UTILIZAREA INDICATORILOR FINANCIARI PENTRU A
IDENTIFICA FIRMELE ROMANESTI CU DIFICULTATI
USING FINANCIAL RATIOS TO IDENTIFY ROMANIAN
DISTRESSED COMPANIES
Madalina Ecaterina ANDREICA, PhD Student, ASE, madalina.andreica@gmail.com
Mugurel Ionut ANDREICA, PhD Student, U.P.B., mugurelionut@gmail.com
Marin ANDREICA, PhD, ASE Bucharest, marinandreica@yahoo.com

Rezumat
In contextual actualei crize financiare, cand din ce in ce mai multe firme se
confrunta cu situatii de faliment sau de insolvabilitate, lucrarea isi propune sa gaseasca
metode pentru a identifica pe baza indicatorilor financiari, firmele aflate in dificultate.
Studiul se va axa pe identificarea unui grup de de companii romanesti listate la bursa,
pentru care au fost disponibile date financiare pentru anul 2008. Pentru fiecare societate s-a
calculat un set de 14 indicatori financiari, ce a fost apoi utilizat intr-o analiza a
componentelor principale, urmata de o analiza cluster, intr-un model logit, precum si intrun model de arbori de clasificare de tip CHAID.
Cuvinte cheie: firme cu dificultati, indicatori financiari, cluster, CHAID, modelul logit
Abstract
In the context of the current financial crisis, when more companies are facing
bankruptcy or insolvency, the paper aims to find methods to identify distressed firms by
using financial ratios. The study will focus on identifying a group of Romanian listed
companies, for which financial data for the year 2008 were available. For each company a
set of 14 financial indicators was calculated and then used in a principal component
analysis, followed by a cluster analysis, a logit model, and a CHAID classification tree.
Keywords: distress company, financial ratio, cluster, CHAID, logit model

1. INTRODUCTION
The financial crisis has already thrown many financially strong companies out of
business all over the world. All this happened because they were not able to face the
challenges and the unexpected changes in the economy. In Romania, for example, a study
made by Coface Romania and based on the data provided by the National Trade Register
Office, stated that around 14.483 companies were forced into bankruptcy by the end of the
year 2008 or became financially distressed when they were not able to pay their financial
obligations due to inadequate cash flows.
Looking at the above situation, we realise how important it is to understand the
reasons behind the collapse of a company. Knowing these reasons might hinder a company
from being financially distress and early actions could be taken as a precaution.
The study of this paper will focus on identifying a group of distressed and nondistressed Romanian listed companies in 2008, for which data were available, and then to
predict financial distressed companies by using the Logistic model. For each company a
set of 14 financial ratios were calculated and then used in the process of identifying and

1

predicting the distressed companies. The study also includes a principal component
analysis, in order to better estimate the importance of each financial ratio included in the
study, as well as several methods of classification such as a cluster analysis and the
CHAID classification tree method.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The first step in the evolution of the quantitative firm failure prediction model was
taken by Beaver (1966), who developed a dichotomous classification test based on a simple
t-test in a univariate framework. He used individual financial ratios from 79 failed and nonfailed companies that were matched by industry and assets size in 1954 to 1964 and
identified a single financial ratio – Cash flow/ Total Debt as the best predictor of corporate
bankruptcy.
Beaver’s study was then followed by Altman (1968), who suggested a
Multivariate Discriminant Analysis (MDA). By utilizing 33 bankrupt companies and 33
non-bankrupt companies over the period 1946 – 1964, five variables were selected most
relevant in predicting bankruptcy. These were Working Capital to Total Assets, Retained
Earnings to Total Assets, Earnings before Interest and Taxes to Total Assets, Market Value
of Equity to Book Value of Total Debt and Sales to Total Assets. The MDA model was able
to provide a high predictive accuracy of 95% one year prior to failure. For this reason,
MDA model had been used extensively by researchers in bankruptcy research (Altman,
Haldeman and Narayanan, 1977; Apetiti, 1984; Izan, 1984, Micha, 1984; Shirata, 1998;
Ganesalingam and Kumar, 2001).
However, Eisenbeis (1977), Ohlson (1980) and Jones (1987) found that there were
some inadequacies in MDA with respect to the assumptions of normality and group
dispersion. The assumptions were often violated in MDA and this may biased the test of
significance and estimated error rates.
Logit analysis which did not have the same assumptions as MDA was made
popular by Ohlson (1980). He used 105 bankrupt companies and 2058 non-bankrupt
companies from 1970 to 1976. The results showed that size, financial structure (Total
Liabilities to Total Assets), performance and current liquidity were important determinants
of bankruptcy. In the logit analysis, average data is normally used and it is considered as a
single period model. Hence, for each non-distressed and distressed company, there is only
one company-year observation. The dependent variable is categorized into one of two
categories that is distressed or non-distressed.
In 2004, two econometric problems with the single period logit model were
discussed. (Hillegeist, 2004). First, is the sample selection bias that arises from using only
one, non-randomly selected observation for each bankrupt company, and second, the model
fails to include time varying changes to reflect the underlying risk of bankruptcy. This will
induce crosssectional dependence in the data. Shumway (2001) demonstrated that these
problems could result in biased, inefficient, and inconsistent coefficient estimates. To
overcome these econometric problems, Shumway (2001) predicted bankruptcy using the
hazard model and found that it was superior to the logit and the MDA models. This
particular model is actually a multi-period logit model because the likelihood functions of
the two models are identical. For this reason, the discrete-time hazard model with timevarying covariates can be estimated by using the existing computer packages for the
analysis of binary dependent variables. The main particularities of the hazard model consist
in the facts that firm specific covariates must be allowed to vary with time for the estimator
to be more efficient and a baseline hazard function is also required, but which can be

