Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
105
106
1. INTRODUCTION
Global crashes do not occur all of a sudden but are headed by local and
regional crashes in emerging economies. Even when the investors are not
exposed to emerging stock markets, they should pay attention to these markets,
as local crashes can affect developed markets. Moreover, the interdependence is
relevant as well, in that interest rates, bond returns, and volatility also affect the
probabilities of the different types of stock market crashes.
It is important for shareholders and potential investors to use relevant
financial information to enable them to make good investment decisions in the
stock market. Predicting stock performance is certainly very complicated and
difficult. In the history of stock performance literature, no comprehensive,
accurate model has been suggested to date for predicting stock market
performance.
A stocks performance can, to some extent, be analyzed based on financial
indicators presented in the companys annual report. The annual report contains a
vast amount of information that can be transformed into various ratios. Previous
literature suggests that financial ratios are important tools for assessing future
stock performance. Analysts, investors, and researchers use financial ratios to
project future stock price trends. Ratio analysis has emerged, therefore, as one of
the key parameters used by fund managers and investors to determine the
intrinsic value of stock shares; thus, financial ratios are used extensively for the
valuation of stock. The study of financial ratios emerged as a new discipline after
stock market crashes in the 1990s and early 2000s in the United States and parts
of Europe and southern Asia. Today, ratios are used extensively in fundamental
analysis to predict the future performance of a company. Various new ratios,
such as book value and price/cash earnings per share, have been included in this
discipline for share valuation. Financial ratios help to form the basis of investor
stock price expectations and, hence, influence investment decision making. The
level of importance given to financial ratios differs from industry to industry and
from one country to another. Thus, selecting appropriate ratios is very crucial in
increasing the prediction success rate.
The objective of this paper is to apply statistical methods to survey and
analyze financial data in order to develop a simplified model for interpretation.
This study aims to develop a model for classifying stocks into two categories
107
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In stock performance literature, little attention has been given in the past to
the Indian stock market. In recent years, however, there has been a greater focus
on the market because of its rapid growth and its increasing potential for global
investors. In light of the markets growing importance, more attention has been
directed to studies concerning different classification techniques for measuring
stock performance. A number of research papers predict stock performance as
well as pricing of the stock index across the globe. Harvey [1995] observes that
emerging market returns are usually more predictable than developed market
returns because emerging market returns are more likely to be influenced by local
information than developed markets.
In recent literature, artificial neural networks (ANN) have been successfully
used for modeling financial time series [Cheng, 1996; Van and Robert, 1997]. In
the United States, several studies have examined the cross-sectional relationship
between fundamental variables and stock returns. Fundamental variables such as
earnings yield, cash flow yield, book-to-market ratio, and size are demonstrated
to have some power in predicting stock returns [Fama and French, 1992]. Studies
based on European markets also demonstrate similar findings. Ferson and Harvey
[1993] observe that returns are predictable, to an extent, across a number of
European markets (e.g., UK, France, and Germany). Jung and Boyd [1996], in
their study of forecasting UK stock prices, suggest that the predictive strength of
their stock performance models is quite significant. In the Japanese stock market,
studies carried out by Jaffe and Westerfield [1985] and Kato et al. [1990] also
demonstrate some evidence of predictability in the behavior of index returns.
108
109
110
111
(LRM) with two or more explanatory variables are widely used in practice
[Haines et al., 2007]. The parameters of the LR model are commonly estimated
by maximum likelihood [Pardo, Pardo, and Pardo, 2005]. The advantage of LR is
that, through the addition of an appropriate link function to the usual linear
regression model, the variables may be either continuous or discrete, or any
combination of both types, and they do not necessarily have normal distributions
[Lee, 2004].
The predictor values from the analysis can be interpreted as probabilities (0 or
1 outcome) or membership in the target groups (categorical dependent variables).
It has been observed that the probability of a 0 or 1 outcome is a non-linear
function of the logit [Nepal, 2003]. Logistic regression is useful for situations in
which it is required to predict the presence or absence of a characteristic or
outcome based on values of a set of predictor variables. Logistic regression is
similar, therefore, to a linear regression model, but is proficient to models where
the dependent variable is dichotomous. Logistic regression coefficients can be
used to estimate odd ratios for each of the independent variables in the model.
