Stem-and-leaf displays and frequency plots
- Quarterly opening prices
Year |
Quarter |
MQG |
PPT |
Year |
Quarter |
MQG |
PPT |
|
2007 |
1 |
79.65 |
78.45 |
2013 |
1 |
37.86 |
38.84 |
|
2 |
85.56 |
80.91 |
2 |
38.54 |
41.20 |
|||
3 |
81.13 |
77.50 |
3 |
43.16 |
39.90 |
|||
4 |
82.66 |
74.26 |
4 |
50.11 |
46.00 |
|||
2008 |
1 |
63.92 |
58.30 |
2014 |
1 |
54.09 |
47.04 |
|
2 |
62.37 |
54.84 |
2 |
57.70 |
46.90 |
|||
3 |
50.58 |
40.76 |
3 |
58.52 |
48.82 |
|||
4 |
28.91 |
34.93 |
4 |
61.17 |
46.45 |
|||
2009 |
1 |
25.56 |
30.72 |
2015 |
1 |
62.15 |
49.18 |
|
2 |
32.93 |
32.18 |
2 |
77.97 |
54.16 |
|||
3 |
43.29 |
33.51 |
3 |
82.15 |
44.85 |
|||
4 |
49.17 |
37.62 |
4 |
85.70 |
44.91 |
|||
2010 |
1 |
49.33 |
35.05 |
2016 |
1 |
71.58 |
41.31 |
|
2 |
49.46 |
34.55 |
2 |
63.50 |
42.75 |
|||
3 |
36.58 |
29.03 |
3 |
74.39 |
45.50 |
|||
4 |
35.60 |
37.85 |
4 |
79.80 |
45.24 |
|||
2011 |
1 |
39.95 |
31.29 |
2017 |
1 |
84.60 |
46.80 |
|
2 |
34.58 |
28.89 |
2 |
93.00 |
52.78 |
|||
3 |
27.11 |
23.58 |
3 |
85.83 |
50.48 |
|||
4 |
24.50 |
22.75 |
4 |
98.35 |
48.48 |
|||
2012 |
1 |
25.08 |
20.25 |
|||||
2 |
28.73 |
25.50 |
||||||
3 |
24.57 |
23.91 |
||||||
4 |
31.37 |
27.94 |
MQG and PPT Stem-and-Leaf Plot Stem & Leaf 98753320 . 2 . 4455788 98775443210 . 3 . 12456789 9887666655442110 . 4 . 33999 4420 . 5 . 00478 . 6 . 12233 874 . 7 . 14799 1 . 8 . 1224555 . 9 . 38 Each leaf: 1 case(s) |
(Fletcher, 2009)
- Histogram and Frequency polygon for MQG and PPT
Figure 1: Histogram and Frequency polygon of MQG and PPT
- Market capitals for 6 companies listed in ASX with over AUD 500 million
Figure 2: Market capitals
- Invest in MQG or PPT
Based on the series of previous share prices from 2007 to March 2018, I would advise on investing with PPT because the prices are down and there is a possibility of a rise in a few moments. This is in comparison to MQG whose prices have been rising since 2010 and just as any other stock price, there are very high chance of the prices losing value. Therefore, it would be more advisable to invest in a stock whose price has a higher chance of increasing than decreasing. In addition, PPT has a higher dividend yield of 6.65% compared to MQG which is 4.66%. Further, PPT has a lower Price-earning Ration compared to MQG, which make PPT stock better to invest in because their future growth has higher chances of growth(Aspara, 2009; Lynott, 2005).
- Mean, median, 1stand 3rd Quartiles
TLS |
SPK |
TPM |
CNU |
VOC |
|
Mean |
13.37 |
13.33 |
18.65556 |
11.76667 |
21.34 |
Median |
13.75 |
12.85 |
15.8 |
10.95 |
22.25 |
First Quartile |
10.85 |
11.5 |
14.2 |
6.7 |
12.625 |
Third Quartile |
15.475 |
15.55 |
25.3 |
17.475 |
28.9 |
- Standard Deviation, Mean Absolute Distance and Range statistics
TLS |
SPK |
TPM |
CNU |
VOC |
|
Standard Deviation |
2.322951 |
2.148046 |
6.225951 |
4.764335 |
10.46501 |
Mean Absolute Distance |
2.056 |
1.936 |
5.617284 |
4.533333 |
8.56 |
Range |
6.8 |
6.2 |
19.2 |
11.3 |
36.6 |
(Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011)
- Box and Whisker Plots
Figure 3: Box and Whisker Plots
- A discussion on the price-earnings ratio values
Higher values of price-earnings ratio show that the stock is overpriced while stocks with small values are seen to be better because they have higher growth potentials. Therefore, CNU has the highest growth potential compared to the others because the median measure small compared to the others. However, SPK has the least margin for the 3rd and 1st quartile, hence lower deviation from the median. It is very risky to invest in VOC stock because it is hard to estimate its ideal price-earnings ratio because of the higher variation. Therefore, it will be safer to invest in CNU, SPK and TLS stock as opposed to TPM and VOC(Titman, Wei, & Xie, 2004).
