Bankruptcy Forecasting Model using AdaBoost: A Focus on Construction Companies (적응형 부스팅을 이용한 파산 예측 모형: 건설업을 중심으로)
-
- Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems
- /
- v.20 no.1
- /
- pp.35-48
- /
- 2014
According to the 2013 construction market outlook report, the liquidation of construction companies is expected to continue due to the ongoing residential construction recession. Bankruptcies of construction companies have a greater social impact compared to other industries. However, due to the different nature of the capital structure and debt-to-equity ratio, it is more difficult to forecast construction companies' bankruptcies than that of companies in other industries. The construction industry operates on greater leverage, with high debt-to-equity ratios, and project cash flow focused on the second half. The economic cycle greatly influences construction companies. Therefore, downturns tend to rapidly increase the bankruptcy rates of construction companies. High leverage, coupled with increased bankruptcy rates, could lead to greater burdens on banks providing loans to construction companies. Nevertheless, the bankruptcy prediction model concentrated mainly on financial institutions, with rare construction-specific studies. The bankruptcy prediction model based on corporate finance data has been studied for some time in various ways. However, the model is intended for all companies in general, and it may not be appropriate for forecasting bankruptcies of construction companies, who typically have high liquidity risks. The construction industry is capital-intensive, operates on long timelines with large-scale investment projects, and has comparatively longer payback periods than in other industries. With its unique capital structure, it can be difficult to apply a model used to judge the financial risk of companies in general to those in the construction industry. Diverse studies of bankruptcy forecasting models based on a company's financial statements have been conducted for many years. The subjects of the model, however, were general firms, and the models may not be proper for accurately forecasting companies with disproportionately large liquidity risks, such as construction companies. The construction industry is capital-intensive, requiring significant investments in long-term projects, therefore to realize returns from the investment. The unique capital structure means that the same criteria used for other industries cannot be applied to effectively evaluate financial risk for construction firms. Altman Z-score was first published in 1968, and is commonly used as a bankruptcy forecasting model. It forecasts the likelihood of a company going bankrupt by using a simple formula, classifying the results into three categories, and evaluating the corporate status as dangerous, moderate, or safe. When a company falls into the "dangerous" category, it has a high likelihood of bankruptcy within two years, while those in the "safe" category have a low likelihood of bankruptcy. For companies in the "moderate" category, it is difficult to forecast the risk. Many of the construction firm cases in this study fell in the "moderate" category, which made it difficult to forecast their risk. Along with the development of machine learning using computers, recent studies of corporate bankruptcy forecasting have used this technology. Pattern recognition, a representative application area in machine learning, is applied to forecasting corporate bankruptcy, with patterns analyzed based on a company's financial information, and then judged as to whether the pattern belongs to the bankruptcy risk group or the safe group. The representative machine learning models previously used in bankruptcy forecasting are Artificial Neural Networks, Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost) and, the Support Vector Machine (SVM). There are also many hybrid studies combining these models. Existing studies using the traditional Z-Score technique or bankruptcy prediction using machine learning focus on companies in non-specific industries. Therefore, the industry-specific characteristics of companies are not considered. In this paper, we confirm that adaptive boosting (AdaBoost) is the most appropriate forecasting model for construction companies by based on company size. We classified construction companies into three groups - large, medium, and small based on the company's capital. We analyzed the predictive ability of AdaBoost for each group of companies. The experimental results showed that AdaBoost has more predictive ability than the other models, especially for the group of large companies with capital of more than 50 billion won.
Bond rating is regarded as an important event for measuring financial risk of companies and for determining the investment returns of investors. As a result, it has been a popular research topic for researchers to predict companies' credit ratings by applying statistical and machine learning techniques. The statistical techniques, including multiple regression, multiple discriminant analysis (MDA), logistic models (LOGIT), and probit analysis, have been traditionally used in bond rating. However, one major drawback is that it should be based on strict assumptions. Such strict assumptions include linearity, normality, independence among predictor variables and pre-existing functional forms relating the criterion variablesand the predictor variables. Those strict assumptions of traditional statistics have limited their application to the real world. Machine learning techniques also used in bond rating prediction models include decision trees (DT), neural networks (NN), and Support Vector Machine (SVM). Especially, SVM is recognized as a new and promising classification and regression analysis method. SVM learns a separating hyperplane that can maximize the margin between two categories. SVM is simple enough to be analyzed mathematical, and leads to high performance in practical applications. SVM implements the structuralrisk minimization principle and searches to minimize an upper bound of the generalization error. In addition, the solution of SVM may be a global optimum and thus, overfitting is unlikely to occur with SVM. In addition, SVM does not require too many data sample for training since it builds prediction models by only using some representative sample near the boundaries called support vectors. A number of experimental researches have indicated that SVM has been successfully applied in a variety of pattern recognition fields. However, there are three major drawbacks that can be potential causes for degrading SVM's performance. First, SVM is originally proposed for solving binary-class classification problems. Methods for combining SVMs for multi-class classification such as One-Against-One, One-Against-All have been proposed, but they do not improve the performance in multi-class classification problem as much as SVM for binary-class classification. Second, approximation algorithms (e.g. decomposition methods, sequential minimal optimization algorithm) could be used for effective multi-class computation to reduce computation time, but it could deteriorate classification