Logistic regression helps to form a multivariate regression between a dependent
variable and several independent variables [Lee, Ryu and Kim, 2007]. It is
designed to estimate the parameters of a multivariate explanatory model in
situations where the dependent variable is dichotomous, and the independent
variables are continuous or categorical.
Existing literature indicates that LR has been rarely used to build a model for
predicting out-performing shares. Logistic regression has been used mostly for
predicting financial distress and business failure. It has not been used for
predicting share performance in India. In terms of investment destination in
share, India is a top performing emerging market. In this context, the present
study will provide useful information to shareholders and potential investors to
enable them to make good decisions regarding investments.
112
has also been recognized that financial ratios can enhance an investor's stock
price forecasting ability.
The objective of this study is to build a model using financial ratios of the
firms for the purpose of predicting out-performing shares in the Indian stock
market. This study aims, therefore, to answer two questions: (1) Can the yields
of stocks be explained with the help of financial ratios? (2) Can we analyze stock
yields using a logistic regression model? The study also examines the efficacy of
ratios as predictors of stock performance.
113
pi= ezi
1+ezi
1
1+e-zi
Here the y-axis is the predicted variable pi and the horizontal axis denotes the
explanatory variable zi.
or
114
zi=log(pi/1pi)
where
pi is the probability the ith case experiences the event of interest, and
zi is the value of the unobserved continuous variable for the ith case.
The z value is the odds ratio. It is expressed by
zi= 0+1xi1+2xi2++pxip
where
xij is the jth predictor for the ith case,
j is the jth coefficient, and
p is the number of predictors.
Logistic regression analysis does not require the restrictive assumptions
regarding normality distribution of independent variables or equal dispersion
matrices nor the prior probabilities of failure [Ohlson, 1980; Zavgren, 1985].
Rather, logistic regression is based on two assumptions; (1) it requires the
dependent variable to be dichotomous, with the groups being discrete, nonoverlapping, and identifiable; and (2) it considers the cost of type I and type II
error rates in the selection of the optimal cut-off probability. s are the
regression coefficients that are estimated through an iterative maximum
likelihood method. However, because of the subjectivity of the choice of these
misclassification costs in practice, most researchers minimize the total error rate
and, hence, implicitly assume equal costs of type I and type II errors [Ohlson,
1980; Zavgren, 1985].
115
this analysis was collected from the Web link www.moneypore.com. The sample
of the study was drawn from the 30 companies that are most actively traded on
the Indian stock exchange as given in Appendix 2. Financial ratios and stock
prices for calculating return were then collected. In this research, a sample period
consisting of four years (2005-2008) was selected for classification purposes.
For the purpose of carrying out logistic regression analysis, first a method is
required for classifying a company as a good or poor investment choice for a
given year. Although there is no definitive method for defining a market
investment as good or poor, in this study we use a method that is simple and
objective namely, if the value of a companys stock over a given year rose
above market return, it is classified as a good investment option; otherwise, it
is classified as a poor investment option. Here, the NIFTY (Index of National
Stock Exchange) return has been taken as proxy for market return. To obtain the
return at the end of each financial year, the March ending prices were used for
each year.
The return was calculated using the following formula:
Return of stock =
100
where,
Pt= Price at the T year
Pt-1= Price at the T -1year
Market return =
100
Similarly, NIFTY(t) = NIFTY at the t year, and NIFTY(t-1) = NIFTY at the (t-1)
year.
The sample in this study is based on the selection of 30 companies for a fouryear period (2005 through 2008). The study consists of a sample size of 118
distinct companies year-wise observations. As discussed, we have used twp
dependent variables (good or poor) and six independent variables. Initially,
116
16 financial ratios were taken for analysis. A normality test was conducted on all
these explanatory variables. The results of the test are summarized and presented
in Table 1, which shows that six variables are normal. The normality test was
used to give a better prediction result. The table also shows that the P-value for
all six variables is greater than 0.05, which implies that these variables are
normal.
Table 1
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
%
Increase
N
Normal Parametersa
Std.
