Investment Analysis Paper on Your Company Name Here
Why do you think competency-based management of rewards is the least popular area of use?
The following conditions must meet in the paper
1) I want a typical and a quality answer which should have about 550 words.
2) The answer must raise appropriate critical questions.
3) The answer must include examples from experience or the web with references from relevant examples from real companies.
4) Do include all your references, as per the Harvard Referencing System,
5) Please don�t use Wikipedia web site.
6) I need examples from peer reviewed articles or researches only.
Investment Analysis Paper on Ford Motor Group
Ford Motor Group is a multinational public company that’s based in Michigan in the USA. Its shares are traded in NYSE under the initial F. It majors in automotive production and its current Executive chairman is William C. Ford, Jr. while the CEO is Mark Fields. The current brands or models are Ford Focus, Ford Escort, Ford Cortina, Ford Sierra and Ford Capri. There are several other brands that Ford manufactures besides an array of trucks and other automobiles. The Ford Family owns 2% of the company while the employees number about 181,000. It has a market capitalization of $54.65 Billion and its shares are currently trading at $14.09 dollars with a yield of 3.5%. (Luenberger, 1997) Ford has outstanding shares numbering 9 million while the market prices of its shares are currently costing 14.1 which amounts to a total of $126.9 million in outstanding stock valuation.
Board of Directors
The directors of Ford Motor Group have impeccable academic backgrounds and experience that warrant their positions. The executive management of the Ford board as at the end of July 2014 were; Richard A. Gephardt, Ellen Marram, Stephen Butler, Kimberly Casiano, Edsel Ford, Mark Fields (CEO & President, Homer Neal, Antony F. Earley, William Clay Ford Jr., the executive chairman, James P. Hackett, John L. Thornton, Gerald L. Shaheeen, James H. Hance, Jr., William W. Helman John C. Lechieter, James H. Hance and Jon M. Huntsman.
Monitoring Potential of the Firm’s Board of Directors
Mark Fields, the current CEO and President, was initially appointed as the America’s President of operations in the year 2012. (Adams, 2008) The board is mostly concentrated in running the operations of the company from the head office. Almost 50% of its annual turnover is achieved in North America while the rest are from South America, Europe, Asia, pacific and Africa. The duties of each director are not included in the reports together with the salaries of other senior staff. The academic background for the senior positions office holders is not available on the 2014 proxy annual report. The performance of Ford Motor Group has not been very impressive and it was expected that it would have more financial problems in the current financial period. However, Ford has endured hard times before and it’s expected that it will come out of financial woes on its own.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Board Structure
The major strengths of the members of the board are the wide experience and skills the director’s posses. The executive chairman has been a director since 1988 and has also been the vice president at the commercial truck center before his recent promotion. He has also been the chair of the finance committee and the chairman of eBay Inc. The other board members are also equally skilled and experienced in automobile industry.
The board has also professional structures that vet all the qualifications of the directors before they are appointed. The nominating and governance committee scrutinizes all the background information on all the nominees before their names are forwarded to the board.
The major weaknesses of the board are the lack of clearly defined organization structures that spell out the role of each director and the hierarchy of the functions of their offices and their occupants. The structures are not clear and maybe they have their own system of operations but the structures have to be clearly drawn and the functions of each department clearly defined and addressed. http://corporate.ford.com/our-company/governance-hub/board-of-directors-801p
Ethical Concerns
The other ethical issues that may arise is that some directors like Gerald L. Shaheen who may have served as the president of the Caterpillar Inc before he retired may be having the connections with the group hence his interests may also be linked to the company. H e should be allowed to serve the interests of one company only.
The other issue is that the company has some former politicians in the board like the former governor Jon M. Huntsman Jr. It reflects a little unprofessionalism to include some politicians in the board and who may have had different policies that may have been unpopular with some people hence it can influence the performance of the company negatively.
