-065 exam questions | Killexams 190-849 real questions | Killexams C2150-606 cheat sheets | Killexams HP0-M12 free pdf | Killexams 300-209 exam prep | Killexams 1Y0-327 practice exam | Killexams S10-210 study guide | Killexams 650-293 braindumps | Killexams HP2-K25 sample test | Killexams 70-528-VB dumps questions | Killexams NBDE-II exam prep | Killexams LOT-408 practice questions | Killexams ISTQB-Advanced-Level-3 test prep | Killexams HP2-N47 questions and answers | Killexams 70-487 test prep | Killexams ST0-136 examcollection | Killexams 600-455 mock exam |
Killexams 000-004 brain dumps | Killexams 1Y0-308 practice test | Killexams HP0-052 braindumps | Killexams 650-155 free pdf | Killexams 1Z0-510 mock exam | Killexams 648-238 test prep | Killexams E20-526 practice test | Killexams S90-01 real questions | Killexams 00M-228 questions and answers | Killexams FM0-301 study guide | Killexams EE0-021 cheat sheets | Killexams C9560-505 questions and answers | Killexams HP0-919 real questions | Killexams 090-160 braindumps | Killexams HP2-E46 real questions | Killexams 3101-1 free pdf | Killexams C2040-414 Practice test | Killexams 920-806 dumps questions | Killexams 920-456 braindumps | Killexams CAT-060 exam questions |
It's been over a year since my first and enthusiastic automatic storage management (ASM) article, titled "Optimizing Oracle 10g on Linux Using Automated Storage Management", was published. It still is available here, here and here. Since then, quite a lot has changed in terms of the software technologies now available:
Red Hat released Advanced Server 4.0 built on the 2.6 kernel
Along with AS 4.0, Red Hat released a greatly improved LVM with a GUI
Red Hat released the Global File System, which now is a part of Fedora
Oracle released version 10.2.0.1 of the database (10g release 2)
Oracle released version 2.0 of the ASM kernel driver and libraries
Oracle released version 2.0 of the Oracle Cluster File System
As you can see, the software technology landscape has changed so extensively that it has reopened the entire ASM debate. In my first ASM paper, I simply assumed people either would be utilizing ASM or not--without considering RAC usage ramifications. During this past year at shows, conferences and on-site visits, a number have told me that although ASM makes obvious sense for RAC environments, they also want to know if ASM is a viable alternative for non-RAC environments. Specifically, does ASM perform as well as Linux filesystems using a logical volume manager (LVM)?
Of course, that's a challenge far too enticing to pass up, especially when tools such as Quest's Benchmark Factory are available that make these tests trivial. So on to the races.
Looking back at the technology change listing above, what we want to benchmark is the new LVM vs. ASM 2.0 on Red Hat Advanced Server 4.0's 2.6 kernel running Oracle 10g Release 2. In other words, we want to test all of the latest and greatest software technology available for non-RAC scenarios. The goal is simply to benchmark their fundamental performance characteristics against one another and, where possible, declare a winner. For that purpose, we need to simulate two radically different kinds of real-world workloads to cover differing needs. Thus, the following industry-standard benchmark tests are being used:
The TPC-C benchmark measures on-line transaction processing (OLTP) workloads. It combines read-only and update intensive transactions, simulating the activities found in complex OLTP enterprise environments.
The TPC-D benchmark measures a broad range of decision support applications requiring complex, long-running queries against large and complex databases.
Both tests simulate 100 users against 1GB databases. Although these test parameters are not too large, they nonetheless are the maximum realistic values that our limited test hardware can accommodate. But it's expected that results from such tests should be sufficient for extrapolating to larger environments.
Setting up an industry-standard database benchmark, such as the TPC-C and TPC-D, using Quest's Benchmark Factory is a snap and can be done in five easy steps. First, after opening the application, press the New toolbar icon to launch the New Project wizard. From there, specify that you want to create a Standard Benchmark Workload, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Creating a Standard Benchmark Workload
Second, choose which industry standard benchmark you want to perform from the list of available tests, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Choosing the Benchmark
Third, choose the approximate database size to create for performing the benchmark, as shown in Figure 3. Remember, Benchmark Factory has to create and populate it.
Figure 3. Choosing the Database Size
Fourth, select the number of concurrent users you want to simulate for performing the benchmark, as shown in Figure 4. As a side note, you can run this from one or more Windows computers.
Figure 4. Selecting Concurrent Users
Fifth, run the test and record the results. The total time it generally takes to configure a standard benchmark is roughly 30 seconds.
In order for the benchmark test results to provide a fair, apples to apples comparison, both the LVM and ASM disk layouts must be similar enough to draw meaningful and reliable conclusions. That means neither setup should get preferential treatment in the allocation of devices. To that end, Figure 5 shows how the two environments were allocated across four identical IDE disks; you can tell they are IDE disks by the /hdb1 through /hde2 naming convention. These were 7,200 RPM SATA IDE disks with 2MB of cache each. Notice also how two inner and two outer disk partitions were allocated to each solution. The idea was to eliminate any unintentional speed advantages due to quicker access times for inner disk tracks. Finally, no operating system, swap or database binary files are on these disks; they were used solely for database data.
Figure 5. Allocating Devices
Although SCSI is obviously the preferable choice, the popularity of SATA IDE for low-cost RAID arrays is rising. The results obtained should apply equally well to faster and more reliable disk technologies such as SCSI, as well as highly popular RAID array appliances, such as NAS and SAN. The chief goal here was to implement Oracle's SAME (stripe and mirror everything) approach. Even though there are only four disks, we nonetheless should be able to compare these two methods' fundamental striping capabilities. And, minus all the other bells-and-whistles distractions, that's essentially the heart of the question people have been asking: do the ASM striping algorithms match up well against those of the more mature LVM?
The Early Results
Remember as we look at these results that we're not worrying about which environment is easier to set up and maintain, because as the prior paper clearly pointed out, ASM has numerous advantages in those areas. Our goal here is simply to see how they perform in head-to-head speed tests. So the results here focus on only that aspect--speed.
Let's look first at the TPC-C results. Remember, we simulated 100 concurrent users accessing a 1GB database. The results are shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. The TPC-C Results
Basically, the TPC-C results were too close to award a winner. I suspect that a key reason for the lack of any major difference is the Oracle data, index, temporary and rollback segments did not have to grow and shrink by any measurable amount in this type of load test scenario. This is because OLTP transactions tend to be short and bursty in nature. Thus, we are measuring primarily read-only access across four disk stripes. Therefore, we have to call the TPC-C benchmark test results a draw, with neither ASM nor LVM showing any real performance advantage.