Deviation
Most Extreme
in Net
Earning
Book
Earning
Sales
per share
Value
per Share
118
Mean
Price/cash
118
118
Sales
Assets
118
118
47.1581 230.8910
17.8159 31.7651
1.2439
9.36982 18.71652
0.88254
.2653
118
PBIDT/ Sales/Net
Absolute
0.112
0.113
0.109
0.115
0.119
0.123
Positive
0.112
0.113
0.100
0.115
0.119
0.123
Negative
-0.062
-0.113
-0.109
-0.071
-0.105
-0.094
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
1.220
1.231
1.181
1.253
1.288
1.333
0.102
0.097
0.123
0.087
0.073
0.057
Differences
The variables were also tested using a Q-Q plot, as shown in Appendix 1. The
variables that were not normal were not considered for further analysis. The six
independent variables considered for final analysis are presented in Table 1. The
six ratios are mostly the valuation ratios, which generally determine the value of
share in the stock market. As a matter of fact, the dependent variable or outcome
is a dichotomous one, and, hence, has been rated GOOD = 1 and POOR = 0 to
117
signify the investment choice. Out of to 118 samples, 68 have been classified as
poor and 50 as good.
Table 2
Dependent Variables
Type of Company
(based on stock market return)
GOOD
POOR
Table 3
Dependent Variable Encoding
Original Value
Internal Value
Poor
Good
0
1
Table 4
Independent Variables
Name of the Variable
NS
CEPS
BV
PECEPS
PE
PBIDTS
SNA
PEBV
118
NS
BV
CEPS
PECEPS
PE
PBIDTS
SNA
PEBV
Constant
B
1.064
.001
.004
.069
.014
.006
.393
.028
-3.425
S. E.
1.212
.003
.010
.044
.015
.016
.374
.131
1.168
Wald
.771
.054
.207
2.424
.828
.157
1.106
.046
8.594
df
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sig.
.380
.816
.649
.120
.363
.692
.293
.830
.003
Exp(B)
2.898
1.001
1.004
1.072
1.014
1.006
1.482
1.029
.033
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: NS, BV, CEPS, PECEPS, PE, PBIDTS, SNA, PEBV.
The ratio of B to S.E., squared, equals the Wald statistic. It provides the
statistical significance of each estimated coefficient. If the logistic coefficient is
statistically significant, we can interpret it in terms of how it impacts the
International Journal of Business and Information
119
St ep 1
Observ ed
Perf
POOR
GOOD
Ov erall Percentage
Perf
POOR
GOOD
51
17
13
37
Percent age
Correct
75.0
74.0
74.6
This table shows the comparison of the observed and the predicted performance
of the companies and the degree of their prediction accuracy. It also shows the
degree of success of the classification for this sample. The number and
percentage of cases correctly classified and misclassified are displayed. It is clear
from this table that the poor companies have a 75% correct classification rate,
whereas good companies have a 74% correct classification rate. Overall, correct
classification was observed in 74.6% of original grouped cases.
120
The plot of the distribution of the firms against the probability is shown above.
The graph shows another method to evaluate right and wrong predictions by
plotting POOR (P) and GOOD (G) status.
The cutoff probability for the decision taken is 0.42 (or 42%). Thus, using
this cutoff value, any company whose score is higher than 0.42 would be
predicted to be a good performing company, and any company with a score less
than 0.42 would be classified as a poor performing company. However, there
may be times when one would want to adjust this cutoff value. Neter et al.
[1996] suggest three ways to select a cutoff value for predicting:
121
Chi-square
10.737
df
8
Sig.
.217
122
The omnibus tests are the measures of how well the model performs. They
test whether the explained variance in a set of data is significantly greater than
the unexplained variance, overall.
Table 8
(Using SPSS)
St ep
Block
Model
Chi-square
21.757
21.757
21.757
df
8
8
8
Sig.
.005
.005
.005
If the step were to remove a variable, the exclusion makes sense if the
significance of the change is large (i.e., greater than 0.10).
If the step were to add a variable, the inclusion makes sense if the
significance of the change is small (i.e., less than 0.05).