Competitive Financial Ratio Comparison
The net assets turnover for Ford Motor Group decreased by 2.5% in the year 2013 as compared to a 50% increase in the year 2012. GM registered a decrease of 13% in its net assets turnover in the year 2013 while in the year 2012 it experienced an increase of 6.5%. (Vance, 2003) The following table shows the complete analysis.
| Ford Motor Group | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | |
| Current Ratio | Total Current Assets/Total current liabilities | 2.11 | 2.32 | 2.26 |
| Quick Ratio | TT C/ Assets – inventories /TT/ C Liabilities | 1.98 | 2.18 | 2.15 |
| Receivable turnover | Annual credit sales/average receivables | |||
| Inventory Turnover | Cost of goods sold/Average inventory | 17.00 | 17.51 | 19.87 |
| Asset turnover | Sales/Average total assets | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.76 |
| Dividend yield | Div per Share / Current Share price | 0.03 | 0.01 | |
| Dividend cover | EPS/ Dividend per Share | 3.70 | 7.40 | |
| Net assets turnover | Net assets / total sales | 1.24 | 1.27 | 0.85 |
| Times interest earned | EBIT/Annual Interest Expense | 9.45 | 11.83 | 11.63 |
| Debt to total Asset | Debt/Assets | 0.57 | 1.03 | 0.56 |
| Book value per share | 9.17 | 9.17 | 9.17 | |
| Interest cover | EBIT/Annual Interest Expense | 9.45 | 11.83 | 11.63 |
| Profit margin on sale | GP/sales | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.14 |
| R.R return on assets | EAT/Total Assets | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.11 |
| R.R com stock equity | Profit after taxes/Shareholders equity | 0.27 | 0.36 | 1.35 |
| Earnings per share | Profit after taxes-pref div)/No. of comm O/S | 1.54 | 1.48 | |
| Payout Ratio | cash dividends/income | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| ROE | Return On Equity (ROE) | 0.27 | 0.36 | 1.35 |
| ROA | Return on average Assets | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.11 |
| GM | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | |
| Current Ratio | Total Current Assets/Total current liabilities | 1.31 | 1.30 | 1.22 |
| Quick Ratio | TT C/ Assets – inventories /TT/ C Liabilities | 1.08 | 1.02 | 0.95 |
| Receivable turnover | Annual credit sales/average receivables | |||
| Inventory Turnover | Cost of goods sold/Average inventory | 9.56 | 9.74 | 9.16 |
| Asset turnover | Sales/Average total assets | 0.93 | 1.02 | 1.04 |
| Dividend yield | Div per Share / Current Share price | |||
| Dividend cover | EPS/ Dividend per Share | |||
| Net assets turnover | Net assets / total sales | 0.27 | 0.24 | 0.25 |
| Times interest earned | EBIT/Annual Interest Expense | 23.33 | -57.68 | 17.99 |
| Debt to total Asset | Debt/Assets | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| Book value per share | ||||
| Interest cover | EBIT/Annual Interest Expense | 23.33 | -57.68 | 17.99 |
| Profit margin on sale | GP/sales | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.13 |
| R.R return on assets | EAT/Total Assets | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.06 |
| R.R com stock equity | Profit after taxes/Shareholders equity | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.24 |
| Earnings per share | Profit after taxes-pref div)/No. of comm O/S | 2.92 | ||
| Payout Ratio | cash dividends/income | |||
| ROE | Return On Equity (ROE) | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.24 |
| ROA | Return on average Assets | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.06 |
DuPont Identity
The following is the Dopont model breakdown for Ford and GM. The profit margin for Ford amounted to 13% of sales for both 2013 and 2012. The return on Equity was 27% in 2013 while in2012 it was 36%. The profit margin on sales for GM amounted to 12% in 2013 while in 2012 it was 7%. The ROE for GM amounted to 13% and 17% respectively for the years 2013 and 2012 respectively. The return on assets amounted to 3 and 4% respectively. The earnings per share for Ford in 2013 and 2012 were 1.54 and 1.48 respectively while the dividends per share amounted to 0.4 and 0.2 respectively. Both companies are heavily leveraged and Ford is the one that has the highest concentration of debt compared to GM.
