- 20 Marks
Question
Some time ago Robert launched a new product some years ago at first, sales were good but now the figures are causing concern. Robert wants a more accurate sales forecast to produce detailed cash forecasts.
Since there is some seasonality present in the raw data, the series for sales shown below represents the underlying trend based on an averaging process:
| Year | Quarter | Trend point | Sales (cartons) |
|---|---|---|---|
| X | y | ||
| 2016 | 3rd | 1 | 10,000 |
| 2016 | 4th | 2 | 10,790 |
| 2017 | 1st | 3 | 10,920 |
| 2017 | 2nd | 4 | 11,000 |
| 2017 | 3rd | 5 | 11,050 |
| 2017 | 4th | 6 | 11,080 |
| 2018 | 1st | 7 | 11,085 |
| 2018 | 2nd | 8 | 11,095 |
| 2018 | 3rd | 9 | 11,120 |
| 2018 | 4th | 10 | 11,130 |
On average, quarters, 1 and 3 are 5% and 6% respectively above trend whilst quarters 2 and 4 are respectively 2% and 9% below trend. Some preliminary calculations on the above ten observations have been carried out and the results are summarised below:
Results from ten periods’ observations:
Linear regression y = a + bx Slope = 82.67 Intercept = 10,472.33 Coefficient of determination = 0.535
It is required to make forecasts of sales for quarters 3 and 4 in 2019 and for quarters 1 and 2 in 2020 but there is some discussion on whether the ten-period data shown above are suitable for forecasting or whether only the last five periods would provide a better basis for forecasting. Linear analysis of the last five periods only gives the following intermediate results:
Results of last five periods’ observations:
y = 555.10
x2 = 330
y2 = 61,627.40
xy = 4,442.15
Note: the y values have been scaled down by 100 times for ease of calculation.
Required:
a. Forecast the sales of the four quarters required using the ten-period observations results.
(6 Marks)
b. Prepare similar forecasts based on the last five periods’ observations.
(8 Marks)
c. Explain which forecasting basis produces the better forecast. (6 Marks)
Answer
a.
| Year | Quarter | Trend point | Sales trend (cartons) |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | y = a + bx | ||
| 2019 | 3 | 13 | 10,472.33 + (82.67 × 13) = 11,547 |
| 2019 | 4 | 14 | 10,472.33 + (82.67 × 14) = 11,630 |
| 2020 | 1 | 15 | 10,472.33 + (82.67 × 15) = 11,712 |
| 2020 | 2 | 16 | 10,472.33 + (82.67 × 16) = 11,795 |
The seasonally adjusted forecasts are therefore as follows:
| Year | Quarter | Seasonally adjusted forecast sales (cartons) |
|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 3 | 11,547 × 1.06 = 12,240 |
| 2019 | 4 | 11,630 × 0.91 = 10,583 |
| 2020 | 1 | 11,712 × 1.05 = 12,298 |
| 2020 | 2 | 11,795 × 0.98 = 11,559 |
b. We need to calculate the regression line of the last five periods’ observations.
This line is y = a + bx
where b = n xy − x y / n x2 − x 2 = 5 × 4,442.15 −(40 × 555.1) / 5 × 330 − 40 × 40 = 6.75 /50 = 0.135
a = 555.1 /5 −0.135 × 40 /5 = 111.02 −1.08 = 109.94
We need to multiply the “a and b’’ values back up by 100 to compensate for the fact that the y values were scaled down by 100 before the sigma calculations were carried out.
So, the regression line is y = 10,994 + 13.5x
| Year | Quarter | Trend point | Sales trend (cartons) |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | y = a + bx | ||
| 2019 | 3 | 13 | 10,994 + (13.5 × 13) = 11,169.5 |
| 2019 | 4 | 14 | 10,994 + (13.5 × 14) = 11,183.0 |
| 2020 | 1 | 15 | 10,994 +(13.5 × 15) = 11,196.5 |
| 2020 | 2 | 16 | 10,994 + (13.5 × 16) = 11,210.0 |
The seasonally adjusted forecasts are therefore as follows:
| Year | Quarter | Seasonally adjusted forecast sales (cartons) |
|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 3 | 11,169.5 × 1.06 = 11,840 |
| 2019 | 4 | 11,183.0 × 0.91 = 10,177 |
| 2020 | 1 | 11,196.5 × 1.05 = 11,756 |
| 2020 | 2 | 11,210.0 × 0.98 = 10,986 |
c. One common method of deciding on which forecasting basis produces the better result is to compare the coefficients of determination. With ten periods’ observations we are told that r2 = 0.535.
With five periods’ observations we have to calculate the coefficient of determination from the equation given in the tables provided.
r2 = ( n xy − x y )2 / ( n x2 − x 2 ) ( n 𝑦2 −( 𝑦)2 ) = 5 × 4,442.15 − 40 × 555.1 2 / 5 × 330 − 40 × 40 5 × 61,627.4 −(555.1 × 555.1) = 6.752 /50 × 0.99 = 0.92
Prima facie the forecasting method using five periods’ observations is much better than the other using ten periods, since the coefficient of determination of the former is 0.92 compared with 0.535 for the latter.
We can explain 92% of the variations in sales by the passage of time using the former method but can explain only 53.5% of the variations in sales using the latter method.
- Topic: Budgeting and Budgetary Control, Decision-making techniques
- Series: MAY 2024
- Uploader: Samuel Duah