2

estimated directly with macroeconomic variables to reflect the radical changes in the
environment.
In recent years many types of heuristic algorithms such as neural networks and
decision trees have also been applied to the bankruptcy prediction problem and several
improvements in the financial distress prediction were noticed. Research studies on ANN
for bankruptcy prediction started in 1990 like Bell et al.(1990), Tam and
Kiang(1992),Wilson et al,(1992), Coats and Fant (1993),Udo(1993), Fletcher and Goss
(1993), Altman et al.(1994), Boritz and Kennedy (1995), Back et al.(1996), Etheridge and
Sriram (1997), Yang et al.(1999), Fan and Palaniswami(2000), Atiya(2001) used to forecast
financial distress for bank and other business, and are still active now. Neural networks are
non-linear architectures, so that they are able to discriminate patterns which are not linearly
separable and do not require data to follow any specific probability distribution. Neural
Networks have been discovered to be better classifiers than discriminant analysis methods
in a number of works based on financial data from American firms (Odom and Sharda
1990; Tam and Kiang 1990,1992; Coats and Fant, 1993; Wilson and Sharda 1994).
The main disadvantage of neural network models, however, consists in the
difficulty of building up a neural network model, the required time to accomplish iterative
process and the difficulty of model interpretation. Compared to neural networks, decision
tree is not only a non-linear architecture, which is able to discriminate patterns that are not
linearly separable and allow data to follow any specific probability distribution, but also
plain to interpret its results, require little preparation of the initial data and perform well
with large data in a short time.
Zheng and Yanhui (2007) used decision tree methodologies for corporate
financial distress prediction in their study. The authors presented the advantages of using
CHAID decision trees in comparison to a neural network model, which is complicated to
build up and to interpret or to a statistic model such as multivariate discriminate regression
and logistic regression, where the patterns need to be linearly separable and samples are
assumed to follow a multivariate normal distribution. Their study focused on 48 failed and
continuing Chinese listed companies in the period 2003 – 2005. The following variables
embodied most information for predicting financial distress: Net Cash Flow from
Operating Activity as a percentage of Current Liabilities, Return Rate on Total Assets,
Growth rate of Total Assets and Rate on Accounts Receivable Turnover. They also noticed
that it is not appropriate to use financial information to predict financial distress ahead of
four years. However, the results supported by the test study showed that decision trees was
a valid model to predict listed firms’ financial distress in China, with a 80% probability of
correct prediction.

3. RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1. Data description
For this study, financial information for the year 2008 was collected for a total
sample of 55 Romanian listed companies, from the Bucharest Stock Exchange. The
companies were divided into two categories, namely “healthy” and “unhealthy” companies,
also called non-distressed and distressed companies. Since there is no standard definition
for a “distressed” company, we considered a company to be “unhealthy” in case it had
losses for at least two consecutive years or in case it had unpaid taxes or any other debts for
at least two consecutive years. In the sample there were 8 companies with losses for at least
two years and 4 companies with unpaid taxes for at least two years. However, there were

3

also 6 companies with losses for the year 2008, which were also included in the
“unhealthy” category, since this can also be considered a weaker but still possible sign of
distress in an uncertainty situation. To summarize, from the total sample of 55 companies,
18 were classified as “distressed” and 37 as “non-distressed”.

3.2. Financial ratios
The selection of the main set of financial ratios was mainly based on the previous
results presented in the related work, but also restricted to the financial data provided by the
Bucharest Stock Exchange. There were 14 financial ratios used in this study, which are
presented in the table below. They were grouped into 5 distinct categories, based on issues
such as profitability, solvency, asset utilization, growth ability and company size.
Category

Profitability

Solvency
Asset
utilization

Growth
ability
Size

Code

Financial ratios

I1
I2

Profit Margin
Return on Assets

I3
I4

Return on Equity
Profit per employee

I5

I10
I11

Operating Revenue per
employee
Current ratio
Debts on Equity
Debts on Total Assets
Working
capital
per
employee
Total Assets per employee
Growth rate on net profit

I12

Growth rate on total assets

I13
I14

Turnover growth
Company size

I6
I7
I8
I9

Definition
Net Profit or Loss / Turnover *100
Net Profit or Loss / Total Assets
*100
Net Profit or Loss / Equity *100
Net Profit or Loss / number of
employees
Operating revenue / number of
employees
Current assets / Current liabilities
Total Debts / Equity *100
Total Debts / Total Assets *100
Working capital / number of
employees
Total Assets / number employees
(Net P/ L1 - Net P/L0) / Net P/L0
(Total Assets1 – Total Assets0) /
Total Assets0
(Turnover1- Turnover0) / Turnover0
ln (Total Assets)

3.3. Models and methodologies
3.3.1. Principal component analysis
Principal component analysis (PCA) is a way of identifying patterns in data, and
expressing the data in such a way as to highlight their similarities and differences. Since
patterns in data can be hard to find in data of high dimension, where graphical
representation is not available, PCA is a powerful tool for analysing data. The other main
advantage of PCA is that once you have found these patterns in the data, and you compress
the data by reducing the number of dimensions, without much loss of information. By
dimensionality reduction in a data set only those characteristics of the data set that

4

contribute most to its variance are kept. PCA offers a convenient way to control the tradeoff between loosing information and simplifying the problem by reducing the dimension of
the representation.
3.3.2. Cluster analysis
Cluster analysis or clustering is the assignment of a set of observations into
subsets (called clusters) so that observations in the same cluster are similar in some sense.
Clustering is a method of unsupervised learning and a common technique for statistical data
analysis used in many fields. Hierarchical cluster analysis contains agglomerative methods
and divisive methods that finds clusters of observations within a data set. The divisive
methods start with all of the observations in one cluster and then proceeds to split
(partition) them into smaller clusters. The agglomerative methods begin with each
observation being considered as separate clusters and then proceeds to combine them until
all observations belong to one cluster.
In practice, the agglomerative methods are of wider use. On each step, the pair of
clusters with smallest cluster-to-cluster distance is fused into a single cluster. The most
common algorithms for hierarchical clustering are: the nearest neighbour (or the single
linkage clustering, where the distance between two clusters is computed as the minimal
object-to-object distance), the farthest neighbor method (or the complete linkage clustering,
where the distance between two clusters is computed as the maximal object-to-object
distance), the average linkage clustering, where the distance between two clusters is
computed as the average distance between objects from the first cluster and objects from
the second cluster, the average group linkage, where the distance between two clusters is
computed as the distance between the average values also known as centroids and the
Ward’s linkage, where the distance between two clusters is computed as the increase in the
"error sum of squares" (ESS) after fusing two clusters into a single cluster. The outcome is
represented graphically as a dendogram.

3.3.3. CHAID
Chi-square automatic interaction detection (CHAID) was originally designed to
handle categorical attributes only. For each input attribute, CHAID finds the pair of values
that is least significantly different with respect to the target attribute. The significant
different is measured by the p-value obtained from a statistical test. The statistical test used
depends on the type of the target attribute. If the target attribute is continuous, an F-test is
used, if it is categorical, then a Pearson chi-square test is used, if it is ordered, then a
likelihood-ratio test is used. For each selected pair, CHAID checks if p-value obtained is
greater than a certain merge threshold. If the answer is positive, it merges the values and
searches for an additional potential. The advantage of a CHAID classification tree is that it
generates classification rules for the analyzed sample.