The interest expenses for Ford increased by 16.3% in 2013 while in 2012 it had decreased by 12.7%. The interest expense for Ford in the year 2013 and 2012 were 829 million and 713 million respectively. GM interest expenses decreased by 31.7% in 2013 while in 2012 the expenses decreased by 9.4%. The interest expenses for 2013 and 2012 were 334 Million and 489 Million respectively
The net assets turnover for Ford’s decreased by 2.5% in the year 2013 as compared to a 50% increase in the year 2012. GM registered a decrease of 13% in its net assets turnover in the year 2013 while in the year 2012 it experienced an increase of 6.5%. The dividend per share for Ford in 2013 and 2012 was 0.4 and 0.2 respectively. This represented a return of 22% to the shareholders in 2013 while in 2012 it was 23%.
.
Table 1
Raw Data Ford Motor Company
| Company Name | Year 2013 | Year 2012 | Year 2011 |
| Net income | 7.155B | 5.665B | 20.213B |
| Revenue | 146.917B | 195.058B | 135.605B |
| Assets | 202.026B | 189.406B | 178.348B |
| Equity | 26.383B | 15.947B | 15.028B |
Raw Data GM Motor Company
| Company Name | Year 2013 | Year 2012 | Year 2011 |
| Net income | 5.346B | 6.188B | 9.190B |
| Revenue | 155.427B | 152.256B | 150.276B |
| Assets | 166.344B | 149.422B | 144.603B |
| Equity | 42.607B | 36.244B | 38.120B |
ROE Formula
(1)
Table 2
DuPont Analysis
| ROE | Profit Margin | Asset Turnover | Equity Multiplier | ||
| TELUS | Year 2000 | 0.072621 | 0.71662 | 0.75 | 7.66 |
Differences or Trends
Ford Motor Group seems to be having better ROE and Profit margins than GM. However the asset turnover for GM is higher than Ford. The equity multipliers for Ford are higher than those of GM which means that Ford is more levered than GM.
Growth
Dividend Growth Model
This section will require a table or appendix or both. Add a comment or two regarding your findings – are they logical or feasible?
Table 3
Dividend and Stock Price Raw Data for Ford Motor Group
| Ford Motor Group | Year 2013 |
| Net income | $ 7.155B |
| Equity | $26.383B |
| Total dividends paid | $1.574B |
| Outstanding shares | 3,881,659,802 |
| Earnings per share (EPS) | $1.82 |
| Dividends paid per share | $0.4 |
| Stock price as of 2/11/2014 | $14.07 |
Table 4
Growth Rate for Ford Motor Group
| Analysis | Formula | Year 2013 |
| ROE | Net income/ Equity | 0.2712 |
| Retention ratio | 1 – (cash dividends/ net income) | 0.78001 |
| Growth rate in earnings (g) | Retention ratio x ROE | 0.21154 |
Dividend Discount Model (DDM) = (2)
(3)
| Growth rate | Ford Motor Group | 2013 |
| ROE | Net Income/Equity | 0.2712 |
| Retention Ratio | 1-(cash dividends/net income) | 0.78001 |
| Growth rate in earnings | Retention rate X ROE | 0.21154 |
| Dividend Discount Model | Return rate R = Dividend /price of stock + g | 0.23997 |
| Price of Stock | Dividend/Return Rate R – Growth Rate g | 14.07 |
Issues with Using the Growth Model
The dividend earnings growth trend has been calculated on average per year. There are financial periods where the dividend pay rate and amounts are similar has the growth trend is not reliable as the average would be very low. The general average however is 0.212%.
Reasonableness of Constant Growth
The growth rate number is logical as it reflects the general performance on the ground. The major problems with the calculation are the constant figures payable as dividends reflects a constant growth trend and the calculations reflect a zero growth trend. The company pays dividend as shown in the table above. It would be fair assume a constant growth trend for Ford Company.
