Taffler 1974 Case Analysis

854 Words4 Pages
Taffler, 1974 It was completed in August 1974 and was popularized in the financial journalism at that time. Taffler initially used a sample of 61 firms and singled out 16 firms that normally financial analysis would consider problematic. There are 3 classes characteristic variables that were constructed: conventional ratios, 4-year trend measures and fund statement variables. Funds statement variables were too inconstant for significant analysis and the trend measures’ contributions to the strength of the discriminant model were insignificant. Thus, the analysis concentrated on a group of 50 financial ratios which were later changed accordingly to enhance univariate normality as it is necessary for multivariate normality. To steer clear of…show more content…
On this evidence, the Lachenbruch U-test showed 1 type I error and no type II errors. The first 2 variables showed most significant contribution to the model. Taffler then examined multivariate normality. After a thorough observation of the statistical literature and empirical studies that relate to the examination he was forced to deduce that a quadratic method is least likely to confirm superiority to the normal linear model. Taffler used the results of Z model and Altman to propose the probability of failure to set an at risk failure profile for the following year as 20.5% and a solvent profile of 0.34% only. The model was later restructured to include new failures and a minute number of solvent concerns to the primary data. Unfortunately the results were discouraging as only 40.4% of the 52 failed firms were misplaced by the model on a straight resubstitution basis. Mason and Harris, 1978 20 construction companies between 1969 and 1978 were the failed sample and 20 ‘particularly sound concerns on a traditional financial ratio analysis basis’ accounts were the continuing sample. 28 variables were produced with a normal LDA to give the following…show more content…
In conclusion, X2 and X5 are important discriminators, X3 and X6 are least significant as short term liquidity is of less importance than other basic aspects in the structure of the firm suchlike their earning ability. There were 4 type I errors in 11 failed businesses (36.3%), 58% of a total 31 failed businesses showed failing traits 4 years before actually failing and there were no misclassification in all 40 firms according to resubstitution basis. El Hennaway and Morris, 1983 The purpose of this method is to experiment whether we can improve the ‘predictive ability’ of failure prediction models by collecting data prior to failing and add general and industrial

    More about Taffler 1974 Case Analysis

      Open Document