3.3.4.

The Logistic Model

The logistic model is a conditional probability model that uses maximum
likelihood estimation to provide the conditional probability of a firm belonging to a certain
group given the values of the independent variables for that firm. It is a single-period
classification model (Shumway, 2001) decribed by the function:

5

P ( yi = 1) =

1
1 + e − xi β

An important issue in using binary state prediction models such as logit analysis is
the selection of the cutoff probability which determines the classification accuracy. In order
to classify an observation into one of the two groups, the estimated probability from the
logit model is compared to a pre-determined cutoff probability. If the estimated probability
is below the cutoff, the observation is classified as an inferior performer and if the
estimated probability is above the cutoff, it is placed in the superior performer group.

4. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The analysis was made for the sample of 55 Romanian listed companies, by using
only the financial data of the year 2008. The analysis consisted in applying a principal
component analysis followed by a hierarchical cluster analysis, a CHAID decision tree
model and a logistic model in order to classify the “healthy” and “unhealthy” Romanian
listed companies as well as to identify the most significant financial ratio that contribute
most to financial distress prediction.
PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS:
We used SPSS 13.0 software for the set of data containing 14 financial ratios for
all 55 Romanian listed companies, out of which 37 were “healthy” and 18 “unhealthy”. The
correlation matrix indicated some strong correlations between the next financial ratios: I1
and I2 (86%), I5 and I10 (81.8%), I2 and I4 (81.7%), I1 and I4 (77.5%) and I1 and I6
(75%). In order to reduce the dimension of the initial set of data and also to identify which
variables should be kept in order to loose as little information as possible, we applied the
principal component analysis. After several tests and after excluding one by one several
financial ratios that were most correlated between each other, we reached just two principal
components with a total gain of information of 75%. The results are presented below and
indicate that the first principal component is best explained by I1, I2, I4, I6 and I12, while
the second component is explained by I3 and I7. We can say that first component
represents the profitability and growth element, while the second principal component is a
Debts and Equity element.

Rotated Component Matrix

a

Component Score Coefficient Matrix

Component

Component

1

2

I1

,938

,118

I1

,268

-,027

I2

,891

,247

I2

,240

,060

I3

,513

,802

I3

,066

,455

I4

,838

,257

I4

,223

,072

I6

-,763

,128

I6

-,243

,165

I12

,542

-,098

I12

,173

-,122

I7

,210

-,929

I7

,165

-,616

CLUSTER ANALYSIS

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
RotationMethod:
Varimax
with
Kaiser
Normalization
a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations

1

2

6

Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.

After identifying the most relevant financial ratios that describe the two principal
components, ( I1, I2, I3, I4, I6, I7 and I12 ) we applied a hierarchical cluster analysis by
using the Nearest Neighbour Method in order to classify the Romanian companies in two
distinct clusters. It resulted a classification extremely close to the initial classification of the
listed firms into “healthy” and “unhealthy” companies. Only 3 companies were missclassified as “healthy”. As a conclusion we can say that when using the Profit Margin,
ROA, ROE, Profit per employee, Current Ratio, Debts on Equity and Growth rate on Total
Assets variables in a cluster analysis we can reach a quite good classification of the
“healthy” and “unhealthy” companies.
CHAID CLASSIFICATION TREE
We studied the case when using all 14 financial ratios for all the 55 listed companies, out of
which I1 (Profit Margin), I2 (ROA) and I13 (Turnover growth) turned out to be most
significant in the financial distress prediction problem. The following classification rules
resulted: if I1< 0.04 then
If I2 < 0.03 => “unhealthy”
Else if I2> 0.03 => “healthy”
Else if I1> 0.04 then
If I13 < 44.17 => “healthy”
Else if I13> 44.17 => “unhealthy”
The decision tree is presented below:

7

THE LOGISTIC MODEL
Several different models were estimated by experimentation using EViews 5.0 and
having as criteria for selecting the final variable set: the high significance of the variables
for the model, the correct sign of the coefficient in the model and a high level of prediction
accuracy for the training sample. Out of the backward looking method, the following valid
model resulted, in which the most significant financial ratios for distress prediction are I1
(Profit Margin) and I7 (Debts on Equity):
Tip_firma= f( I1, I7)
Dependent Variable: TIP_FIRMA
Method: ML - Binary Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)
Sample: 1 55
Included observations: 55
Convergence achieved after 10 iterations
Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives
Variable

Coefficient Std. Error

z-Statistic

Prob.