Annual Report
Potential Real Options
Stock Options for Employee compensation for the year 2013
| Fair value per stock option | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | ||
| 5.03 | 5.88 | 8.48 | |||
| Assumptions made | |||||
| Annualized Dividend yield | 3% | 2% | – | ||
| Expected volatility | 52.20% | 53.80% | 53.20% | ||
| Risk free interest rate | 1.50% | 1.60% | 3.20% | ||
| Expected stock option (yrs) | 7.7 | 7.2 | 7.1 | ||
| Company stock options as at December 31 2013 (millions) | |||||
| Outstanding options | Exercisable options | ||||
| Shares | weighted av life yrs | weighted av Exc price | Shares | weighted av life yrs | |
| Range Prices available in $ | |||||
| 1.96 -2.84 | 15.5 | 5.2 | 2.16 | 15.5 | 2.16 |
| 5.11 – 8.58 | 23.2 | 3.1 | 7.29 | 23.2 | 7.29 |
| 10.11 – 12.98 | 29.1 | 5.3 | 12.58 | 19.1 | 12.56 |
| 13.07 – 16.64 | 11.3 | 2.8 | 13.86 | 9.8 | 13.71 |
| Total stock options | 79.1 | 67.6 |
These options are company specific and they are payable on the range of prices available and the average years the employee has spent in the company. The share prices are weighted as shown on the table above. (Garrison, Noreen & Brewer, 2009)
The stock options would have to be provided for as their prices are usually provided for employees only and not for the general investors.
Capital Budgeting Process
The options would have to be provided for when budgeting for capital projects. All projects with average returns that are less than the weighted average cost of capital should be rejected as the cost of capital would be more the profits of the project.
Beta
Expected Return – CAPM
The beta for Ford Motor Group according to yahoo business finance is 0.88. The current risk free market rate is 0.03%. The rate of risk premium is the amount that the expected asset’s rate of return is extra or exceeds the market risk free rate of interests. The risk premium for trading companies is the company stocks or their expected rate of return less the risk free rate of return.
| (4) | |
The average historical equity premium is 6.9%, so 7% is an estimate for the risk premium (Ross, Westerfield & Jaffe, 2013).
The average Capm rate is equal to 6.52% as calculated in the excel formula which is attached. The expected return for Ford Motor Group is 7%. (Reilly & Brown, 2011) Using the model, the rate of return is 6.52%.
The cost of equity using the capital asset pricing model = Risk Free Rate + Beta * Market Risk Premium = 3+0.88*3= 11.64 (French, 2003)
Ford has outstanding shares numbering 3.88 Billion while the market prices of its shares were costing 14.07 which amounts to a total of $54.5916 Billion. (Black, Jensen and Scholes, 1972)
The Capital Asset Pricing theory suggests that the cost of capital depends largely on how the asset was initially. The cost of the debt capital, the cost of the equity capital and the weighted average of the two depending on the debt and equity financing represents the actual cost of capital.
Dividend Growth Model versus CAPM
The CAPM is 0.916% compared to the 0.21154 %. The differences are not so high but the most logical one is CAPM which is about 1%. However the general trend for the Ford Motor Group has been retrogressive at around -0.3. (Appendix B)
Debt and Equity
Equity
According to Modigliani and Miller (1958) the cost of equity capital is mostly determined by the asset’s cost of capital and not the other way round.
Ford has outstanding shares numbering 3.88 Billion while the market prices of its shares were costing 14.07 which amounts to a total of $54.5916 Billion. The Capital Asset Pricing theory suggests that the cost of capital depends largely on how the asset was initially financed (Bierman & Smiddt, 1966). The cost of the debt capital, the cost of the equity capital and the weighted average of the two depending on the debt and equity financing represents the actual cost of capital. (Black, Jensen and Scholes, 1972)
Table 5
Market Value of Equity
| Company name | Year 2013 |
| Shares outstanding | 3.88B |
| Price as of 14.07 per share Market value of equity | 54.5916B 26.83B |
| CAPM | 6.52 |
Debt
Interest payments that are payable by lenders are all deductible from the ones or a company’s taxable income while the payments to shareholders as dividends are not. Most tax systems encourage the companies to use debt financing instead of equity. (Black, Jensen and Scholes, 1972) The higher the interest rates the higher the incentive. The interest expenses for Ford increased by 16.3% in 2013 while in 2012 it had decreased by 12.7%. The interest expense for Ford in the year 2013 and 2012 were 829 million and 713 million respectively. GM interest expenses decreased by 31.7% in 2013 while in 2012 the expenses decreased by 9.4%. The interest expenses for 2013 and 2012 were 334 Million and 489 Million respectively. (Bodie, Kane, Marcus, 2008)
The capital structure for Ford is mostly made up of borrowed money. In 2013, the long-term debts amounted to $114, 688 million while in 2012 and 2011 the debts amounted to 105, 058 and 99488 respectively. The total stockholder equity amounts to $26,383 Million and $15,947 million for the same period. Ford Company is highly levered and it needs to cut down on borrowing. General Motor’s long term debts amounted to $6573 Million and $3424 Million for the year 2013 and 2012 while the total stockholders equity amounted to $42,607, $36,244 and $38120 for the years 2013, 2012 and 2011. Gm is relatively levered. (Markowitz, 1959)
The credit ratings for Ford currently are CCC+ from S & P performance of CC in 2012. Ford managed to pay its 9.9 Billion debts in the year 2014 and it helped to boost its credit rankings. Ford credit rankings place it in front of GM and Chrysler and they are currently fitting hard to avoid bankruptcy petition.