Note: Although this tie was unexpected, it clearly shows why you need to consider more than one type of benchmark test when comparing such radically different technologies. Benchmark Factory offers additional database benchmarking tests, including TPC-B, TPC-D, AS3AP and Scalable Hardware Benchmark. Make sure that you choose the tests that best reflect the database environment you will be building and maintaining.
Now let's look at the TPC-D. Again, we simulated 100 concurrent users accessing a 1GB database. The results are shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. The TPC-D Results
Here we have a clear-cut winner. The LVM ran 30% faster, achieved a 25% higher transaction per second rate, scored 56% faster on kilobytes per second and had a 108% better average response time. I suspect that the real differentiator here was the temporary segment allocation necessary for the large GROUP BY and ORDER BY operations.
Going the Extra Mile
I was not entirely happy, however, with simply running the industry-standard benchmarks and speculating as to why the results ended up as they did. I wanted a little more clarity regarding objects' segment creation and allocation--and the corresponding tablespace growth issues. My belief was the LVM somehow handles space allocation due to object growth more efficiently than ASM does. Of course, this seems totally contrary to what one would expect, as ASM touts the advantages of RAW without the headaches. So how could the ext3 filesystem on top of the LVM be faster? To this end, I devised a simple, brute force benchmark to test this premise. I created a simple table with two indexes whose data format would yield predictable growth with increasing row counts. Thus, I could test the object space creation and allocation for both tables and indexes with one simple script. The script is provided below.set verify off drop table junk; create table junk ( c1 number not null, c2 number not null, c3 number not null, c4 number not null, c5 date not null, c6 char(100) not null, c7 varchar2(1000) not null, constraint junk_pk primary key (c1, c2), constraint junk_uk unique (c3, c4) ); variable t1 varchar2(12) variable t2 varchar2(12) variable t3 number begin :t1 := to_char(sysdate,'DDD:HH24:MI:SS'); end; / begin for i in 1 .. &1 loop insert into junk values (i,i,i,i,sysdate, 'This is a test of the emergency broadcast system', 'In the case of an actual emergency, you would be told where to tune'); if (mod(i,100) = 0) then commit; end if; end loop; end; / begin :t2 := to_char(sysdate,'DDD:HH24:MI:SS'); :t3 := to_number(to_date(:t2,'DDD:HH24:MI:SS')- to_date(:t1,'DDD:HH24:MI:SS'))*60*60*24; end; / print t1 print t2 print t3 col segment_name format a20 col tablespace_name format a20 col megs format 999,999,999 select segment_name, tablespace_name, ceil(bytes/(1024*1024)) MEGS from user_segments where segment_name like 'JUNK%'; exit
The results of calling this script for row counts from 10,000 to 100,000,000 for both LVM and ASM are shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Script-Generated Results
The results from this additional experiment were quite simple and conclusive. Although both approaches used exactly the same amount of space, the LVM run times consistently beat the ASM run times by anywhere from 10 to 14%. As you can see by the graph's lines, the trend seems clear: LVM is slightly more efficient at bulk data loads than is ASM.
The Final Results
So, what does all of this mean? For people doing RAC, ASM is a viable and credible approach for disk space management, with numerous administrative and maintenance benefits to its credit. But for those simply doing non-RAC database deployments, ASM is not yet as scalable as the Linux ext3 filesystem using an LVM. And while all these benchmarks were done using the standard LVM included with Red Hat and other popular Linux distributions, it's quite possible that an enterprise targeted LVM, such as those available from either IBM or Veritas, would best even these results. Therefore, for people not doing RAC who care more about performance than administrative ease, for now you should stick with the Linux filesystems and an LVM.
DeVivo and colleagues13, 16, 21, 22 have shown that while there have been continuing trends over the last 20 years towards improved survival rates in the first year after SCI, unlike the general population similar progress for further reductions in long-term annual mortality rates is not apparent. In fact, after years of progressive improvements, recent data have disturbingly suggested a pattern of slowing or possibly even reversal in the previous trend of diminishing mortality rates and improving life expectancies. On closer examination of the model systems data, however, DeVivo observed that this reversal appeared mostly related to an increased mortality in the second post-injury year and to a lesser extent also in years 3–5 post-injury, whereas mortality rates for 10–20 years post-injury continued to fall slightly. Results of the current study are consistent in general with the findings of these recent studies from the Model Systems in USA demonstrating improved acute survival following SCI, particularly in those more severely injured, presumably reflecting improved pre-hospital retrieval and trauma systems, intensive medical care and rehabilitation management. While a similar pattern of increased mortality persisting into the second post-injury year was observed in the current study, unlike DeVivo et al. we did not observe any trends towards reduction after this period.
SMRs for the current study were also compared with the findings of previous studies by Frankel and his colleagues.11, 17 Using information presented in Frankel et al.,11 we can undertake a detailed exploration of the differences in SMRs by level of lesion and age, including consideration of the confidence intervals of the SMRs. Through personal email correspondence with Professor Michael DeVivo, we also received SMRs based on the previous study by DeVivo and Stover21 recalculated for the level of lesion and injury age groupings presented in Frankel et al.11 These data are presented in Table 8 below.Table 8: SMRs by level and age band—comparison to Frankel et al.11
The second column to the right summarises whether the SMRs calculated using the data in the current paper fall within the confidence limits provided in Frankel et al.11 The experience of the two injury cohorts do not appear to be significantly different for most of the higher impairment grades (and those differences that do exist in the oldest and youngest age bands may be driven by different age distributions within these bands), but the SMRs for the AIS D group are significantly lower in the Australian cohort. Interestingly, these SMRs for the AIS D group are closer to those presented in the data supplied by DeVivo. Some of the differences in SMRs may be attributable to differences in the assumptions and data of the three papers, especially since any differences in the assumed population mortality rates and the ages within each broad age band (for instance, whether the average age of those in the band over 60 years are similar between the papers) cannot be determined from information contained within the Frankel et al. and DeVivo et al. papers or correspondence. These findings, however, do confirm that neurological level and degree of impairment, as well as age, are important prognostic factors to be taken into account when estimating life expectancy. The most significant increases in mortality rates were seen in the group with C1–4 tetraplegia and AIS A–C lesions, with SMRs ranging between 5.4 and 9.0 for the group of people 50 years or younger, and SMRs reducing with advancing current attained age.
