IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jof/jforec/v22y2003i8p569-586.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rough sets bankruptcy prediction models versus auditor signalling rates

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas E. McKee

    (Visiting Professor, Department of Accounting and Legal Studies, College of Charleston, SC, USA, on leave from Department of Accountancy, East Tennessee State University, USA)

Abstract

Both international and US auditing standards require auditors to evaluate the risk of bankruptcy when planning an audit and to modify their audit report if the bankruptcy risk remains high at the conclusion of the audit. Bankruptcy prediction is a problematic issue for auditors as the development of a cause-effect relationship between attributes that may cause or be related to bankruptcy and the actual occurrence of bankruptcy is difficult. Recent research indicates that auditors only signal bankruptcy in about 50% of the cases where companies subsequently declare bankruptcy. Rough sets theory is a new approach for dealing with the problem of apparent indiscernibility between objects in a set that has had a reported bankruptcy prediction accuracy ranging from 76% to 88% in two recent studies. These accuracy levels appear to be superior to auditor signalling rates, however, the two prior rough sets studies made no direct comparisons to auditor signalling rates and either employed small sample sizes or non-current data. This study advances research in this area by comparing rough set prediction capability with actual auditor signalling rates for a large sample of United States companies from the 1991 to 1997 time period. Prior bankruptcy prediction research was carefully reviewed to identify 11 possible predictive factors which had both significant theoretical support and were present in multiple studies. These factors were expressed as variables and data for 11 variables was then obtained for 146 bankrupt United States public companies during the years 1991-1997. This sample was then matched in terms of size and industry to 145 non-bankrupt companies from the same time period. The overall sample of 291 companies was divided into development and validation subsamples. Rough sets theory was then used to develop two different bankruptcy prediction models, each containing four variables from the 11 possible predictive variables. The rough sets theory based models achieved 61% and 68% classification accuracy on the validation sample using a progressive classification procedure involving three classification strategies. By comparison, auditors directly signalled going concern problems via opinion modifications for only 54% of the bankrupt companies. However, the auditor signalling rate for bankrupt companies increased to 66% when other opinion modifications related to going concern issues were included. In contrast with prior rough sets theory research which suggested that rough sets theory offered significant bankruptcy predictive improvements for auditors, the rough sets models developed in this research did not provide any significant comparative advantage with regard to prediction accuracy over the actual auditors' methodologies. The current research results should be fairly robust since this rough sets theory based research employed (1) a comparison of the rough sets model results to actual auditor decisions for the same companies, (2) recent data, (3) a relatively large sample size, (4) real world bankruptcy|non-bankruptcy frequencies to develop the variable classifications, and (5) a wide range of industries and company sizes. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas E. McKee, 2003. "Rough sets bankruptcy prediction models versus auditor signalling rates," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(8), pages 569-586.
  • Handle: RePEc:jof:jforec:v:22:y:2003:i:8:p:569-586
    DOI: 10.1002/for.875
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/for.875
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pawlak, Zdzisaw & Sowinski, Roman, 1994. "Rough set approach to multi-attribute decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 443-459, February.
    2. McKee, Thomas E. & Lensberg, Terje, 2002. "Genetic programming and rough sets: A hybrid approach to bankruptcy classification," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(2), pages 436-451, April.
    3. R. Slowinski & C. Zopounidis, 1995. "Application of the Rough Set Approach to Evaluation of Bankruptcy Risk," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(1), pages 27-41, March.
    4. Carcello, Jv & Palmrose, Zv, 1994. "Auditor Litigation And Modified Reporting On Bankrupt Clients," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32, pages 1-30.
    5. Pinches, George E & Mingo, Kent A & Caruthers, J Kent, 1973. "The Stability of Financial Patterns in Industrial Organizations," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 28(2), pages 389-396, May.
    6. Dimitras, A. I. & Slowinski, R. & Susmaga, R. & Zopounidis, C., 1999. "Business failure prediction using rough sets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 263-280, April.
    7. Marais, Ml & Patell, Jm & Wolfson, Ma, 1984. "The Experimental-Design Of Classification Models - An Application Of Recursive Partitioning And Bootstrapping To Commercial Bank Loan Classifications," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22, pages 87-114.
    8. Kar Yan Tam & Melody Y. Kiang, 1992. "Managerial Applications of Neural Networks: The Case of Bank Failure Predictions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(7), pages 926-947, July.
    9. Luoma, M & Laitinen, EK, 1991. "Survival analysis as a tool for company failure prediction," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 673-678.
    10. Beaver, Wh, 1966. "Financial Ratios As Predictors Of Failure," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4, pages 71-111.
    11. Edward I. Altman, 1968. "Financial Ratios, Discriminant Analysis And The Prediction Of Corporate Bankruptcy," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 23(4), pages 589-609, September.