Table 6
Cost of Debt
| Company name | 2013 |
| Long term debt Current Portion of Debt Total Debt | 114.688B – 114.688B |
| Cost of Debt % | 7% |
| Tax Rate | 40 |
| (5) | |
Weighted Average Cost of Capital
Table 7
Weighted Cost of Capital Raw Data
| Ford | Value $ | % | ||||
| Equity (Rs) | 26.383B | 18.7 | ||||
| Debt (Rb) | 114.688 | 81.3 | ||||
| Total Value | 141.071 | 100Rs | ||||
(6)
| Ford | Value | % |
| Equity(Rs) | 26.383 | 0.86635 |
| Debt(Rb) | 114.688 | 0.13365 |
| Total Value | 141.071 | 1 |
| Rwacc | 3.98% |
Capital Budgeting Assumptions
The major assumptions are that the tax rate is 40%. Following the losses incurred by ford in its foreign branches no taxes were chargeable in 2013.
Competitive Review of Debt and Equity Mix
The average weighted cost of capital is higher for Ford than GM. In 2013, the WACC for Ford was 3.98% while for GM it was 3.16%. Ford Motor Group seems to be in a lot of debts compared to GM.
Competitive Review
| GM | Value | % |
| Equity(Rs) | 42.607 | 0.86635 |
| Debt(Rb) | 6.573 | 0.13365 |
| Total Value | 49.18 | 1 |
| Rwacc | 3.16% |
Capital Structure Theories
According to Modigliani and Miller (1958) the cost of equity capital is mostly determined by the asset’s cost of capital and not the other way round.
Ford has outstanding shares numbering 3.88 Billion while the market prices of its shares were costing 14.07 which amounts to a total of $54.5916 Billion. The Capital Asset Pricing theory suggests that the cost of capital depends largely on how the asset was initially financed (Bierman & Smiddt, 1966). The cost of the debt capital, the cost of the equity capital and the weighted average of the two depending on the debt and equity financing represents the actual cost of capital. (Black, Jensen and Scholes, 1972)
Some theories of the Capital assets pricing model, have been applied in relation to heterogeneous beliefs (Merton, 1987) and risk free lending rate elimination (Black, 1972)
Summary
Ford Motor Group is a Gross Profit 7.9% in 2013 as opposed to 2012 when it decreased by 5% from the previous year. The GP for General Motors on the other hand increased by 70% in the year 2013 while in the year 2012 it decreased by 43%. The net profit for Ford for the same period increased 26% in 2013 while in 2012 it decreased by 72%. GM registered a 13.7 % reduction in 2013 while in 2012 it registered a further reduction of 32.7%. The total shareholder’s equity for Ford increased by 65.5% in 2013 while in 2012 it increased by 6%. General Motor’s shareholders equity increased by 17.6% in 2013 while in 2012 it decreased by 4.9%. In 2012 Ford Motor Group reduced its total liabilities by almost 70% while GM increased its total liabilities by 15.6% in 2013. The sales revenue for Ford increased by 10% in 2013 while GM sales for the same period increased by 2.1%. Ford total sales revenues increased from $133,559 million in 2012 to $146,917 million in 2013. GM sales for the same period were 152256 million and 155427 million from the same period respectively. The interest expenses for Ford increased by 16.3% in 2013 while in 2012 it had decreased by 12.7%, GM interest expense decreased by 31.7% in 2013 while in 2012 it decreased by 9.4%. (Bodie, Kane, Marcus, 2008)
The ratios for Ford also indicate that the liquidity ratios are above average for all the years for Ford Motor Group. The current ratios were 2.11, 2.32, 2.26 for the years 2013, 2012 and 2011. The quick ratios also indicated a positive trend. The Times interest earned for the year 2013 for ford were 9.45, 11.83 and 11.63 for the years 2013, 2012 and 2013. The interest cover for the same period indicated the same results like Times interest earned. (Drucker, 1999)
The ford Family owns 2% of the company while the employees number about 181,000. It has a market capitalization of $54.65 Billion and its shares are currently trading at $14.09 dollars with a yield of 3.5%. (Ross, Westerfield & Jaffe, 2013) The net assets turnover for Ford decreased by 2.5% in the year 2013 as compared to a 50% increase in the year 2012. GM registered a decrease of 13% in its net assets turnover in the year 2013 while in the year 2012 it experienced an increase of 6.5%. The dividend per share for Ford in 2013 and 2012 was 0.4 and 0.2 respectively. This represented a return of 22% to the shareholders in 2013 while in 2012 it was 23%.