Coll et al.17 and more recently Strauss et al.22 have highlighted the importance of distinguishing not only between high and low levels of tetraplegia, but also between complete (AIS grade A) and incomplete (AIS grades B and C) lesions when estimating life expectancy. Results of the current study also support this contention, with relative SMRs ranging between 96 and 144% in comparison to Coll et al.17 for the same impairment groups (shown in Table 9 below). This analysis particularly highlights the substantially worse experience of those with AIS grade A lesions in both the C1–4 and C5–8 groups, compared with the incomplete lesions, and further that the C1–4 group have significantly worse experience than the C5–8 group. In addition, Strauss et al.22 showed that C1–4 incomplete (AIS grades B and C) lesions may also carry a higher mortality risk.Table 9: Standardised mortality risk ratios relative to reference group—comparison to Coll et al.17
The differences seen in Table 9, suggesting that persons with lower-level tetraplegia and higher-level paraplegia in the Australian cohort have relatively greater risk of death compared with the base reference group than is the case in the United Kingdom, may be explained by dissimilar base reference group SMR experiences in each country (refer to Table 8), as well as different age distributions within groups. Compared with the broad age bands in the Coll et al. paper,17 using information from the Frankel et al.11 paper (which used the same data), persons with higher-level tetraplegia appear younger, the AIS D group are older in general in the current paper and persons with lower-level tetraplegia and persons with higher-level paraplegia are similar in age between the papers.
These various statistics provide a framework within which life expectancy can be considered for each individual. However, care must be taken when applying projections for life expectancy to an individual from grouped data. In applying these estimates of life expectancy, one must be careful not to discount expected improvements in survival of patients who have sustained SCI. In an Australian High Court judgment: Golden Eagle International Trading Pty Ltd v Zhang (2007) HCA 15 (http://www.hcourt.gov.au/media/GoldenEagle_v_Zhang.pdf), the principle of future mortality improvements was accepted and for the purpose of compensation payments, it was determined that life expectancy calculations should use prospective life expectancy tables, not historical tables, both from the ABS. The actual prospective life tables used in this judgment were based on the medium mortality improvement, based on a similar principle to those published later by the ABS in ‘Population Projections Australia 2004–2101’ Cat. No. 3222.0. The application of these prospective life tables would yield, for example, a life expectancy for a person aged 25 with a C1–4ABC level lesion of 45.9 years (compared with 39.8 with no expected mortality improvement), with similar proportionate increases in life expectancy for other groups.
DeVivo and Ivie23 have shown that being ventilator-dependent carries a high risk of acute mortality, as well as a major reduction in life expectancy. Data from the Model Systems in United States demonstrate that around 4–5% of their SCI population still require mechanical ventilation on discharge.16 While few in the current study cohort required permanent ventilator support after discharge, it is likely that some of those persons with high-level tetraplegia, who were only weaned successfully from the ventilator after several months in hospital due to borderline respiratory function, remain at higher risk of premature death due to late respiratory failure.
In our analysis of causes of death after 1995, there was a higher than normal incidence of premature deaths in similar causes to those found in our previous study of deaths before 1995—pneumonia (SMR 17.11) and the urinary system (SMR 6.84). Septicaemia (contained within ‘Other bacterial diseases’ in Table 9 above), a leading cause of death in the previous study, was less so in the current study (SMR 14.53) due to the different mechanism of attributing underlying cause of death. SMRs for suicide and unintentional injuries were also elevated. Again, SMRs were not significantly elevated for causes of death associated with cancer (1.13) and ischaemic heart disease (1.77). This analysis highlights the necessity for regular systems review, with close vigilance to respiratory and urinary health maintenance and psychosocial issues.
Data quality is of utmost importance in a project such as this, thus consideration needs to be made of the fact that in determining actual deaths since the previous study, reliance was placed on data collected in the hospital databases. While the completeness of this methodology were able to be reinforced by matching to the NDI, the standardized mortality rates presented in this paper can be considered to be subject to some further uncertainty due to the method of collection of death records.
Krause et al.24 showed using logistic regression that, after adjusting for demographic characteristics and injury severity, measures of health status, community integration and economic status had small but statistically significant effects on likelihood of death during the next year. These authors along with ourselves12 and others have flagged the need for greater research attention to now be given to contextual factors, either personal or environmental, that may interact with age and impairment to further reduce life expectancy after SCI. In this regard, better understanding is required of the impact of pre-morbid education, health and risk-taking behaviours, pre-existing conditions or co-morbidities, including traumatic brain injury, depression and drug and alcohol use, lifestyle factors including smoking and exercise, as well as psychosocial variables, such as living circumstances, access to care and social support, finances and employment. This information would enable clearer interpretation of cross-sectional group mortality trends and adjustment to an individual taking into account risk-factor profiles, which may be valuable for medico-legal purposes, lifetime care planning, future service development and prevention initiatives. Regular health monitoring and periodic functional review by a multidisciplinary team are recommended as important services for achieving maximum longevity and quality of life after SCI.
Apr 22, 2019 10:45 UTCSYRACUSE, N.Y.--(Business Wire)--Community Bank System, Inc. (NYSE:CBU) reported first quarter 2019 net income of $41.9 million, or $0.80 per fully diluted share. This compares to $40.1 million of net income, or $0.78 per share reported for the first quarter of 2018. The $0.02 increase in earnings per share was attributable to an increase in net interest income and decreases in the provision for loan losses and income taxes, offset in part by a decrease in bank noninterest revenues, higher operating expenses and an increase in fully-diluted shares outstanding. Comparatively, the Company recorded $0.78 in fully diluted earnings per share for the linked fourth quarter of 2018. Operating earnings per share, which excludes acquisition expenses and unrealized gain on equity securities, were $0.81 for the first quarter of 2019, a $0.03 improvement over the first quarter 2018 operating earnings per share.
First Quarter 2019 Performance Highlights:
“Our improved first quarter 2019 operating results were driven by a combination of net interest income growth, increased financial services revenue and a continuation of excellent credit quality metrics, “said Mark E. Tryniski, President and Chief Executive Officer. “The strong performance of our core banking business worked to offset a $0.05 reduction in earnings per share related to the Durbin debit interchange price restrictions which became effective for the Company in the third quarter of 2018. Net interest income was up $2.2 million over the first quarter of 2018 and the net interest margin increased nine basis points to 3.80%, reflecting an increase in total loans and the favorable effect of certain loan pre-payment fees, which added four basis points to the net interest margin. Total deposits increased $297.3 million, or 3.6%, in the quarter primarily from significant increases to transaction and savings accounts. In January, we announced a definitive agreement to acquire Kinderhook Bank Corp., parent company of National Union Bank of Kinderhook. This transaction will extend our banking footprint into the attractive Capital District markets which are similar to the other Upstate New York markets in which we are a strong competitor. This investment also complements the financial commitment we made in 2018 when we added an experienced commercial banking team focused on the greater Albany area. We’re pleased with a first quarter performance that’s reflective of consistent and effective execution of our ongoing business strategy.”