- The probability that an Australian will die from neoplasms.
- The probability of a Female Australian to die from disease of the circulatory system
- Proportions of deaths
The disease with the highest proportion of male deaths compared to female deaths is Neoplasms with a difference of 6.3%. Diseases of circulatory system such as heart disease have the highest difference in proportion between female deaths and male deaths with a difference of 3.4%.
- The probability of dying from diabetes mellitu
(McCluskey & Lalkhen, 2007)
- Probability of rainfall
- The probability that there will be no rainfall in any given day
- The probability of 2 or more days of rainfall in a week
- Assuming that the weekly rainfall follows a normal distribution
The mean weekly rainfall is 9.9132mm and a standard deviation of 12.297mm
- The probability of having rainfall between 5mm to 15mm
- Amount of rainfall if only 10% of the weeks have that amount of rainfall or higher
(Tsokos, Wooten, Tsokos, & Wooten, 2016)
The amount of rainfall will be
- Normality Test
Refractive Index
Figure 4: Refractive index for refractive index
Sodium
Figure 5: Probability plot for Sodium
Magnesium
Figure 6: Probability plot of Magnesium
Aluminium
Figure 7: Probability plot of Aluminium
Silicon
Figure 8: Probability plot of Silicon
Potassium
Figure 9: Probability plot of Potassium
Calcium
Figure 10: Probability plot of Calcium
Barium
Figure 11: Probability plot of Barium
Iron
Figure 12: Probability plot of iron
Refractive index, Silicon, Aluminium, and Sodium are the only variables which are approximately normally distributed(Abdal-sahib et al., 2013; Tsokos et al., 2016).
- Confidence intervals of Float and non-float glass
Table 1: Float Glass Confidence intervals for normally distributed variables
Statistic |
Std. Error |
||
Refractive index |
Mean |
1.5185708 |
.00023735 |
95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
Lower Bound |
1.5180990 |
|
Upper Bound |
1.5190426 |
||
Sodium |
Mean |
13.2803 |
.05402 |
95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
Lower Bound |
13.1730 |
|
Upper Bound |
13.3877 |
||
Aluminum |
Mean |
1.1711 |
.03080 |
95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
Lower Bound |
1.1099 |
|
Upper Bound |
1.2324 |
||
Silicon |
Mean |
72.5772 |
.06030 |
95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
Lower Bound |
72.4574 |
|
Upper Bound |
72.6971 |
Table 2: Non-Float Glass Confidence intervals for normally distributed variables
Statistic |
Std. Error |
||
Refractive index |
Mean |
1.5186186 |
.00043613 |
95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
Lower Bound |
1.5177497 |
|
Upper Bound |
1.5194874 |
||
Sodium |
Mean |
13.1117 |
.07618 |
95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
Lower Bound |
12.9599 |
|
Upper Bound |
13.2635 |
||
Aluminum |
Mean |
1.4082 |
.03652 |
95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
Lower Bound |
1.3354 |
|
Upper Bound |
1.4809 |
||
Silicon |
Mean |
72.5980 |
.08311 |
95% Confidence Interval for Mean |
Lower Bound |
72.4325 |
|
Upper Bound |
72.7636 |
References
Abdal-sahib, R., Altammar, S. M., Azlan, H. A., Aytemur, A., Balters, S., Steinert, M., … Canny, J. (2013). Testing for Normality. Frontiers in Psychology, 98(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01470
Aspara, J. (2009). Aesthetics of stock investments. Consumption Markets & Culture, 12(2), 99–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253860902840917
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Descriptive Statistics. In Research methods in education (pp. 622–640). https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002471
Fletcher, J. (2009). Normal distribution. BMJ, 338(feb18 2), b646–b646. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b646
Lynott, W. J. (2005). Stock investments. Water Well Journal, 59(12), 39. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-30344484585&partnerID=40&md5=ba73235c348c82cf518a1f10cd84cbe4
McCluskey, A., & Lalkhen, A. G. (2007). Statistics III: Probability and statistical tests.s, 7(5), 167–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaceaccp/mkm028
Titman, S., Wei, K. C. J., & Xie, F. (2004). Capital Investments and Stock Returns. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 39(04), 677. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109000003173
Tsokos, C., Wooten, R., Tsokos, C., & Wooten, R. (2016). Normal Probability. In The Joy of Finite Mathematics (pp. 231–263). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802967-1.00007-3