Minimizing the Costs of Using Models to Assess the Financial Health of Banks
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v5i11.889Keywords:
Artificial neural networks, banks, decision support, financial distress, modeling.Abstract
Identifying banks that are likely to experience financial distress in the future can be problematic for bank regulators and investors. Traditionally, bank examiners use a variety of methods, including traditional statistical modelling techniques, to categorize banks as financially healthy or financially distressed. Often, these statistical models are chosen based on overall model error rate. Unfortunately, these statistical models often misclassify banks. Our study compares the ability of multivariate discriminant analysis (MDA), logistic regression (logit) and three types of artificial neural networks (ANNs) to classify banks as financially healthy or financially distressed. We calculate overall error rates, Type I error rates and Type II error rates for all five models. Our results show that both MDA and logit have lower estimated overall error rates and Type II error rates that the three ANNs. However, the ANNs have lower Type I error rates than MDA and logit. We demonstrate that relying solely on overall misclassification error rates to choose a model to analyze the financial viability of banks will result in suboptimal model performance. We find that model performance is directly related to assumptions regarding the relative costs of Type I and Type II errors. Our results indicate that if it is assumed that Type I errors are more costly than Type II errors, then a categorical learning neural network minimizes the overall cost associated with assessing the financial condition of banks.
References
Altman, E., Haldeman, R., & Narayanan, P. (1977). ZETA analysis: New model to identify bankruptcy risk of corporations. Journal of Banking and Finance, 1(1), 29-54.
Ballini, R., Mendonça, A. R. R., & Gomide, F. (2009). Evolving fuzzy modelling in risk analysis. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 16(1/2), 71 – 86.
Bell, T. B. & Tabor, R. H. (1991). Empirical analysis of audit uncertainty qualifications. Journal of Accounting Research, 29(2), 350-371.
Cao, Q. & Parry, M. E. (2009). Neural network earnings per share forecasting models: A comparison of backward propagation and the genetic algorithm. Decision Support Systems, 47(1), 32 – 41.
Chen, K. C. W. & Church, B. K. (1992). Default on debt obligations and the issuance of going-concern opinions. Auditing, A Journal of Practice and Theory, 11(2), 30-49.
Coats, P. K. & Fant, L. F. (1993). Recognizing financial distress patterns using a neural network tool. Financial Management, 22(3), 143-154.
Etheridge, H. L. & Sriram, R. S. (1996). A neural network approach to financial distress analysis. Advances in Accounting Information Systems, 201-222.
Etheridge, H. L. & Sriram, R. S. (1997). A comparison of the relative costs of financial distress models: Artificial neural networks, logit and multivariate discriminant analysis. International Journal of Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 4(1), 235-248.
Etheridge, H. L., Sriram, R. S. & Hsu, K. H. Y. (2000). A comparison of selected artificial neural networks to help auditors evaluate client financial viability. Decision Sciences, 31(2), 531–550.
Frecka, T. J. & Hopwood, W. S. (1983). The effects of outliers on the cross-sectional distributional properties of financial ratios. The Accounting Review, 58 (1), 115-128.
Gaganis, C. (2009). Classification techniques for the identification of falsified financial statements: a comparative analysis. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 16(3), 207 – 230.
Jagtiani, J., Kolari, J., Lemieux, C., & Shin, H. (2003). Early warning models for bank supervision: Simpler could be better. Economic Perspectives: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 3rd Quarter, 49 – 60.
Jones, F. L. (1987). Current techniques in bankruptcy prediction. Journal of Accounting Literature, 6, 131-164.
Kida, T. (1984). The effect of causality and specificity on data use. Journal of Accounting Research, 22(1), 145-152.
Koh, H. C. (1992). The sensitivity of optimal cutoff points to misclassification costs of type I and type II errors in the going-concern prediction context. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 19 (2), 187-197.
Liang, T. P., Chandler, J. S., Han, I. & Roan, J. (1992). An empirical investigation of some data effects on the classification accuracy of probit, id3, and neural networks. Contemporary Accounting Research, 9 (1), 306-328.
Liou, F. M. (2008). Fraudulent financial reporting detection and business failure prediction models: a comparison. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23 (7), 650 – 662.
Mutchler, J. F. (1985). A multivariate analysis of the auditor's going concern opinion decision. Journal of Accounting Research, 23 (2), 668-682.
Odom, M. D. & Sharda, R. (1990). A neural network model for bankruptcy prediction. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks 2, 1-23.
Ohlson, J. (1980). Financial ratios and the probabilistic prediction of bankruptcy. Journal of Accounting Research, 18 (1), 109-131.
Pinches, G. E. & Trieschmann, J. S. (1977). Discriminant analysis, classification results and financially distressed property-liability insurers. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 44(2), 289-298.
Quek, C., Zhou, R. W. & Lee, C. H. (2009). A novel fuzzy neural approach to data reconstruction and failure prediction. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 16(1/2), 165 - 188.
Sinkey, J. F., Jr. (1975). A multivariate statistical analysis of the characteristics of problem banks. The Journal of Finance, 30(1), 21-36.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. (1992). FDIC Statistics on Banking. Washington, D.C.: Division of Research and Statistics.
Williams, R. J. (1985). Learning internal representatives by error propagation. Institute for Cognitive Science Report 8506. San Diego, CA: University of California, San Diego.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