Total revenues for the first quarter of 2019 were $142.6 million, an increase of $0.4 million, or 0.3%, over the prior year quarter. Net interest income increased $2.2 million, or 2.6%, to $86.9 million due to an improvement in the net interest margin, while noninterest revenues decreased $1.8 million, or 3.1%, between comparable quarters. A $3.0 million decrease in banking noninterest revenues, due primarily to the impact of Durbin-related debit interchange price restrictions, and a $0.3 million decrease in wealth management services revenues was offset, in part, by a $1.0 million, or 4.6% increase in employee benefit services revenues and a $0.5 million, or 6.8%, increase in the insurance services revenues. Noninterest revenues of $55.7 million comprised 39.1% of the Company’s total revenues during the first quarter of 2019, similar to 2018 full year results.
Interest income and fees on loans increased $4.3 million versus the comparable prior year quarter due to both an increase in average total loans outstanding and an increase in the yield on all categories of loans, reflective of higher market rates. The results for the quarter were favorably impacted by $1.0 million in one-time loan fees. Comparatively, the first quarter of 2018 was favorably impacted by $0.7 million in impaired loan accretion. A $0.4 million increase in interest income on cash equivalents between comparable annual quarters was partially offset by a $0.3 million decrease in interest income on the investment securities portfolio due primarily to a $65.4 million decrease in average outstanding balances on the Company’s non-taxable municipal investment securities portfolio. The average yield on cash equivalents increased from 1.54% in the first quarter of 2018 to 2.33% in the first quarter of 2019, reflective of increases in short-term market interest rates, and the average balance of cash equivalents increased $30.9 million. Interest expense was $2.0 million higher than the previous year’s first quarter, driven by an increase in the average cost of deposit liabilities. The average cost of deposits was 0.20% in the first quarter of 2019, as compared to 0.10% in the first quarter of 2018, reflective of market driven rate increases for deposits between the periods. By comparison, the average cost of deposits during the linked fourth quarter of 2018 was 0.16%.
The quarterly provision for loan losses of $2.4 million was $1.3 million lower than the first quarter of 2018 reflective of moderate improvements in the Company’s credit quality metrics. Non-performing loans decreased to 0.39% of total loans outstanding, as compared to 0.48% of total loans outstanding at the end of the first quarter of 2018 and 0.40% at the end of the linked fourth quarter. Similarly, delinquent loans to total loans outstanding decreased to 0.88% at the end of the first quarter of 2019. This compares to 1.01% at the end of the first quarter of 2018 and 1.00% at the end of the linked fourth quarter. Net-charge offs decreased $0.6 million from the first quarter of 2018, due largely to a decrease in net charge-offs in the business lending and consumer indirect loan portfolios.
Employee benefit services revenues for the first quarter of 2019 were $24.1 million. This represents a $1.0 million, or 4.6%, increase over first quarter 2018 revenues. The improvement in revenues was driven by growth in the Company’s collective investment fund administration and trust business, as well as growth in actuarial services revenues. The Company recorded $7.9 million in insurance services revenues during the first quarter of 2019, a $0.5 million, or 6.8%, increase over first quarter 2018 results, reflective of solid new business generation. Wealth management revenues for the first quarter of 2019 were $6.3 million. This compares to wealth management revenues of $6.7 million in the first quarter of 2018. Banking noninterest revenues decreased $3.0 million due to a net $3.1 million decrease in debit interchange fees and a $0.3 million decrease in other banking fees, including mortgage banking and deposit service fees, offset in part by a $0.4 million gain on life insurance.
Total operating expenses for the first quarter of 2019 were $88.7 million, representing a $2.3 million, or 2.7%, increase from the first quarter of 2018 due to an increase in salaries and employee benefits, data processing and communications, business development and marketing expenses, and acquisition expenses. These increases were offset by decreases in occupancy and equipment expense, amortization of intangible assets, legal and professional fees, office supplies and postage, FDIC insurance premiums and other expenses. Exclusive of $0.5 million of acquisition expenses, total operating expenses increased $1.8 million, or 2.1%, between the comparable quarterly periods.
The effective tax rate for the first quarter of 2019 was 18.5%, down from 23.0% in the first quarter of 2018. The Company had significantly higher levels of deductions related to stock based compensation activity in the first quarter of 2019, as compared to the first quarter of 2018. Exclusive of stock-based compensation tax benefits, the Company’s effective tax rate was 21.8% in the first quarter of 2019.
The Company also provides supplemental reporting of its results on an “operating,” “adjusted” or “tangible” basis, from which it excludes the after-tax effect of amortization of core deposit and other intangible assets (and the related goodwill, core deposit intangible and other intangible asset balances, net of applicable deferred tax amounts), accretion on non-impaired purchased loans, expenses associated with acquisitions, the unrealized gain (loss) on equity securities and loss on debt extinguishment. The amounts for such items are presented in the tables that accompany this release. Although these items are non-GAAP measures, the Company’s management believes this information helps investors understand the effect of acquisition and other non-recurring activity in its reported results. Diluted adjusted net earnings per share were $0.85 in the first quarter of 2019, compared to $0.82 in the first quarter of 2018, a 3.7% increase.
Average earning assets were up $67.0 million, or 0.7%, on a linked quarter basis, from $9.31 billion during the fourth quarter of 2018 to $9.37 billion during the first quarter of 2019. Average loan balances during the first quarter of 2019 were $6.27 billion, down $2.4 million from the fourth quarter of 2018. Average deposit balances were up $48.8 million, or 0.6%, from fourth quarter 2018 levels, due largely to an increase in public fund deposits as seasonally anticipated. Ending deposits were also up $297.3 million, or 3.6%, with growth in all categories of deposits, interest-bearing and noninterest-bearing checking, savings, money market and time deposits. Average borrowings, including customer repurchase agreements, in the first quarter of 2019 of $373.7 million, were down $15.7 million, or 4.0%, from the fourth quarter 2018 average of $389.4 million.
Ending loans at March 31, 2019 were $6.27 billion. This was down $15.0 million, or 0.2%, from the end of the fourth quarter of 2018, but up $39.1 million, or 0.6%, when compared to March 31, 2018. During the first quarter of 2019 and consistent with seasonal expectations, outstanding balances in the consumer indirect, consumer direct and home equity portfolios decreased $30.5 million. This was partially offset, by a $13.5 million increase in the business lending portfolio and a $2.0 million increase in consumer mortgage balances.
