Multi-criteria ranking of corporate distress prediction models: Empirical evaluation and methodological contributions

Mohammad Mahdi Mousavi, Jamal Ouenniche

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Although many modelling and prediction frameworks for corporate bankruptcy and distress have been proposed, the relative performance evaluation of prediction models is criticised due to the assessment exercise using a single measure of one criterion at a time, which leads to reporting conflicting results. Mousavi et al. (Int Rev Financ Anal 42:64–75, 2015) proposed an orientation-free super-efficiency DEA-based framework to overcome this methodological issue. However, within a super-efficiency DEA framework, the reference benchmark changes from one prediction model evaluation to another, which in some contexts might be viewed as “unfair” benchmarking. In this paper, we overcome this issue by proposing a slacks-based context-dependent DEA (SBM-CDEA) framework to evaluate competing distress prediction models. In addition, we propose a hybrid cross-benchmarking-cross-efficiency framework as an alternative methodology for ranking DMUs that are heterogeneous. Furthermore, using data on UK firms listed on London Stock Exchange, we perform a comprehensive comparative analysis of the most popular corporate distress prediction models; namely, statistical models, under both mono criterion and multiple criteria frameworks considering several performance measures. Also, we propose new statistical models using macroeconomic indicators as drivers of distress.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-34
Number of pages34
JournalAnnals of Operations Research
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 19 Mar 2018

Keywords

  • corporate distress prediction
  • performance criteria
  • performance measures
  • context-dependent data envelopment analysis
  • slacks-based measure

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Multi-criteria ranking of corporate distress prediction models: Empirical evaluation and methodological contributions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this