IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0280384.html

Does the bankrupt cheat? Impact of accounting manipulations on the effectiveness of a bankruptcy prediction

Author

Listed:
  • Przemysław Mućko
  • Adam Adamczyk

Abstract

The aim of this article is to answer the question whether the unreliability of the Altman bankruptcy prediction model may be caused by manipulations in financial statements. Our study was carried out on a group of 369 bankrupt Polish companies, with the research period covering the years 2011–2020. In the study, we divided the companies into two groups: those correctly classified by Altman’s model as at risk of bankruptcy, and companies for which the model did not indicate a significant bankruptcy risk. Using a logit model, we tested whether the probability of companies being correctly classified as failed depends on the risk of a manipulation of financial statements. We use Benford’s law to measure the risk of a manipulation of financial statements. We also repeated our study using panel data models. Our analyses show that the manipulation of financial statements is not the cause of the inaccurate predictions of the Altman model. On the contrary, the results of the analyses indicate that manipulations occurs for companies with a lower Z-score and therefore a worse financial situation. This means that a deterioration in the quality of financial statements can be a signal of an increasing probability of bankruptcy.

Suggested Citation

  • Przemysław Mućko & Adam Adamczyk, 2023. "Does the bankrupt cheat? Impact of accounting manipulations on the effectiveness of a bankruptcy prediction," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(1), pages 1-13, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0280384
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0280384
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0280384&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0280384?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dan Amiram & Zahn Bozanic & James D. Cox & Quentin Dupont & Jonathan M. Karpoff & Richard Sloan, 2018. "Financial reporting fraud and other forms of misconduct: a multidisciplinary review of the literature," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 732-783, June.
    2. Jackson, Richard H.G. & Wood, Anthony, 2013. "The performance of insolvency prediction and credit risk models in the UK: A comparative study," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 183-202.
    3. Tam Cho, Wendy K. & Gaines, Brian J., 2007. "Breaking the (Benford) Law: Statistical Fraud Detection in Campaign Finance," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 61, pages 218-223, August.
    4. Beber, Bernd & Scacco, Alexandra, 2012. "What the Numbers Say: A Digit-Based Test for Election Fraud," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 211-234, April.
    5. Magali Costa & Inês Lisboa & Ana Gameiro, 2022. "Is the Financial Report Quality Important in the Default Prediction? SME Portuguese Construction Sector Evidence," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-24, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Montag, Josef, 2015. "Identifying Odometer Fraud: Evidence from the Used Car Market in the Czech Republic," MPRA Paper 65182, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Juraini Zainol Abidin & Nur Adiana Hiau Abdullah & Karren Lee-Hwei Khaw, 2020. "Predicting SMEs Failure: Logistic Regression vs Artificial Neural Network Models," Capital Markets Review, Malaysian Finance Association, vol. 28(2), pages 29-41.
    3. Pascale Lapointe-Antunes & Kevin Veenstra & Kareen Brown & Heather Li, 2022. "Welcome to the Gray Zone: Shades of Honesty and Earnings Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 125-149, April.
    4. Christopher Blattman & Horacio Larreguy & Benjamin Marx & Otis Reid, 2019. "Eat Widely, Vote Wisely ? Lessons from a Campaign Against Vote Buying in Uganda," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) hal-03608420, HAL.
    5. Ashton, John & Burnett, Tim & Diaz-Rainey, Ivan & Ormosi, Peter, 2021. "Known unknowns: How much financial misconduct is detected and deterred?," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    6. Eric Zitzewitz, 2012. "Forensic Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 50(3), pages 731-769, September.
    7. Dan Amiram & Serene Huang & Shiva Rajgopal, 2020. "Does financial reporting misconduct pay off even when discovered?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 811-854, September.
    8. Benjamin Crost & Joseph H Felter & Hani Mansour & Daniel I Rees, 0. "Narrow Incumbent Victories and Post-Election Conflict: Evidence from the Philippines," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 34(3), pages 767-789.
    9. Monica Ramos Montesdeoca & Agustín J. Sánchez Medina & Felix Blázquez Santana, 2019. "Research Topics in Accounting Fraud in the 21st Century: A State of the Art," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-31, March.
    10. Koenig, Christoph, "undated". "Competence vs. Loyalty: Political survival and electoral fraud in Russia’s regions 2000–2012," Economic Research Papers 270014, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    11. Dang, Canh Thien & Owens, Trudy, 2020. "Does transparency come at the cost of charitable services? Evidence from investigating British charities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 314-343.
    12. Casas, Agustín & Díaz, Guillermo & Trindade, André, 2017. "Who monitors the monitor? Effect of party observers on electoral outcomes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 136-149.
    13. Natalia Garbiras-Díaz & Mateo Montenegro, 2022. "All Eyes on Them: A Field Experiment on Citizen Oversight and Electoral Integrity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(8), pages 2631-2668, August.
    14. Li, Guowen & Wang, Shuai & Feng, Yuyao, 2024. "Making differences work: Financial fraud detection based on multi-subject perceptions," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    15. Edward J. Lusk & Michael Halperin, 2014. "Detecting Newcomb-Benford Digital Frequency Anomalies in the Audit Context: Suggested Chi2 Test Possibilities," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 3(2), pages 191-191, May.
    16. Christoph Koenig, 2024. "With a Little Help From the Crowd: Estimating Election Fraud with Forensic Methods," CEIS Research Paper 584, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 28 Oct 2024.
    17. Xiaomeng Chen & Meiting Lu & Yaowen Shan & Yizhou Zhang, 2023. "Securities class actions and conditional conservatism: Evidence from two legal events," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2441-2471, June.
    18. Kuvvet, Emre, 2022. "Robinhood investors and corporate misconduct," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    19. Grimmer, Justin & Holliday, Derek & Lelkes, Yphtach & Westwood, Sean, 2023. "Who are the Election Skeptics? Evidence from the 2022 Midterm Elections," OSF Preprints pe2zg, Center for Open Science.
    20. Yang, Yang & Zou, Mingyang, 2025. "Contagion of corporate misconduct in the supply chain: Evidence from customers and suppliers in China," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).

    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:plo:pone00:0280384. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.