Investment securities totaled $2.97 billion at March 31, 2019, down $15.5 million, or 0.5%, from the end of the fourth quarter of 2018 and down $66.5 million, or 2.2% from March 31, 2018. The net unrealized gain in this portfolio was $7.9 million at March 31, 2019, as compared to a $16.0 million unrealized loss at December 31, 2018, a $23.9 million increase due to changes in market interest rates. These compare to a net unrealized loss of $17.9 million at March 31, 2018. The effective duration of the portfolio was 3.0 years at the end of the first quarter of 2019.
Shareholders’ equity of $1.76 billion at March 31, 2019 was $43.3 million, or 2.5%, higher than the fourth quarter of 2018 and $125.7 million, or 7.7%, higher than March 31, 2018. The Company’s net tangible equity to net tangible assets ratio was 9.83% at March 31, 2019, up from 8.42% a year earlier and 9.68% at the end of the fourth quarter of 2018. The Company’s Tier 1 leverage ratio was 11.27% at the end of the first quarter of 2019, up from 10.19% a year earlier. These results are primarily a result of strong earnings generation and capital retention over the last four quarters.
As previously announced in December 2018, the Company’s Board of Directors approved a stock repurchase program authorizing the repurchase of up to 2.5 million shares of the Company’s common stock during a twelve-month period starting January 1, 2019. Such repurchases may be made at the discretion of the Company’s senior management based on market conditions and other relevant factors and will be acquired through open market or privately negotiated transactions as permitted under Rule 10b-18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and other applicable legal requirements. There were no shares repurchased pursuant to the program in 2019.
The Company’s asset quality metrics continue to illustrate the long-term effectiveness of the Company’s disciplined risk management and underwriting standards. Total net charge-offs were $2.6 million for the first quarter of 2019. This compares to $3.2 million in the first quarter of 2018. The decrease in net charge-offs between the periods was due primarily to decreases in net charge-offs in business lending and the consumer indirect portfolios. Net charge-offs as an annualized percentage of average loans measured 0.17% in the first quarter of 2019, as compared to 0.21% in the first quarter of 2018. Nonperforming loans as a percentage of total loans at the end of the first quarter of 2019 were 0.39%. This compares to 0.40% at the end of the linked fourth quarter of 2018 and 0.48% at March 31, 2018, decreases of one basis point and nine basis points, respectively. The total loan delinquency ratio of 0.88% at the end of the first quarter of 2019 was 12 basis points lower than the end of the fourth quarter of 2018 and 13 basis points lower than the level one year earlier. The first quarter 2019 provision for loan losses of $2.4 million was $1.3 million lower than the first quarter of 2018 and $0.1 million lower than the fourth quarter of 2018. The allowance for loan losses to nonperforming loans was 202% at March 31, 2019, compared with 197% at the end of the fourth quarter of 2018 and 162% a year earlier. The Company’s allowance for loan losses was $49.1 million, or 0.78%, of total loans outstanding at March 31, 2019, as compared to $48.1 million, or 0.77% of total loans outstanding at the end of the first quarter of 2018.
During the first quarter of 2019, the Company declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.38 per share on its common stock, up 11.8% from the $0.34 dividend declared in the first quarter of 2018, representing an annualized yield of 2.4% based upon the $62.38 closing price of the Company’s stock on April 18, 2019. The four cent increase declared in the third quarter of 2018 marked the 26th consecutive year of dividend increases for the Company. “The improvement of our earnings and cash flow results continue to provide further strength to capital accumulation and dividend capacity,” said Mr. Tryniski.
Kinderhook Bank Corp.
On January 22, 2019, the Company announced that it entered into a definitive agreement with Kinderhook Bank Corp., parent company of National Union Bank of Kinderhook, pursuant to which the Company will acquire Kinderhook Bank Corp. in an all cash transaction representing total consideration valued at approximately $93.4 million (the “Merger”). The Merger will extend the Company’s footprint into the Capital District of Upstate New York. Upon completion, Community Bank, N.A., the Company’s banking subsidiary, will add 11 branch locations across a five county area with approximately $630 million in assets, and deposits of $550 million. The Company has received the regulatory approvals necessary to complete the Merger, including approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and a waiver from filing an application with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. At the present time, the Company expects the Merger to close early in the third quarter of 2019, subject to customary closing conditions, including approval by the shareholders of Kinderhook Bank Corp.
Conference Call Scheduled
Company management will conduct an investor call at 11:00 a.m. (ET) today, April 22, 2019, to discuss first quarter 2019 results. The conference call can be accessed at 866-337-5532 (786-460-7176 if outside United States and Canada) using the conference ID code 8798966. Investors may also listen live via the Internet at: https://www.webcaster4.com/Webcast/Page/995/29905.
This earnings release, including supporting financial tables, is available within the press releases section of the Company's investor relations website at: http://ir.communitybanksystem.com. An archived webcast of the earnings call will be available on this site for one full year.
Community Bank System, Inc. operates more than 230 customer facilities across Upstate New York, Northeastern Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Western Massachusetts through its banking subsidiary, Community Bank, N.A. With assets of over $10.9 billion, the DeWitt, N.Y. headquartered company is among the country’s 150 largest financial institutions. In addition to a full range of retail, business, and municipal banking services, the Company offers comprehensive financial planning, insurance and wealth management services through its’ Community Bank Wealth Management Group and OneGroup NY, Inc. operating units. The Company's Benefit Plans Administrative Services, Inc. subsidiary is a leading provider of employee benefits administration, trust services, collective investment fund administration and actuarial consulting services to customers on a national scale. Community Bank System, Inc. is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and the Company's stock trades under the symbol CBU. For more information about Community Bank visit www.communitybankna.com or http://ir.communitybanksystem.com.
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The following factors, among others, could cause the actual results of CBU’s operations to differ materially from CBU’s expectations: the successful integration of operations of its acquisitions; competition; changes in economic conditions, interest rates and financial markets; changes in legislation or regulatory requirements; and the timing for receiving regulatory approvals and completing pending transactions. These statements are based on the current beliefs and expectations of CBU’s management and CBU does not assume any duty to update forward-looking statements.
