Rough sets bankruptcy prediction models versus auditor signalling rates

Journal of Forecasting - Tập 22 Số 8 - Trang 569-586 - 2003
Thomas E. McKee1
1Visiting Professor, Department of Accounting and Legal Studies, College of Charleston, SC, USA, on leave from Department of Accountancy, East Tennessee State University, USA

Tóm tắt

AbstractBoth 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.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Altman EI, 1968, Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy, Journal of Finance, 589, 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1968.tb00843.x

Altman EI, 1982, Accounting implications of failure prediction models, Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance, 6, 4

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.1997.Statements on Auditing Standards: Section 341—The Auditor's Consideration of an Entity's Ability to Continue As A Going Concern.Price Waterhouse Researcher 2.1 December.

Asare SK, 1990, The auditor's going‐concern decision: a review and implications for future research, Journal of Accounting Literature, 9, 39

Bahnson PR, 1992, The sensitivity of failure prediction models to alternative definitions of failure, Advances In Accounting, 10, 255

10.2307/2490171

BellTB RibarGS VerchioJ.1990. Neural nets versus logistic regression: a comparison of each model's ability to predict commercial bank failures.Proceedings of the 1990 Deloitte & Touche/University of Kansas Symposium on Auditing Problems 29–54.

BoritzE.1991.The Going Concern Assumption: Accounting and Auditing Implications.CICA Research Report CICA Toronto.

Bujaki ML, 1997, A citation trail review of the uses of firm size in accounting research, Journal of Accounting Literature, 16, 1

10.2307/2491436

10.1177/0148558X9501000201

10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00255-0

Disclosure Inc.1990.Compact Disclosure.

10.1007/978-94-015-7975-9_14

10.1002/j.1873-5924.1991.tb00543.x

10.1111/j.1540-6261.1985.tb04949.x

10.1007/978-1-4615-5495-0_8

Grzymala‐BusseJ.1988. Knowledge acquisition under uncertainty—a rough set approach.Journal of Intelligent Robotic Systems3–16.

10.1016/0957-4174(91)90094-U

Hill NT, 1996, Evaluating firms in financial distress: an event history analysis, Journal of Applied Business Research, 12, 60, 10.19030/jabr.v12i3.5804

Hopwood W, 1989, A test of the incremental explanatory power of opinions qualified for consistency and uncertainty, The Accounting Review, 66, 28

10.1111/j.1911-3846.1994.tb00400.x

International Federation of Accountants.1997.International Standards On Auditing: Section 570—Going Concern. Price Waterhouse Researcher 2.1 December.

10.1080/00014788.1991.9729848

10.1080/00014788.1999.9729581

10.1016/S0378-4266(86)80003-6

10.1080/07421222.1998.11518192

Lindsay DH, 1996, A chaos approach to bankruptcy prediction, Journal of Applied Business Research, 12, 1, 10.19030/jabr.v12i4.5779

Little P, 1991, Subsequent events for companies receiving going concern audit opinions, Southern Business Review, 17, 22

10.2307/2491325

10.1016/0305-0483(91)90015-L

10.2307/2490861

McKee TE, 1986, Why can't accountants deal with uncertainty about enterprise continuity?, Management Accounting, 24

McKee TE, 1998, Collected Papers of the Seventh Annual Research Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies in Accounting, Auditing and Tax

10.1002/1099-1174(200009)9:3<159::AID-ISAF184>3.0.CO;2-C

10.1002/(SICI)1099-131X(200004)19:3<219::AID-FOR752>3.0.CO;2-J

McKeeTE LensbergT.1999. Using a genetic algorithm to obtain a causally ordered model for a rough sets derived bankruptcy prediction model.The International Symposium on Audit Research University of Southern California.

10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00130-8

10.1287/mnsc.34.12.1403

MienkoR SlowinskiR StefanowskiJ.1995.Rule Classifier Based on Valued Closeness Relation: ROUGHCLASS Version 2.0. Pozan University of Technology Research Report RA‐95/002 Pozan Poland.

10.2307/2490832

Nogler GE, 1995, The resolution of auditor going concern opinions, Auditing: A Journal of Theory & Practice, 14, 54

10.1016/0377-2217(95)00295-2

10.2307/2490395

10.1007/BF01001956

10.1016/S0020-7373(84)80022-X

10.1007/978-94-011-3534-4

10.1016/0377-2217(94)90415-4

10.1145/219717.219791

10.1111/j.1540-6261.1973.tb01782.x

Raghunandan K, 1995, Audit reports for companies in financial distress: before and after SAS No. 59, Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 14, 50

Schwartz KB, 1985, Auditor switches by failing firms, The Accounting Review, 248

Siegel PH, 1995, Applications Of Fuzzy Sets and The Theory Of Evidence To Accounting

10.1007/3-540-56804-2_60

Slowinski R, 1995, Rough set approach to decision analysis, AI Expert, 19

10.1007/978-3-642-51175-2_56

SlowinskiR StefanowskiJ.1994b.RoughDas: Rough Set Based Data Analysis System‐Version 2.0—User's Guide Book.Pozan Poland.

10.1002/j.1099-1174.1995.tb00078.x

Spiceland JD, 1995, Applications Of Fuzzy Sets And The Theory Of Evidence To Accounting

10.1287/mnsc.38.7.926

WallinJ SundgrenS.1995. Using linear programming to predict business failure: an empirical study.http://www.nan.shh.fi/NAN/Papers/jwssma95.htm.

Wilkins MS, 1997, Technical default, auditors' decisions and future financial distress, Accounting Horizons, 11, 40

10.2307/2490859

10.1007/978-1-4757-2885-9

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Forecasting

Tập 22 Số 8

569-586

Thông tin tác giả