    12. Nurmi, Hannu & Kacprzyk, Janusz & Fedrizzi, Mario, 1996. "Probabilistic, fuzzy and rough concepts in social choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 264-277, December.
    13. Ohlson, Ja, 1980. "Financial Ratios And The Probabilistic Prediction Of Bankruptcy," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 109-131.
    14. Zmijewski, Me, 1984. "Methodological Issues Related To The Estimation Of Financial Distress Prediction Models," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22, pages 59-82.
    15. Frydman, Halina & Altman, Edward I & Kao, Duen-Li, 1985. "Introducing Recursive Partitioning for Financial Classification: The Case of Financial Distress," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 40(1), pages 269-291, March.
    16. William F. Messier, Jr. & James V. Hansen, 1988. "Inducing Rules for Expert System Development: An Example Using Default and Bankruptcy Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(12), pages 1403-1415, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sun, Lili & Shenoy, Prakash P., 2007. "Using Bayesian networks for bankruptcy prediction: Some methodological issues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(2), pages 738-753, July.
    2. Hui Li & Jie Sun, 2010. "Forecasting business failure in China using case-based reasoning with hybrid case respresentation," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(5), pages 486-501.
    3. Pablo de Llano Monelos & Manuel Rodríguez López & Carlos Piñeiro Sánchez, 2013. "Bankruptcy Prediction Models in Galician companies. Application of Parametric Methodologies and Artificial Intelligence," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(1), pages 117-136.
    4. Araz Taeihagh, 2017. "Network-centric policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 317-338, June.
    5. Samir Trabelsi & Roc He & Lawrence He & Martin Kusy, 2015. "A comparison of Bayesian, Hazard, and Mixed Logit model of bankruptcy prediction," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 81-97, January.
    6. Kao-Yi Shen & Min-Ren Yan & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2017. "Exploring R&D Influences on Financial Performance for Business Sustainability Considering Dual Profitability Objectives," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(11), pages 1-21, October.
    7. Tomasz Korol, 2018. "The Implementation of Fuzzy Logic in Forecasting Financial Ratios," Contemporary Economics, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw., vol. 12(2), June.
    8. Ruey-Ching Hwang & K. F. Cheng & Jack C. Lee, 2007. "A semiparametric method for predicting bankruptcy," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(5), pages 317-342.
    9. Guan, Jian & Levitan, Alan S. & Kuhn, John R., 2013. "How AIS can progress along with ontology research in IS," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 21-38.
    10. Koen W. de Bock, 2017. "The best of two worlds: Balancing model strength and comprehensibility in business failure prediction using spline-rule ensembles," Post-Print hal-01588059, HAL.
    11. Sajad Abdipour & Ahmad Nasseri & Mojtaba Akbarpour & Hossein Parsian & Shahrzad Zamani, 2013. "Integrating Neural Network and Colonial Competitive Algorithm: A New Approach for Predicting Bankruptcy in Tehran Security Exchange," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 3(11), pages 1528-1539, November.
    12. Ravi Kumar, P. & Ravi, V., 2007. "Bankruptcy prediction in banks and firms via statistical and intelligent techniques - A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(1), pages 1-28, July.
    13. Leila Bateni & Farshid Asghari, 2020. "Bankruptcy Prediction Using Logit and Genetic Algorithm Models: A Comparative Analysis," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 55(1), pages 335-348, January.
    14. Nora Muñoz-Izquierdo & María-del-Mar Camacho-Miñano & María-Jesús Segovia-Vargas & David Pascual-Ezama, 2019. "Is the External Audit Report Useful for Bankruptcy Prediction? Evidence Using Artificial Intelligence," International Journal of Financial Studies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 7(2), pages 1-23, April.
    15. Bhimani, Alnoor & Gulamhussen, Mohamed Azzim & Lopes, Samuel, 2009. "The effectiveness of the auditor's going-concern evaluation as an external governance mechanism: Evidence from loan defaults," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 239-255, September.
    16. Kerstin Lopatta & Mario Albert Gloger & Reemda Jaeschke, 2017. "Can Language Predict Bankruptcy? The Explanatory Power of Tone in 10‐K Filings," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 315-343, December.
    17. Yu-Chiang Hu & Jake Ansell, 2009. "Retail default prediction by using sequential minimal optimization technique," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(8), pages 651-666.
    18. Taeihagh, Araz & Bañares-Alcántara, René & Givoni, Moshe, 2014. "A virtual environment for the formulation of policy packages," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 53-68.
    19. Josep Mª Argilés-Bosch & Josep García-Blandón & Diego Ravenda & Maika M. Valencia-Silva & Antonio D. Somoza, 2017. "The influence of the trade-off between profitability and future increases in sales on cost stickiness," Estudios de Economia, University of Chile, Department of Economics, vol. 44(1 Year 20), pages 81-104, June.
    20. Muñoz-Izquierdo, Nora & Segovia-Vargas, María Jesús & Camacho-Miñano, María-del-Mar & Pascual-Ezama, David, 2019. "Explaining the causes of business failure using audit report disclosures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 403-414.
    21. Li, Hui & Hong, Lu-Yao & He, Jia-Xun & Xu, Xuan-Guo & Sun, Jie, 2013. "Small sample-oriented case-based kernel predictive modeling and its economic forecasting applications under n-splits-k-times hold-out assessment," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 747-761.
    22. Antony Young & Yi Wang, 2010. "Multi-risk level examination of going concern modifications," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(8), pages 756-791, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jof:jforec:v:22:y:2003:i:8:p:569-586. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/2966 .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.