Summary of Financial Data(Dollars in thousands, except per share data) 2019
20181st Qtr 4th Qtr 3rd Qtr 2nd Qtr 1st Qtr Earnings Loan income $73,703 $73,316 $72,256 $71,152 $69,441 Investment income 18,978 19,105 18,647 19,853 18,963 Total interest income 92,681 92,421 90,903 91,005 88,404 Interest expense 5,822 5,034 4,705 4,159 3,780 Net interest income 86,859 87,387 86,198 86,846 84,624 Provision for loan losses 2,422 2,495 2,215 2,448 3,679 Net interest income after provision for loan losses 84,437 84,892 83,983 84,398 80,945 Deposit service fees 15,864 16,116 16,127 18,964 19,177 Revenues from mortgage banking and other banking services 1,536 1,026 1,536 1,163 1,243 Wealth management and insurance services 14,211 13,675 14,438 13,911 14,065 Employee benefit services 24,054 23,466 23,265 22,542 23,006 Unrealized gain(loss) on equity securities 31 (65) 743 (21) 0 Loss on debt extinguishment 0 0 (318) 0 0 Total noninterest revenues 55,696 54,218 55,791 56,559 57,491 Salaries and employee benefits 53,379 52,040 51,062 52,402 51,859 Occupancy and equipment 10,288 10,210 9,770 9,437 10,531 Amortization of intangible assets 4,130 4,375 4,427 4,555 4,798 Acquisition expenses 534 0 (832) 71 (8) Other 20,321 20,988 20,806 19,647 19,151 Total operating expenses 88,652 87,613 85,233 86,112 86,331 Income before income taxes 51,481 51,497 54,541 54,845 52,105 Income taxes 9,535 10,674 11,435 10,239 11,999 Net income $41,946 $40,823 $43,106 $44,606 $40,106 Basic earnings per share $0.81 $0.79 $0.84 $0.87 $0.78 Diluted earnings per share $0.80 $0.78 $0.83 $0.86 $0.78 Profitability Return on assets 1.59% 1.53% 1.61% 1.66% 1.52% Return on equity 9.85% 9.63% 10.28% 10.91% 10.00% Return on tangible equity(2) 17.61% 17.61% 19.06% 20.58% 19.11% Noninterest revenues/operating revenues (FTE) (1) 39.1% 38.5% 39.4% 39.7% 40.7% Efficiency ratio 59.1% 59.1% 58.0% 57.2% 57.8% Components of Net Interest Margin (FTE) Loan yield 4.78% 4.65% 4.57% 4.58% 4.53% Cash equivalents yield 2.33% 1.85% 1.60% 1.73% 1.54% Investment yield 2.59% 2.62% 2.55% 2.65% 2.60% Earning asset yield 4.05% 3.99% 3.91% 3.91% 3.87% Interest-bearing deposit rate 0.27% 0.22% 0.18% 0.15% 0.14% Borrowing rate 1.86% 1.68% 1.96% 1.80% 1.48% Cost of all interest-bearing funds 0.36% 0.31% 0.29% 0.25% 0.23% Cost of funds (includes DDA) 0.27% 0.23% 0.21% 0.19% 0.17% Net interest margin (FTE) 3.80% 3.77% 3.71% 3.73% 3.71% Fully tax-equivalent adjustment $1,008 $1,062 $1,071 $1,094 $1,118 Summary of Financial Data (Dollars in thousands, except per share data) 2019 2018 1st Qtr 4th Qtr 3rd Qtr 2nd Qtr 1st Qtr Average Balances Loans $6,273,798 $6,276,231 $6,289,868 $6,250,739 $6,237,824 Cash equivalents 121,304 28,817 26,832 170,745 90,406 Taxable investment securities 2,574,902 2,577,366 2,574,116 2,575,962 2,583,446 Nontaxable investment securities 403,359 423,902 441,719 457,254 468,773 Total interest-earning assets 9,373,363 9,306,316 9,332,535 9,454,700 9,380,449 Total assets 10,687,708 10,575,272 10,619,872 10,752,203 10,715,529 Interest-bearing deposits 6,107,732 6,039,390 6,077,581 6,282,098 6,219,052 Borrowings 373,656 389,378 393,483 397,101 453,114 Total interest-bearing liabilities 6,481,388 6,428,768 6,471,064 6,679,199 6,672,166 Noninterest-bearing deposits 2,297,472 2,317,042 2,336,778 2,287,722 2,268,778 Shareholders' equity 1,726,313 1,682,525 1,664,234 1,640,076 1,625,951 Balance Sheet Data Cash and cash equivalents $508,364 $211,834 $256,838 $250,154 $543,899 Investment securities 2,966,147 2,981,658 2,948,057 2,983,352 3,032,642 Loans: Business lending 2,410,477 2,396,977 2,403,624 2,384,629 2,426,086 Consumer mortgage 2,237,430 2,235,408 2,220,022 2,210,051 2,211,882 Consumer indirect 1,070,840 1,083,207 1,098,943 1,063,679 1,008,198 Home equity 374,297 386,709 393,950 398,433 407,832 Consumer direct 173,042 178,820 184,349 181,217 173,032 Total loans 6,266,086 6,281,121 6,300,888 6,238,009 6,227,030 Allowance for loan losses 49,107 49,284 50,133 49,618 48,103 Intangible assets, net 804,419 807,349 811,700 816,127 820,584 Other assets 420,558 374,617 392,217 395,070 390,503 Total assets 10,916,467 10,607,295 10,659,567 10,633,094 10,966,555 Deposits: Noninterest-bearing 2,346,635 2,312,816 2,346,932 2,332,745 2,372,824 Non-maturity interest-bearing 5,517,141 5,270,015 5,366,488 5,439,101 5,642,109 Time 755,886 739,540 750,401 742,147 756,159 Total deposits 8,619,662 8,322,371 8,463,821 8,513,993 8,771,092 Borrowings 251,833 315,743 276,559 183,785 281,744 Subordinated debt held by unconsolidated subsidiary trusts 97,939 97,939 97,939 122,826 122,820 Accrued interest and other liabilities 189,905 157,459 152,903 155,531 159,433 Total liabilities 9,159,339 8,893,512 8,991,222 8,976,135 9,335,089 Shareholders' equity 1,757,128 1,713,783 1,668,345 1,656,959 1,631,466 Total liabilities and shareholders' equity 10,916,467 10,607,295 10,659,567 10,633,094 10,966,555 Capital Tier 1 leverage ratio 11.27% 11.08% 10.72% 10.53% 10.19% Tangible equity/net tangible assets (2) 9.83% 9.68% 9.13% 9.00% 8.42% Diluted weighted average common shares O/S 52,195 52,122 52,086 51,939 51,677 Period end common shares outstanding 51,471 51,258 51,137 51,086 50,884 Cash dividends declared per common share $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 $0.34 $0.34 Book value $34.14 $33.43 $32.63 $32.43 $32.06 Tangible book value(2) $19.40 $18.59 $17.67 $17.39 $16.88 Common stock price (end of period) $59.77 $58.30 $61.07 $59.07 $53.56 Summary of Financial Data (Dollars in thousands, except per share data) 2019 2018 1st Qtr 4th Qtr 3rd Qtr 2nd Qtr 1st Qtr Asset Quality Nonaccrual loans $21,252 $22,544 $21,982 $22,807 $23,239 Accruing loans 90+ days delinquent 3,019 2,455 2,951 6,532 6,425 Total nonperforming loans 24,271 24,999 24,933 29,339 29,664 Other real estate owned (OREO) 1,524 1,320 1,142 1,310 1,865 Total nonperforming assets 25,795 26,319 26,075 30,649 31,529 Net charge-offs 2,599 3,345 1,700 933 3,159 Allowance for loan losses/loans outstanding 0.78% 0.78% 0.80% 0.80% 0.77% Nonperforming loans/loans outstanding 0.39% 0.40% 0.40% 0.47% 0.48% Allowance for loan losses/nonperforming loans 202% 197% 201% 169% 162% Net charge-offs/average loans 0.17% 0.21% 