Re: Forecasting Seasonal Indices Question (Long)

2001-07-26 Thread DELOMBA

You definitely should drop the idea that the seasonla factors are neutral
(sum or product of them is equal to unity) when working with MOVING
seasonality (thsi can be simply demonstrated). The only case where it is
true is the regression approach (with dummy variables). I advise you to try
the Census bureau website, querying for Census X12 regarima or the website
of the bank of Spain www.bde.es (free powerfull soft tramo/seats). Also, the
European commission site (== look for DEMETRA)  offer a common platform for
running X12 and Tramo/seats.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (after my holidays back on 20/8)

Ronny Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
 The seasonal indices represent the amount by which the seasons vary from
 after. If there is no seasonality, then you would expect all of the
indices
 to be 1.00 so the total (for quarterly data) should be 4.00. With
 seasonality, some are above 1.00 and others are below 1.00 but the total
 should still be 4.00.

 However, I am getting results that are significantly different. I want to
 lay out the problem here to see if anyone has any suggestions. (Everything
 below is has quarterly seasonality but the comments would apply to
 seasonality.)

 The approach I have been teaching for finding seasonal indices is the same
 one that is covered in Forecasting Principles and Applications by
Stephen
 DeLurgio (McGraw-Hill). That approach is to:

 1. Take period data and produce a 4-period moving average
 2. Take that average and produce a 2-period moving average
(This is required because (1+2+3+4)/4=2.5 so these
averages are not whole periods. (2.5+3.5)/2=3
so this second moving average gives us whole periods.
 3. Compute a percentage as Sales/Moving Average
 4. Average all these percentage for period 1 to get the
index for period 1. Do the same for the other periods.

 The first question that comes up for me is should the first moving average
 in step 1 be centered or forward-ended? DeLurgio shows it centered and
that
 makes a little more sense to me since for the first four periods,
 (1+2+3+4)/4=2.5 which would be centered. However, I have seen other books
 where this was treated as a forward-ended average.

 Since every average will contain one sales figure from each period, you
 could justify writing down the average either centered or forward-ended.
 I've tried it both ways and the results are sometimes significantly
different.

 The second question concerns the resulting seasonal indices. Since the
 indices represent deviations from average, you would expect the average
 indices to be 1.00 and so quarterly indices should total to about 4.00.

 Most of the examples I have seen in textbooks total to something near 4.00
 and they either scale it to 4.00 as DeLurgio does or they ignore the small
 difference.

 However, the series I have been working with produces indices with a total
 significantly different from 4.00. That series follows:

 147, 119, 153, 267, 225, 201, 1,011, 895, 865, 372, 305, 309, 178, 147,
 144, 262, 222, 208, 1,297, 1,122, 1,091, 484, 412, 407, 191, 175, 149,
288,
 243, 223, 1,468, 1,252, 1,246, 496, 459, 447

 Using a centered moving average in step 1, the indices I obtain are:

 0.87351
 0.54884
 1.14164
 1.21995
 ===
 3.78393

 Using a forward-ended moving average in step 1, the indices I obtain are:

 1.13681
 0.74235
 2.92445
 1.44557
 ===
 6.24918

 It bothers me that these numbers are so different and that the total for
 the forward-ended moving average is so different from 4.00. I thought that
 the difference might be due to scaling so I scaled both series to force
 them to total to 4.00 and I got:

 0.923389
 0.58018
 1.20683
 1.289612

 and

 0.727654
 0.475166
 1.871894
 0.925286

 respectively. These are very different from one another.

 Several more approaches to seasonal indices are given in Production and
 Operations Management by Chase, Aquilano, Jacobs (McGraw-Hill.)

 The first one calls for simply dividing each period by the overall period
 average and then averaging these factors for each period. This approach
 forces the total to be 4.00 and the indices were:

 1.008696
 0.55492
 1.23524
 1.201144

 Another approach is to fit a regression line to the data, find a ratio of
 actual to trend and then average the indices for each period. That
approach
 yields the indices:

 1.01504
 0.559943
 1.232433
 1.184109
 
 3.991525

 Scaling everything to total to 4.00 and comparing the results, we have:

  Forward  Average
 Centerd MA   Ended MA DifferenceRegression
 --    ----
 0.9234   0.7277   1.00871.0172
 0.5802   0.4752   0.55490.5611
 1.2068   1.8719   1.23521.2350
 1.2896   0.9253   1.20111.1866

 Now, I understand why the results might be slightly different but it seems
 to me that they should be closer than they are. Any 

Re: Forecasting Seasonal Indices Question (Long)

2001-07-23 Thread Gerald Kaminski

A time series plot of the data shows three things going on:
1.  there is seasonality of period 12
2.  there is trend
3.  there is increasing spread.