performance. Third, the difficulty in multi-class prediction problems is in data imbalance problem that can occur when the number of instances in one class greatly outnumbers the number of instances in the other class. Such data sets often cause a default classifier to be built due to skewed boundary and thus the reduction in the classification accuracy of such a classifier. SVM ensemble learning is one of machine learning methods to cope with the above drawbacks. Ensemble learning is a method for improving the performance of classification and prediction algorithms. AdaBoost is one of the widely used ensemble learning techniques. It constructs a composite classifier by sequentially training classifiers while increasing weight on the misclassified observations through iterations. The observations that are incorrectly predicted by previous classifiers are chosen more often than examples that are correctly predicted. Thus Boosting attempts to produce new classifiers that are better able to predict examples for which the current ensemble's performance is poor. In this way, it can reinforce the training of the misclassified observations of the minority class. This paper proposes a multiclass Geometric Mean-based Boosting (MGM-Boost) to resolve multiclass prediction problem. Since MGM-Boost introduces the notion of geometric mean into AdaBoost, it can perform learning process considering the geometric mean-based accuracy and errors of multiclass. This study applies MGM-Boost to the real-world bond rating case for Korean companies to examine the feasibility of MGM-Boost. 10-fold cross validations for threetimes with different random seeds are performed in order to ensure that the comparison among three different classifiers does not happen by chance. For each of 10-fold cross validation, the entire data set is first partitioned into tenequal-sized sets, and then each set is in turn used as the test set while the classifier trains on the other nine sets. That is, cross-validated folds have been tested independently of each algorithm. Through these steps, we have obtained the results for classifiers on each of the 30 experiments. In the comparison of arithmetic mean-based prediction accuracy between individual classifiers, MGM-Boost (52.95%) shows higher prediction accuracy than both AdaBoost (51.69%) and SVM (49.47%). MGM-Boost (28.12%) also shows the higher prediction accuracy than AdaBoost (24.65%) and SVM (15.42%)in terms of geometric mean-based prediction accuracy. T-test is used to examine whether the performance of each classifiers for 30 folds is significantly different. The results indicate that performance of MGM-Boost is significantly different from AdaBoost and SVM classifiers at 1% level. These results mean that MGM-Boost can provide robust and stable solutions to multi-classproblems such as bond rating.
Investors prefer to look for trading points based on the graph shown in the chart rather than complex analysis, such as corporate intrinsic value analysis and technical auxiliary index analysis. However, the pattern analysis technique is difficult and computerized less than the needs of users. In recent years, there have been many cases of studying stock price patterns using various machine learning techniques including neural networks in the field of artificial intelligence(AI). In particular, the development of IT technology has made it easier to analyze a huge number of chart data to find patterns that can predict stock prices. Although short-term forecasting power of prices has increased in terms of performance so far, long-term forecasting power is limited and is used in short-term trading rather than long-term investment. Other studies have focused on mechanically and accurately identifying patterns that were not recognized by past technology, but it can be vulnerable in practical areas because it is a separate matter whether the patterns found are suitable for trading. When they find a meaningful pattern, they find a point that matches the pattern. They then measure their performance after n days, assuming that they have bought at that point in time. Since this approach is to calculate virtual revenues, there can be many disparities with reality. The existing research method tries to find a pattern with stock price prediction power, but this study proposes to define the patterns first and to trade when the pattern with high success probability appears. The M & W wave pattern published by Merrill(1980) is simple because we can distinguish it by five turning points. Despite the report that some patterns have price predictability, there were no performance reports used in the actual market. The simplicity of a pattern consisting of five turning points has the advantage of reducing the cost of increasing pattern recognition accuracy. In this study, 16 patterns of up conversion and 16 patterns of down conversion are reclassified into ten groups so that they can be easily implemented by the system. Only one pattern with high success rate per group is selected for trading. Patterns that had a high probability of success in the past are likely to succeed in the future. So we trade when such a pattern occurs. It is a real situation because it is measured assuming that both the buy and sell have been executed. We tested three ways to calculate the turning point. The first method, the minimum change rate zig-zag method, removes price movements below a certain percentage and calculates the vertex. In the second method, high-low line zig-zag, the high price that meets the n-day high price line is calculated at the peak price, and the low price that meets the n-day low price line is calculated at the valley price. In the third method, the swing wave method, the high price in the center higher than n high prices on the left and right is calculated as the peak price. If the central low price is lower than the n low price on the left and right, it is calculated as valley price. The swing wave method was superior to the other methods in the test results. It is interpreted that the transaction after checking the completion of the pattern is more effective than the transaction in the unfinished state of the pattern. Genetic algorithms(GA) were the most suitable solution, although it was virtually impossible to find patterns with high success rates because the number of cases was too large in this simulation. We also performed the simulation using the Walk-forward Analysis(WFA) method, which tests the test section and the application section separately. So we were able to respond appropriately to market changes. In this study, we optimize the stock portfolio because there is a risk of over-optimized if we implement the variable optimality for each individual stock. Therefore, we selected the number of constituent stocks as 20 to increase the effect of diversified investment while avoiding optimization. We tested the KOSPI market by dividing it into six categories. In the results, the portfolio of small cap stock was the most successful and the high vol stock portfolio was the second best. This shows that patterns need to have some price volatility in order for patterns to be shaped, but volatility is not the best.