0.11% 0.06% 0.21% Delinquent loans/ending loans 0.88% 1.00% 0.93% 0.89% 1.01% Loan loss provision/net charge-offs 93% 75% 130% 262% 116% Nonperforming assets/total assets 0.24% 0.25% 0.24% 0.29% 0.29% Asset Quality (excluding loans acquired since 1/1/09) Nonaccrual loans $15,524 $16,182 $14,684 $14,644 $15,161 Accruing loans 90+ days delinquent 2,594 2,106 2,688 6,243 5,894 Total nonperforming loans 18,118 18,288 17,372 20,887 21,055 Other real estate owned (OREO) 898 669 859 1,025 1,336 Total nonperforming assets 19,016 18,957 18,231 21,912 22,391 Net charge-offs 1,516 3,053 1,533 552 1,800 Allowance for loan losses/loans outstanding 0.94% 0.93% 0.96% 0.98% 0.97% Nonperforming loans/loans outstanding 0.36% 0.36% 0.35% 0.43% 0.45% Allowance for loan losses/nonperforming loans 262% 256% 274% 225% 216% Net charge-offs/average loans 0.12% 0.24% 0.12% 0.05% 0.16% Delinquent loans/ending loans 0.89% 1.06% 0.97% 0.91% 1.01% Loan loss provision/net charge-offs 142% 76% 138% 364% 122% Nonperforming assets/total assets 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.24% 0.24% Summary of Financial Data (Dollars in thousands, except per share data) 2019 2018 1st Qtr 4th Qtr 3rd Qtr 2nd Qtr 1st Qtr Quarterly GAAP to Non-GAAP Reconciliations Income statement data Net income Net income (GAAP) $41,946 $40,823 $43,106 $44,606 $40,106 Acquisition expenses 534 0 (832) 71 (8) Tax effect of acquisition expenses (99) 0 174 (13) 2 Subtotal (non-GAAP) 42,381 40,823 42,448 44,664 40,100 Unrealized (gain)loss on equity securities (31) 65 (743) 21 0 Tax effect of unrealized (gain)loss on equity securities 6 (13) 156 (4) 0 Subtotal (non-GAAP) 42,356 40,875 41,861 44,681 40,100 Loss on debt extinguishment 0 0 318 0 0 Tax effect of loss on debt extinguishment 0 0 (67) 0 0 Operating net income (non-GAAP) 42,356 40,875 42,112 44,681 40,100 Amortization of intangibles 4,130 4,375 4,427 4,555 4,798 Tax effect of amortization of intangibles (765) (907) (928) (850) (1,105) Subtotal (non-GAAP) 45,721 44,343 45,611 48,386 43,793 Acquired non-impaired loan accretion (1,330) (1,838) (1,980) (2,040) (2,063) Tax effect of acquired non-impaired loan accretion 246 381 415 381 475 Adjusted net income (non-GAAP) $44,637 $42,886 $44,046 $46,727 $42,205 Return on average assets Adjusted net income (non-GAAP) $44,637 $42,886 $44,046 $46,727 $42,205 Average total assets 10,687,708 10,575,272 10,619,872 10,752,203 10,715,529 Adjusted return on average assets 1.69% 1.61% 1.65% 1.74% 1.60% Return on average equity Adjusted net income (non-GAAP) $44,637 $42,886 $44,046 $46,727 $42,205 Average total equity 1,726,313 1,682,525 1,664,234 1,640,076 1,625,951 Adjusted return on average equity 10.49% 10.11% 10.50% 11.43% 10.53% Earnings per common share Diluted earnings per share (GAAP) $0.80 $0.78 $0.83 $0.86 $0.78 Acquisition expenses 0.01 0.00 (0.02) 0.00 0.00 Tax effect of acquisition expenses 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal (non-GAAP) 0.81 0.78 0.81 0.86 0.78 Unrealized (gain)loss on equity securities 0.00 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 0.00 Tax effect of unrealized (gain)loss on equity securities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal (non-GAAP) 0.81 0.78 0.80 0.86 0.78 Loss on debt extinguishment 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Tax effect of loss on debt extinguishment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Operating diluted earnings per share (non-GAAP) 0.81 0.78 0.81 0.86 0.78 Amortization of intangibles 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 Tax effect of amortization of intangibles (0.01) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) Subtotal (non-GAAP) 0.88 0.84 0.87 0.93 0.85 Acquired non-impaired loan accretion (0.03) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) Tax effect of acquired non-impaired loan accretion 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Diluted adjusted net earnings per share (non-GAAP) $0.85 $0.81 $0.84 $0.90 $0.82 Summary of Financial Data (Dollars in thousands, except per share data) 2019 2018 1st Qtr 4th Qtr 3rd Qtr 2nd Qtr 1st Qtr Quarterly GAAP to Non-GAAP Reconciliations Income statement data (continued) Noninterest operating expenses Noninterest expenses (GAAP) $88,652 $87,613 $85,233 $86,112 $86,331 Amortization of intangibles (4,130) (4,375) (4,427) (4,555) (4,798) Acquisition expenses (534) 0 832 (71) 8 Total adjusted noninterest expenses (non-GAAP) $83,988 $83,238 $81,638 $81,486 $81,541 Efficiency ratio Adjusted noninterest expenses (non-GAAP) - numerator $83,988 $83,238 $81,638 $81,486 $81,541 Tax-equivalent net interest income 87,867 88,449 87,269 87,940 85,742 Noninterest revenues 55,696 54,218 55,791 56,559 57,491 Acquired non-impaired loan accretion (1,330) (1,838) (1,980) (2,040) (2,063) Unrealized (gain)loss on equity securities (31) 65 (743) 21 0 Loss on debt extinguishment 0 0 318 0 0 Operating revenues (non-GAAP) - denominator 142,202 140,894 140,655 142,480 141,170 Efficiency ratio (non-GAAP) 59.1% 59.1% 58.0% 57.2% 57.8% Balance sheet data Total assets Total assets (GAAP) $10,916,467 $10,607,295 $10,659,567 $10,633,094 $10,966,555 Intangible assets (804,419) (807,349) (811,700) (816,127) (820,584) Deferred taxes on intangible assets 45,994 46,370 46,882 47,334 47,904 Total tangible assets (non-GAAP) 10,158,042 9,846,316 9,894,749 9,864,301 10,193,875 Total common equity Shareholders' Equity (GAAP) 1,757,128 1,713,783 1,668,345 1,656,959 1,631,466 Intangible assets (804,419) (807,349) (811,700) (816,127) (820,584) Deferred taxes on intangible assets 45,994 46,370 46,882 47,334 47,904 Total tangible common equity (non-GAAP) 998,703 952,804 903,527 888,166 858,786 Net tangible equity-to-assets ratio at quarter end Total tangible common equity (non-GAAP) - numerator $998,703 $952,804 $903,527 $888,166 $858,786 Total tangible assets (non-GAAP) - denominator 10,158,042 9,846,316 9,894,749 9,864,301 10,193,875 Net tangible equity-to-assets ratio at quarter end (non-GAAP) 9.83% 9.68% 9.13% 9.00% 8.42% (1)Excludes unrealized gains and losses on equity securities and loss on debt extinguishment. (2)Includes deferred tax liabilities related to certain intangible assets.