When you use moving averages, the number of periods averaged should match
your seasonality, which means you would have to use a 12 period MA.

Suggestion is to use a stat package, (I'm most familiar with Minitab, but most
others should have comparable capabilities) and try a decomposition approach.
The advantage is that you get indices automatically in a decomposition.

Most simple models such as Moving Average and Exponential Smoothing work
best for a stationary series.  This series is not one of them.

Ronny Richardson wrote:

 The seasonal indices represent the amount by which the seasons vary from
 after. If there is no seasonality, then you would expect all of the indices
 to be 1.00 so the total (for quarterly data) should be 4.00. With
 seasonality, some are above 1.00 and others are below 1.00 but the total
 should still be 4.00.

 However, I am getting results that are significantly different. I want to
 lay out the problem here to see if anyone has any suggestions. (Everything
 below is has quarterly seasonality but the comments would apply to
 seasonality.)

 The approach I have been teaching for finding seasonal indices is the same
 one that is covered in Forecasting Principles and Applications by Stephen
 DeLurgio (McGraw-Hill). That approach is to:

 1. Take period data and produce a 4-period moving average
 2. Take that average and produce a 2-period moving average
(This is required because (1+2+3+4)/4=2.5 so these
averages are not whole periods. (2.5+3.5)/2=3
so this second moving average gives us whole periods.
 3. Compute a percentage as Sales/Moving Average
 4. Average all these percentage for period 1 to get the
index for period 1. Do the same for the other periods.

 The first question that comes up for me is should the first moving average
 in step 1 be centered or forward-ended? DeLurgio shows it centered and that
 makes a little more sense to me since for the first four periods,
 (1+2+3+4)/4=2.5 which would be centered. However, I have seen other books
 where this was treated as a forward-ended average.

 Since every average will contain one sales figure from each period, you
 could justify writing down the average either centered or forward-ended.
 I've tried it both ways and the results are sometimes significantly different.

 The second question concerns the resulting seasonal indices. Since the
 indices represent deviations from average, you would expect the average
 indices to be 1.00 and so quarterly indices should total to about 4.00.

 Most of the examples I have seen in textbooks total to something near 4.00
 and they either scale it to 4.00 as DeLurgio does or they ignore the small
 difference.

 However, the series I have been working with produces indices with a total
 significantly different from 4.00. That series follows:

 147, 119, 153, 267, 225, 201, 1,011, 895, 865, 372, 305, 309, 178, 147,
 144, 262, 222, 208, 1,297, 1,122, 1,091, 484, 412, 407, 191, 175, 149, 288,
 243, 223, 1,468, 1,252, 1,246, 496, 459, 447

 Using a centered moving average in step 1, the indices I obtain are:

 0.87351
 0.54884
 1.14164
 1.21995
 ===
 3.78393

 Using a forward-ended moving average in step 1, the indices I obtain are:

 1.13681
 0.74235
 2.92445
 1.44557
 ===
 6.24918

 It bothers me that these numbers are so different and that the total for
 the forward-ended moving average is so different from 4.00. I thought that
 the difference might be due to scaling so I scaled both series to force
 them to total to 4.00 and I got:

 0.923389
 0.58018
 1.20683
 1.289612

 and

 0.727654
 0.475166
 1.871894
 0.925286

 respectively. These are very different from one another.

 Several more approaches to seasonal indices are given in Production and
 Operations Management by Chase, Aquilano, Jacobs (McGraw-Hill.)