Ford Motor Group has a great potential to return to great profitability and also be able to pay off all its outstanding debts. The Current ratios and the quick acid test ratios indicate that Ford Motor Group is has a stable liquidity and with the right leadership it would be able to make more profits like the earlier years. Given all these factors I would definitely invest my money in Ford Motor Group but I would be cautious besides I would also be requiring a plan on how the management of the company would be proposing to settle the huge loans that it owes several financiers. Ford may be earning some profits but it has a lot of debts that are four or five times its total equity. The classification of shares as common shares and also class B shares that have unequal voting rights is also some disquietedness among the shareholders.
Reference
Adams, S. (2008) Fundamentals of business economics. Financial Management (UK), 46–48. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.
Bierman, H. and Smidt. S. (1966).The Capital Budgeting Decision—Economic Analysis and Financing of Investment Projects. New York: Macmillan Company
Bodie, Z., Kane, A., Marcus, A. J. (2008). Investments (7th International Ed.) Boston: McGraw-Hill. p. 303.
Black, F., Jensen, M.C. and Scholes, M. (1972) “The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Some Empirical Tests,” in Studies in the Theory of Capital Markets. Michael C. Jensen, ed. New York: Praeger, pp. 79–121
Black, F. (1997) “Capital Market Equilibrium with Restricted Borrowing,” Journal of
Business. July, 45:3, pp. 444–55.
Drucker, F. (1999) Management Challenges of the 21st Century. New York: Harper Business.
Fama, E. F, French, K. R (2004). “The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Theory and Evidence”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 18 (3): 25–46.
financial problems and make effective business decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill.
French, C. W. (2003). “The Treynor Capital Asset Pricing Model” Journal of Investment Management 1 (2): 60–72.
Garrison, R., Noreen, W. & Brewer, P. (2009) Managerial Accounting, McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Higher Education.
Khan, M. (1993) Theory & Problems in Financial Management, Boston: McGraw Hill
Luenberger, D. (1997). Investment Science, Oxford University Press
Modigliani, F. and Miller, M. (1958) “The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance, and the Theory of Investment,” American Economic Review, June, 48:3, pp. 261–97.
Markowitz, H. (1959) Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversifications of Investments. Cowles FoundationMonograph No. 16. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Merton, R. (1997). “An Intertermporal Capital Asset Pricing Model.” Econometrica, September,
41, pp. 867–87.Merton, R.C. 1987.
