I am working in an Excel workbook where a monetary value is displayed. This amount is the difference between two constants, and represents a shortfall in a customer's payout, for which we need to compensate customers.
I need to work out the required compensation amount from this.
Customers are entitled to some compensation only if their shortfall > £1.00. We only compensate them up to that level (shortfall - £1). We have a minimum payment amount of £0.50.
So, to calculate the compensation required, I think I need to apply the following logic to the shortfall number :-
Shortfall is greater than £1
AND
Shortfall minus £1 is GREATER THAN than 50p
This is two steps and I think there is an easier, cleaner way.
I think this could be described as y = x - 1 > 0.5
I would have to use an AND function to do this, but I am sure there is a simpler way to describe this using one simpler function.
I have just completely unable to get my head around it though.
Can anyone help?
Shortfall is greater than £1 AND Shortfall minus £1 is GREATER THAN than 50p equates to shortfall must be greater than £1.50
Related
I am trying to use a circular reference with iterative calculations to find a specific number however my file will not display the number. I turn iterative calculations but it fluctuates wildly even though there is a definitive answer. I have included an image of my example.
In general, circular references are a result of an incorrect structure in formulas. Enabling iterative calculations is not a solution to this problem. They are only intended in situations where repeatedly performing a calculation will lead to stable result.
(An example of useful iterative calculations is field analysis. You can define values around the edge of a field of any shape. In the interior, the value of every point is the average of all the points around it. After several thousand iterations, everything will stabilise to an evenly distributed field.)
In your situation, iterative calculations does not lead to a stable result. When Ending Cash is -300, the Cash Deposit is set to 300. But then the Ending Cash is 0, so the Cash Deposit is set to 0. But then the End Cash is -300, so the Cash Deposit is set to 300, ad finitum.
The calculation of how much Cash Deposit is required to ensure the End Cash is greater than or equal to 0 can't be based on the End Cash or the Total Deposit, as it will keep contradicting itself as to whether or not a Cash Deposit is required.
Instead, the calculation of how much Cash Deposit is required must look at all other deposits excluding itself and compare that to the total withdrawls. (By not referring to the Total Deposits or End Cash, there is no circular reference). It can be set up as:
=IF(B2+B5<B14,B14-(B2+B5),0)
It adds together all other Deposits excluding itself and compares that to the Total Withdrawals to determine whether any additional deposit is required. If an additional deposit is required, it then subtracts all other Deposits from the Total Withdrawals to find out how much it needs to be.
A more elegant way of writing such a formula is:
=MAX(B14-B5-B2,0)
This simply subtracts all deposits from the total withdrawal, and returns the difference if it is needed when it is positive (more withdrawals), or returns 0 if it is not needed when the difference is negative (more deposits).
This is a little bit complicated to describe, but I will try my best. I have a total, let's say 1000. Then I want to split it by percentages, position count is all the time different. So there can be 3 or 70 or 130 positions or whatever. Then split sum should correspond to target value.
Here is an example of the case:
I input names under Customer request
I enter percentage for position under Percentage
In amount calculation I use =CEILING($C$5*C10;10) and in all the rest of the cells the same to get numbers look nice. It is working fine but he problem is that now totals does not match. It should end up in 15550 but after calculating totals after split it is 15660.
Is there any ideas what kind of master artificial intelligent formula can do the trick to produce nice looking numbers, taking in consideration to match Total (target) in the end if Total (calculated) percentage is 100%?
P.S. Any ideas are welcomed as well. The target is to have nice looking, rounded numbers that will sum in the same number as target - total.
Since you are using CEILING, your output number (e.g. 15660) is guaranteed to be greater than or equal to your input number (e.g. 15550). This is because any time a "perfect match" isn't found, it rounds up.
My first suggestion is to instead use ROUND instead of CEILING. Right off the bat this will perform better than CEILING because ROUND can round up or down but CEILING can only round up.
E.g. try this:
= ROUND($C$5*C10,-1)
Since you provide no details as to "how" the data needs to be adjusted to meet your input value, I can't really provide any automatic solution.
