Computational Management Science

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 81–97 | Cite as

A comparison of Bayesian, Hazard, and Mixed Logit model of bankruptcy prediction

  • Samir TrabelsiEmail author
  • Roc He
  • Lawrence He
  • Martin Kusy
Original Paper


The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the choice of cut-off points, sampling procedures, and business cycles on the forecasting accuracy of bankruptcy prediction models. A misclassification can result in an erroneous prediction resulting in prohibitive costs to firms, investors, and the economy. A salient feature of our study is that our analysis includes both parametric and nonparametric bankruptcy prediction models. A sample of firms from the Bankruptcy Research Database in the U.S. is used to evaluate the relative performance of the three most commonly used bankruptcy prediction models: Bayesian, Hazard, and Mixed Logit. Our results indicate that the choice of the cut-off point and sampling procedures affect the rankings of the three models. We show that the empirical cut-off point estimated from the training sample result in the lowest misclassification costs for all three models. When tests are conducted using randomly selected samples, and all specifications of type I costs over type II costs are taken into account, the Mixed Logit model performs slightly better than the Bayesian model and much better than the Hazard model. However, when tests are conducted across business-cycle samples, the Bayesian model has the best performance and much better predictive power in recent business cycles. This study extends recent research comparing the performance of bankruptcy prediction models by identifying under what conditions a model performs better. It also allays the concerns for a range of users groups, including auditors, shareholders, employees, suppliers, rating agencies, and creditors’ with respect to assessing corporate failure risk.


Business Cycle Abnormal Return Bayesian Model Bankruptcy Prediction Holdout Sample 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Altman EI, McGough TP (1974) Evaluation of a company as a going concern. J Acc 50–57Google Scholar
  2. Altman EI, Haldeman RG, Narayanan P (1977) ZETA analysis: a new model to identify bankruptcy risk of corporations. J Banking Finance 1:29–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaver WH, McNichols MF, Rhie J-W (2005) Have financial statements become less informatve? Evidence from the ability of financial ratios to predict bankruptcy. Rev Acc Stud 10:93–122Google Scholar
  4. Begley J, Ming J, Watts S (1996) Bankruptcy classification errors in the 1980s: an empirical analysis of Altman’s and Ohlson’s models. Rev Acc Stud 1:267–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellovary JL, Giacomino D, Akers M (2007) A review of bankruptcy prediction studies: 1930 to present. J Financ Educ Winter:33Google Scholar
  6. Grice JS, Dugan MT (2001) The limitations of bankruptcy prediction models: some cautions for the researcher. Rev Quant Finance Acc 17:151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. He Z (2007) Incorprating alpha uncertainty into portfolio decisions: a bayesian revisit of the Treynor-Black model. J Asset Manag 8(3)Google Scholar
  8. Hopwood WS, McKeown JC, Mutchler JP (1994) A reexamination of auditor versus mdel accuracy within the context of the going-concern opinion decision. Contemp Acc Res 10:409–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson, Wichern DW (2007) Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Pearson Education Inc., pp 575–649Google Scholar
  10. Jones S, Hensher DA (2004) Predicting firm financial distress: a mixed logit model. Acc Rev 79(4):1011–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Katz S, Lilien S, Nelson B (1985) Stock market behavior around bankruptcy model distress and recovery predictions. Financ Anal J 70–73Google Scholar
  12. Martin D (1977) Early warning of bank failure. J Banking Finance 1:249–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McKee TE (2003) Rough sets bankruptcy prediction models versus auditor signaling rates. J Forecast 22:569–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ohlson JA (1980) Financial ratios and the probabilistic prediction of bankruptcy. J Acc Res 18(1):109–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Platt HD, Platt MB (2002) Predicting corporate financial distress: reflections on choice-based sample bias. J Econ Finance 26(2):184–199Google Scholar
  16. Sarkar S, Sriram RS (2001) Bayesian models for early warning of bank failures. Manag Sci 47:1457–1475. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.47.11.1457.10253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shumway T (2001) Forecasting bankruptcy more accuratly: a simple hazard model. J Bus 74(1)Google Scholar
  18. Sun L, Shenoy PP (2007) Using Bayesian networks for bankruptcy prediction: some methodological issues. Eur J Oper Res 180(2):738–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tam KY (1991) Neural network models and the prediction of bank bankruptcy. OMEGA 19(5):429–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thomson JB (1991) Predicting bank failures in the 1980s. Econ Rev Fed Reserve Bank Clevel 27:9–20Google Scholar
  21. Weiss LA, Capkun V (2004) The impact of incorporating the cost of errors into bankruptcy prediction models (Working Paper)Google Scholar
  22. West RC (1985) A factor-analytic approach to bank condition. J Banking Finance 9:253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Whalen G, Thomson JB (1988) Using financial data to identify changes in bank condition. Econ Rev Fed Reserve Bank Clevel 24:17–26Google Scholar
  24. Wilson RL, Sharda R (1994) Bankruptcy prediction using neural networks. Decis Support Syst 11:545–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zmijewski ME (1984) Methodological issues related to the estimation of financial distress prediction models. J Acc Res 22:59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samir Trabelsi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roc He
    • 1
  • Lawrence He
    • 1
  • Martin Kusy
    • 1
  1. 1.Brock UniversitySt CatharinesCanada

Personalised recommendations