 The first one calls for simply dividing each period by the overall period
 average and then averaging these factors for each period. This approach
 forces the total to be 4.00 and the indices were:

 1.008696
 0.55492
 1.23524
 1.201144

 Another approach is to fit a regression line to the data, find a ratio of
 actual to trend and then average the indices for each period. That approach
 yields the indices:

 1.01504
 0.559943
 1.232433
 1.184109
 
 3.991525

 Scaling everything to total to 4.00 and comparing the results, we have:

  Forward  Average
 Centerd MA   Ended MA DifferenceRegression
 --    ----
 0.9234   0.7277   1.00871.0172
 0.5802   0.4752   0.55490.5611
 1.2068   1.8719   1.23521.2350
 1.2896   0.9253   1.20111.1866

 Now, I understand why the results might be slightly different but it seems
 to me that they should be closer than they are. Any 

Re: Forecasting Seasonal Indices Question (Long)

2001-07-23 Thread Alan McLean

Hi Ronny,

First, both the centred and non-centred moving averages are used in
smoothing time series. The latter is used in short term forecasting -
you are assuming a model where the mean is locally constant, so the
forecasting process consists of estimating the current value of that
mean and projecting it ahead; so it is appropriate to use the last M
observations to estimate it. For long term forecasting the aim is to
smooth both the random fluctuations and the seasonal fluctuations,
leaving only trend and cyclic variation. This can be done by using a
moving average whose length equals the length of the season, so for
example a 4 quarter moving average is used for quarterly data. Here we
are clearly obtaining an average over a full year, so it clearly should
be located at the middle of the year - hence the centred moving average
is used.

Second, if you graph your time series you will see why you are in this
case getting peculiar results - the series shows cyclic behaviour but
not seasonal - the peaks are at times 8, 19, 31. The absolutely crucial
characteristic of 'seasonal' variation is not that it relates to spring,
summer, etc, but that the length of the cycle is fixed and known - so
public transport shows a daily cycle (for hourly data) or a weekly cycle
(for daily data) - no relationship to the seasons, but this is a
seasonal variation! (A seasonal variation is usually also relatively
short cycle.)

Regards,
Alan


Ronny Richardson wrote:
 
 The seasonal indices represent the amount by which the seasons vary from
 after. If there is no seasonality, then you would expect all of the indices
 to be 1.00 so the total (for quarterly data) should be 4.00. With
 seasonality, some are above 1.00 and others are below 1.00 but the total
 should still be 4.00.
 
 However, I am getting results that are significantly different. I want to
 lay out the problem here to see if anyone has any suggestions. (Everything
 below is has quarterly seasonality but the comments would apply to
 seasonality.)
 
 The approach I have been teaching for finding seasonal indices is the same
 one that is covered in Forecasting Principles and Applications by Stephen
 DeLurgio (McGraw-Hill). That approach is to:
 
 1. Take period data and produce a 4-period moving average
 2. Take that average and produce a 2-period moving average
(This is required because (1+2+3+4)/4=2.5 so these
averages are not whole periods. (2.5+3.5)/2=3
so this second moving average gives us whole periods.
 3. Compute a percentage as Sales/Moving Average
 4. Average all these percentage for period 1 to get the
index for period 1. Do the same for the other periods.
 
 The first question that comes up for me is should the first moving average
 in step 1 be centered or forward-ended? DeLurgio shows it centered and that
 makes a little more sense to me since for the first four periods,
 (1+2+3+4)/4=2.5 which would be centered. However, I have seen other books
 where this was treated as a forward-ended average.
 
 Since every average will contain one sales figure from each period, you
 could justify writing down the average either centered or forward-ended.
 I've tried it both ways and the results are sometimes significantly different.
 
 The second question concerns the resulting seasonal indices. Since the
 indices represent deviations from average, you would expect the average
 indices to be 1.00 and so quarterly indices should total to about 4.00.
 
 Most of the examples I have seen in textbooks total to something near 4.00
 and they either scale it to 4.00 as DeLurgio does or they ignore the small
 difference.
 
 However, the series I have been working with produces indices with a total
 significantly different from 4.00. That series follows:
 
 147, 119, 153, 267, 225, 201, 1,011, 895, 865, 372, 305, 309, 178, 147,
 144, 262, 222, 208, 1,297, 1,122, 1,091, 484, 412, 407, 191, 175, 149, 288,
 243, 223, 1,468, 1,252, 1,246, 496, 459, 447
 
 Using a centered moving average in step 1, the indices I obtain are:
 
 0.87351
 0.54884
 1.14164
 1.21995
 ===
 3.78393
 
 Using a forward-ended moving average in step 1, the indices I obtain are:
 
 1.13681
 0.74235
 2.92445
 1.44557
 ===
 6.24918
 
 It bothers me that these numbers are so different and that the total for
 the forward-ended moving average is so different from 4.00. I thought that
 the difference might be due to scaling so I scaled both series to force
 them to total to 4.00 and I got:
 
 0.923389
 0.58018
 1.20683
 1.289612
 
 and
 
 0.727654
 0.475166
 1.871894
 0.925286
 
 respectively. These are very different from one another.
 