I1
I7
C

-0.828685 0.311621
0.007475 0.004436
-1.539466 0.763775

-2.659270
1.685006
-2.015601

0.0078
0.0920
0.0438

Mean dependent var
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
Restr. log likelihood
LR statistic (2 df)
Probability(LR stat)

0.327273
0.219904
2.514605
-9.435804
-34.77267
50.67373
9.92E-12

S.D. dependent var
Akaike info criterion
Schwarz criterion
Hannan-Quinn criter.
Avg. log likelihood
McFadden R-squared

0.473542
0.452211
0.561702
0.494552
-0.171560
0.728643

Obs with Dep=0
Obs with Dep=1

37
18

Total obs

55

5. CONCLUSIONS
In order to identify the “healthy” and “unhealthy” Romanian listed companies for
the year 2008 we applied several models and methodologies, such as the principal
component analysis, a hierarchical cluster, CHAID decision tree model and the logit model.
All models classified the listed companies quite good and provided relevant information of
the financial ratios that better predict financial distress. The PCA and cluster analysis
indicated the following variables: the Profit Margin, ROA, ROE, Profit per employee,
Current Ratio, Debts on Equity and Growth rate on Total Assets, the CHAID decision tree
model indicated Profit Margin, ROA and Turnover growth, while the logit model indicated
Profit Margin and Debts on Equity.

8

6. REFERENCES
[1] Altman, E I. (1968) "Financial Ratios, Discriminant Analysis and the Prediction of
Corporate Bankruptcy", Journal of Finance, 23, pp. 589-609.
[2] Beaver, W. (1966) "Financial ratios as predictors of failure", Journal of Accounting
Research (Supplement), 4, pp. 71-102.
[3] Chen, K., and Shimerda, T. (1981) "An empirical analysis of useful financial ratios",
Financial Management, 10, pp. 51-60.
[4] Eisenbeis, R. (1977) “Pitfalls in the application of discriminant analysis in business,
finance and economics”, Journal of Finance, 32, pp. 875-900.
[5] Ganesalingam, S. and Kumar, K. (2001) “Detection of financial distress via
Multivariate Statistical Analysis”, Managerial Finance, 27(4), pp.45-55.
[6] Hillegeist S.A., Keating E.K., Cram D.P. and Lundstedt K.G. (2004) “Assessing the
probability of Bankruptcy”, Review of Accounting Studies, 9, pp. 5-34.
[7] Joo, Ha Nam and Jinn Taehong (2000) “Bankruptcy Prediction: Evidence from Korea
Listed Companies During the IMF Crisis”, Journal of International Financial Management
and Accounting, 11(3), 178-197.
[8] Low, S., Fauzias M.N. and Zainal Ariffin, A. (2001) “Predicting corporate distress
using logit
model: The case of Malaysia”, Asian Academy of Management Journal, 6(1), pp. 49-62.
[9] Nam, J and Jinn T. (2000) “Bankruptcy prediction: Evidence from Korean listed
companies during the IMF crisis”, Journal of International Financial Management and
Accounting, 11(3), pp. 178-197.
[10] Ohlson, J. A. (1980) "Financial ratios and the probabilistic prediction of bankruptcy",
Journal
of Accounting Research, 18, pp. 109-131.
[11] Scott, J. (1981) “The Probability of Bankruptcy: A Comparison of Empirical
Predictions and Theoretical Models”, Journal of Banking and Finance, 5, 317-344.
[12] Shumway, T. (2001) "Forecasting bankruptcy more accurately: A simple hazard
model", Journal of Business, 74 (1), pp. 101-124.
[13] Zmijewski, M. E. (1984) "Methodological issues related to the estimation of financial
distress prediction models", Journal of Accounting Research, 22, pp. 59-86.
[14] Zheng, Q. and J. Yanhui (2007), “Financial Distress Prediction on Decision Tree
Models”, IEEE

9