Joseph E. Sutaris, EVP & Chief Financial OfficerOffice: (315) 445-7396
3COM [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
AccessData [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACFE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Acme-Packet [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACSM [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Admission-Tests [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
ADOBE [93 Certification Exam(s) ]
AFP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
AICPA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
AIIM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Alcatel-Lucent [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Alfresco [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Altiris [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Amazon [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
American-College [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Android [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
APA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
APC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
APICS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Apple [69 Certification Exam(s) ]
AppSense [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
APTUSC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Arizona-Education [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ARM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Aruba [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
ASIS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
ASQ [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
ASTQB [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
Autodesk [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Avaya [101 Certification Exam(s) ]
AXELOS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Axis [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Banking [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
BEA [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
BICSI [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
BlackBerry [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
BlueCoat [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Brocade [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Business-Objects [11 Certification Exam(s) ]
Business-Tests [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
CA-Technologies [20 Certification Exam(s) ]
Certification-Board [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
Certiport [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
CheckPoint [43 Certification Exam(s) ]
CIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CIPS [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Cisco [318 Certification Exam(s) ]
Citrix [48 Certification Exam(s) ]
CIW [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
Cloudera [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
Cognos [19 Certification Exam(s) ]
College-Board [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
CompTIA [76 Certification Exam(s) ]
ComputerAssociates [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Consultant [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Counselor [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
CPP-Institute [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
CSP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CWNA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CWNP [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
CyberArk [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Dassault [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
DELL [11 Certification Exam(s) ]
DMI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
DRI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ECCouncil [22 Certification Exam(s) ]
ECDL [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
EMC [128 Certification Exam(s) ]
Enterasys [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Ericsson [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
ESPA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Esri [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
ExamExpress [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Exin [40 Certification Exam(s) ]
ExtremeNetworks [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
F5-Networks [20 Certification Exam(s) ]
FCTC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Filemaker [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
Financial [36 Certification Exam(s) ]
Food [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Fortinet [14 Certification Exam(s) ]
Foundry [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
FSMTB [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Fujitsu [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
GAQM [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
Genesys [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
GIAC [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Google [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
GuidanceSoftware [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
H3C [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
HDI [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
Healthcare [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
HIPAA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hitachi [30 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hortonworks [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hospitality [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
HP [752 Certification Exam(s) ]
HR [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
HRCI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Huawei [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hyperion [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
IAAP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IAHCSMM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IBM [1533 Certification Exam(s) ]
IBQH [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ICAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ICDL [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
IEEE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IELTS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IFPUG [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
IIBA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
IISFA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Intel [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
IQN [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IRS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISACA [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISC2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISEB [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
Isilon [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISM [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
iSQI [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
ITEC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Juniper [65 Certification Exam(s) ]
LEED [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Legato [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
Liferay [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Logical-Operations [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Lotus [66 Certification Exam(s) ]
LPI [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
LSI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Magento [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Maintenance [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
McAfee [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
McData [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Medical [68 Certification Exam(s) ]
Microsoft [375 Certification Exam(s) ]
Mile2 [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Military [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Misc [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Motorola [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
mySQL [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
NBSTSA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
NCEES [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
NCIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
NCLEX [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Network-General [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
NetworkAppliance [39 Certification Exam(s) ]
NI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
NIELIT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Nokia [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Nortel [130 Certification Exam(s) ]
Novell [37 Certification Exam(s) ]
OMG [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
Oracle [282 Certification Exam(s) ]
P&C [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Palo-Alto [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
PARCC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
PayPal [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Pegasystems [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
PEOPLECERT [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
PMI [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Polycom [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
PostgreSQL-CE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Prince2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
PRMIA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
PsychCorp [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
PTCB [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
QAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
QlikView [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Quality-Assurance [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
RACC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Real Estate [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Real-Estate [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
RedHat [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
RES [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
Riverbed [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
RSA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Sair [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
Salesforce [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
SANS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
SAP [98 Certification Exam(s) ]
SASInstitute [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
SAT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
SCO [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
SCP [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
SDI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
See-Beyond [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Siemens [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Snia [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
SOA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Social-Work-Board [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
SpringSource [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
SUN [63 Certification Exam(s) ]
SUSE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Sybase [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
Symantec [135 Certification Exam(s) ]
Teacher-Certification [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
The-Open-Group [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
TIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Tibco [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
Trainers [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Trend [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
TruSecure [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
USMLE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
VCE [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Veeam [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Veritas [33 Certification Exam(s) ]
Vmware [58 Certification Exam(s) ]
Wonderlic [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Worldatwork [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
XML-Master [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Zend [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Issu : https://issuu.com/trutrainers/docs/mb5-627
Dropmark : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/11925230
Dropmark-Text : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/12894207
Blogspot : http://killexamsbraindump.blogspot.com/2017/12/review-mb5-627-real-question-and.html
Wordpress : https://wp.me/p7SJ6L-2gW
RSS Feed : http://feeds.feedburner.com/MicrosoftMb5-627DumpsAndPracticeTestsWithRealQuestions
Box.net : https://app.box.com/s/h8s2lju44amrv7mhba8vck5g9rt717xx