 Several more approaches to seasonal indices are given in Production and
 Operations Management by Chase, Aquilano, Jacobs (McGraw-Hill.)
 
 The first one calls for simply dividing each period by the overall period
 average and then averaging these factors for each period. This approach
 forces the total to be 4.00 and the indices were:
 
 1.008696
 

Forecasting Seasonal Indices Question (Long)

2001-07-23 Thread Ronny Richardson

The seasonal indices represent the amount by which the seasons vary from
after. If there is no seasonality, then you would expect all of the indices
to be 1.00 so the total (for quarterly data) should be 4.00. With
seasonality, some are above 1.00 and others are below 1.00 but the total
should still be 4.00.

However, I am getting results that are significantly different. I want to
lay out the problem here to see if anyone has any suggestions. (Everything
below is has quarterly seasonality but the comments would apply to
seasonality.)

The approach I have been teaching for finding seasonal indices is the same
one that is covered in Forecasting Principles and Applications by Stephen
DeLurgio (McGraw-Hill). That approach is to:

1. Take period data and produce a 4-period moving average
2. Take that average and produce a 2-period moving average
   (This is required because (1+2+3+4)/4=2.5 so these
   averages are not whole periods. (2.5+3.5)/2=3
   so this second moving average gives us whole periods.
3. Compute a percentage as Sales/Moving Average
4. Average all these percentage for period 1 to get the
   index for period 1. Do the same for the other periods.

The first question that comes up for me is should the first moving average
in step 1 be centered or forward-ended? DeLurgio shows it centered and that
makes a little more sense to me since for the first four periods,
(1+2+3+4)/4=2.5 which would be centered. However, I have seen other books
where this was treated as a forward-ended average.

Since every average will contain one sales figure from each period, you
could justify writing down the average either centered or forward-ended.
I've tried it both ways and the results are sometimes significantly different.

The second question concerns the resulting seasonal indices. Since the
indices represent deviations from average, you would expect the average
indices to be 1.00 and so quarterly indices should total to about 4.00.

Most of the examples I have seen in textbooks total to something near 4.00
and they either scale it to 4.00 as DeLurgio does or they ignore the small
difference.

However, the series I have been working with produces indices with a total
significantly different from 4.00. That series follows:

147, 119, 153, 267, 225, 201, 1,011, 895, 865, 372, 305, 309, 178, 147,
144, 262, 222, 208, 1,297, 1,122, 1,091, 484, 412, 407, 191, 175, 149, 288,
243, 223, 1,468, 1,252, 1,246, 496, 459, 447

Using a centered moving average in step 1, the indices I obtain are:

0.87351
0.54884
1.14164
1.21995
===
3.78393

Using a forward-ended moving average in step 1, the indices I obtain are:

1.13681
0.74235
2.92445
1.44557
===
6.24918

It bothers me that these numbers are so different and that the total for
the forward-ended moving average is so different from 4.00. I thought that
the difference might be due to scaling so I scaled both series to force
them to total to 4.00 and I got:

0.923389
0.58018
1.20683
1.289612

and

0.727654
0.475166
1.871894
0.925286

respectively. These are very different from one another.

Several more approaches to seasonal indices are given in Production and
Operations Management by Chase, Aquilano, Jacobs (McGraw-Hill.)

The first one calls for simply dividing each period by the overall period
average and then averaging these factors for each period. This approach
forces the total to be 4.00 and the indices were:

1.008696
0.55492
1.23524
1.201144

Another approach is to fit a regression line to the data, find a ratio of
actual to trend and then average the indices for each period. That approach
yields the indices:

1.01504
0.559943
1.232433
1.184109

3.991525

Scaling everything to total to 4.00 and comparing the results, we have:

 Forward  Average
Centerd MA   Ended MA DifferenceRegression
--    ----
0.9234   0.7277   1.00871.0172
0.5802   0.4752   0.55490.5611
1.2068   1.8719   1.23521.2350
1.2896   0.9253   1.20111.1866

Now, I understand why the results might be slightly different but it seems
to me that they should be closer than they are. Any comments?




Dr. Ronny Richardson
Associate Professor of Management
Southern Polytechnic State University
School of Management
1100 South Marietta Parkway
Marietta, GA  30060-2896

Phone:  (770) 528-5542
Fax:(770) 528-4967


=
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
  http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=