One manual solution is that you can make a new column which indicates whether the data was rounded up or rounded down, and you can adjust the percentages manually to get the data you're looking for.
Here's a formula to tell you if the data is rounded up or down (e.g. put formula in cell E10 and drag down):
= CHOOSE(SIGN(D10-($C$5*C10))+2,"Round Down","Perfect Match","Round Up")
You can use this information to manually tweak your percentages. For example... if your output value is too high, you can slightly decrease some of the higher percentages that "Round Up" and slightly increase some of the lower percentages (e.g. if you have 10% and 3%, maybe change them to 10.1% and 2.9% to see if that makes a difference.)
I'm trying understand how NPER works. I used the following arguments:
loan amount: 145750
APR : 0.04
monthly payments : 9950/12
called the NPER with the following to obtain the number of periods in years :
=nper(0,04/12;9950/12;145750;0;1)/12
and it returned -11,51. This cannot be correct since 11,51 * 9950 = 114524,5 which is less than the original loan amount.
What has gone wrong?
NPER is effectively performing a balancing act, say borrowing a lump sum now and repaying it in relatively small installments for 'years' to come - or investing a capital amount now in exchange for a series of relatively small returns for 'years' to come. Either way money goes out and money comes in. =NPR sets the one-off (large) element against the stream of (small) elements and allows for the time value of money.
For this to work, the convention is that what goes out is negative and what comes in is positive, though does work either way around.
However, the two must be of opposite sign.
I'm looking to compute and show individual row totals and a Grand Total. I just need the formulae to put in the boxes so the calculation is automatic but the problem is the calculations are a little complicated...
I'm using data validation to select the day type. This is what I think I need:
Assign a price to the day type (either Standard day = £23 or Extended day = £26).
Apply a volume discount where appropriate. If Jack is attending all week (5 days) and the day type is the same for all (all Standard or all Extended), the total cost is £100 (or £120)
Else the total number of days needs to be added up for Jack. (Number of days for each ‘day type’) and priced up.
For his siblings after the first, as above but apply an additional discount of 15%.
The grand total then needs to show at the bottom.
Well, it is not the best of data layouts but this may serve, in L6 and copied down to L13:
=IF(OR(A6="Brother",A6="Sister"),0.85* IF(COUNTIF(B6:F6,"Standard day")=5,100,IF(COUNTIF(B6:F6,"Extended day")=5,120,COUNTIF(B6:F6,"Standard day")*23+COUNTIF(B6:F6,"Extended day")*26)), IF(COUNTIF(B6:F6,"Standard day")=5,100,IF(COUNTIF(B6:F6,"Extended day")=5,120,COUNTIF(B6:F6,"Standard day")*23+COUNTIF(B6:F6,"Extended day")*26)))
and =SUM(L1:L16) in D16.
It would be better practice not to hard code the daily rates/discount, but extracting these from C1:D2 would have increased the length of the formula further.
Note also the result is not £429.95 (you may have changed your example after doing your calculations).
I have a data matrix depicting the number of telephone calls from one telephone to another, all calls are unidirectional. The rows represent days and the columns represent hours. The data is not a sample - it is the full population. Rows are days of the week and columns are one hour blocks of a 24 hour clock. Values in the cells represent the number of telephone calls from telephone A to telephone B for that specific hour.
I would like to have a repeatable measure that enables me to tell my audience that the likelihood of this distribution occurring randomly is <x.
I'd like the formula for Excel 2007 or, as a last resort, VBA code.
I've searched and found answers that tell me how to statistically determine the significance of differences between two different data sets but not how to measure for just one data set against a random outcome.
Thanx in advance.
If the total number of calls in a given hour is T, and the total calling population is P; then the number of calls from A to B should be about T/P if "random". To test whether this is really the case you'd use the Chi-squared test. I'm afraid I don't have time to give you the full answer - but it'd be the testvalue=sum((observed_i/P - (T/P))^2/(T/P)) where you check the testvalue against the chi-squared table, and you can pick off the probability too. Excel can calculate these values. Refer Chi-Squared Test for more details.