Reilly, F. & Brown, K. (2011) Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management, (10th Edition) South-Western College
Ross, S. A., Westerfield, R. W., & Jaffe, J. (2013) Corporate finance (10th Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Vance, D. (2003) Financial analysis and decision making: tools and techniques to solve
www://corporate.ford.com/our-company/governance-hub/board-of-directors-801p
Appendix A
| Date | Shares | |||
| 2013 | Low | High | Average | % Trend |
| 1-Sep | 16.21 | 17.35 | 16.78 | |
| 8-Sep | 17.1 | 17.68 | 17.39 | 3.63528 |
| 15-Sep | 17.3 | 17.7 | 17.5 | 0.632547 |
| 22-Sep | 16.69 | 17.34 | 17.015 | -2.77143 |
| 6-Oct | 16.35 | 17.12 | 16.735 | -1.64561 |
| 13-Oct | 16.92 | 17.55 | 17.235 | 2.98775 |
| 20-Oct | 17.39 | 18.02 | 17.705 | 2.727009 |
| 27-Oct | 16.76 | 17.72 | 17.24 | -2.62638 |
| 4-Nov | 16.55 | 17.2 | 16.875 | -2.11717 |
| 11-Nov | 16.64 | 17.2 | 16.92 | 0.266667 |
| 18-Nov | 16.82 | 17.18 | 17 | 0.472813 |
| 2-Dec | 16.42 | 17.2 | 16.81 | -1.11765 |
| 9-Dec | 16.2 | 16.79 | 16.495 | -1.87388 |
| 16-Dec | 15.17 | 16.99 | 16.08 | -2.51591 |
| 23-Dec | 15.1 | 15.5 | 15.3 | -4.85075 |
| 30-Dec | 15.25 | 15.64 | 15.445 | 0.947712 |
| 2014 | ||||
| 6-Jan | 15.35 | 16.11 | 15.73 | 1.845257 |
| 13-Jan | 16.08 | 16.78 | 16.43 | 4.450095 |
| 20-Jan | 15.78 | 16.68 | 16.23 | -1.21729 |
| 27-Jan | 14.9 | 16.01 | 15.455 | -4.77511 |
| 3-Feb | 14.4 | 15.13 | 14.765 | -4.46457 |
| 10-Feb | 14.78 | 15.36 | 15.07 | 2.065696 |
| 24-Feb | 15.07 | 15.46 | 15.265 | 1.293962 |
| 3-Mar | 15.03 | 15.83 | 15.43 | 1.080904 |
| 16-Mar | 15.16 | 15.74 | 15.45 | 0.129618 |
| 30-Mar | 15.48 | 16.49 | 15.985 | 3.462783 |
| 6-Apr | 15.59 | 16.17 | 15.88 | -0.65687 |
| 20-Apr | 15.71 | 16.44 | 16.075 | 1.22796 |
| 27-Apr | 15.75 | 16.2 | 15.975 | -0.62208 |
| 4-May | 15.43 | 15.95 | 15.69 | -1.78404 |
| 11-May | 15.55 | 15.9 | 15.725 | 0.223072 |
| 25-May | 16.05 | 16.56 | 16.305 | 3.688394 |
| 8-Jun | 16.5 | 17.12 | 16.81 | 3.097209 |
| 15-Jun | 16.38 | 16.87 | 16.625 | -1.10054 |
| 22-Jun | 16.68 | 17.29 | 16.985 | 2.165414 |
| 29-Jun | 17.07 | 17.4 | 17.235 | 1.471887 |
| 6-Jul | 17.05 | 17.49 | 17.27 | 0.203075 |
| 20-Jul | 17.51 | 18.12 | 17.815 | 3.155761 |
| 27-Jul | 16.72 | 17.85 | 17.285 | -2.97502 |
| 3-Aug | 16.74 | 17.14 | 16.94 | -1.99595 |
| 10-Aug | 17.11 | 17.49 | 17.3 | 2.125148 |
| 17-Aug | 17.51 | 17.52 | 17.515 | 1.242775 |
| 24-Aug | 17.19 | 17.49 | 17.34 | -0.99914 |
| 31-Aug | 16.94 | 17.87 | 17.405 | 0.374856 |
| 7-Sep | 16.5 | 16.87 | 16.685 | -4.13674 |
| 14-Sep | 16.16 | 16.77 | 16.465 | -1.31855 |
| 28-Aug | 14.44 | 16.4 | 15.42 | -6.3468 |
| 5-Oct | 13.52 | 14.7 | 14.11 | -8.49546 |
| 12-Oct | 13.26 | 14.25 | 13.755 | -2.51595 |
| 19-Oct | 13.65 | 14.49 | 14.07 | 2.290076 |
| -15.6592 | ||||
| Trend | -0.31957 |
Appendix B
Appendix C