5. CONCLUSION
This study used the binary logistic regression model to determine the factors
that significantly affect the performance of a company in the stock market. The
binary logistic regression method helps the investor to form an opinion about the
shares to be invested. It may be observed that eight financial ratios can classify
companies up to a 74.6% level of accuracy into two categories (good or
poor), based on their rate of return. The eight financial ratios are:
Percentage change in net sales (NS)
Sales/net assets (SNA)
Price/cash earnings per share (PECEPS)
Price/book value (PEBV)
Price/earnings per share (PE)
PBIDT/sales (PBIDT)
Cash price/earnings per share (CEPS)
Book value (BV)
123
124
Appendix 1
125
126
127
Appendix 2
Sample Data Set (118 Observations)
Year
2008
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2008
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2005
Perf
POOR
POOR
GOOD
POOR
GOOD
POOR
POOR
POOR
POOR
GOOD
POOR
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
POOR
GOOD
POOR
POOR
POOR
POOR
POOR
GOOD
POOR
GOOD
POOR
POOR
POOR
Company
Tata motor
Tata motor
Tata motor
Tata motor
Tata Steel
Tata Steel
Tata Steel
Tata Steel
TCS
TCS
TCS
Sterlite
Sterlite
Sterlite
Sterlite
Tata Power
Tata Power
Tata Power
Tata Power
Satyam
Satyam
Satyam
Satyam
SBI
SBI
SBI
SBI
NS
0.04
0.34
0.17
0.33
0.12
0.15
0.08
0.33
0.24
0.33
0.4
0.09
0.6
0.87
0.35
0.26
0.03
0.16
-0.07
0.31
0.34
0.34
0.36
0.31
0.03
0.1
0.04
EPS
50.52
47.1
37.59
32.44
61.06
69.95
61.51
60.91
43.69
36.66
53.63
12.75
13.48
44.84
9.25
38.26
33.59
29.66
26.8
24.99
20.77
37.22
22.85
103.94
83.91
81.77
80.01
BV
202.68
177.57
143.93
113.64
298.7
240.22
176.19
127.51
111.43
82.35
114.64
185.82
79.82
366.97
324.09
352.27
291.77
267.76
248.36
109.71
86.65
133.57
100.77
776.48
594.69
525.25
457.38
PECEPS
9.24
11.68
18.22
9.22
9.56
5.35
7.1
5.56
16.76
30.65
32.5
48.51
29.52
31.06
36.41
22.79
10.54
13.25
7.95
14.59
20.7
20.71
15.65
13.94
10.41
10.05
6.97
PBIDTS
11.11
11.16
12.11
11.51
39.79
37.1
36.11
38.72
29.49
30.23
29.69
10.48
9.94
11.99
7.4
24.15
22.62
26.06
33.27
25.63
27.47
33.91
28.05
66.15
59.83
56.99
57.62
SNA
2.33
2.91
2.8
3.06
0.49
0.84
1.43
1.66
1.68
1.84
1.99
0.82
1.7
1.26
0.69
0.54
0.49
0.55
0.49
1.1
1.07
1.07
1.07
0.3
0.29
0.26
0.2
--Continued
128
Year
Perf
2008
GOOD
2007
GOOD
2006
GOOD
2005
POOR
2008
GOOD
2007
POOR
2006
POOR
2005
POOR
Company
Reliance
Industries
Reliance
Industries
Reliance
Industries
Reliance
Industries
Reliance
Energy
Reliance
Energy
Reliance
Energy
Reliance
Energy
NS
EPS
BV
PECEPS
BIDTS
SNA
0.18
131.97
542.83
13.7
20.78
1.2
0.33
84.28
439.67
11.51
17.34
1.29
0.22
63.7
324.11
9.04
16.81
1.24
0.3
53.3
270.43
6.82
19.49
1.24
0.1
44.97
430.21
22.99
26.45
0.4
0.46
34.16
374.19
11.09
23.62
0.38
-0.05
29.92
327.54
13.2
33.42
0.33
0.18
27.4
267.3
2008
2007
POOR
POOR
ONGC
ONGC
0.06
0.18
72.65
68.4
330.16
289.51
11.5
25.3
0.44
12.39
11.57
44.38
44.45
0.73
0.74
2006
2005
POOR
POOR
ONGC
ONGC
0.03
0.44
94.89
85.61
378.42
328.53
11.85
9.87
49.93
43.35
0.73
0.83
2008
2007
GOOD
POOR
NTPC
NTPC
0.14
0.22
8.4
7.85
65.5
59.73
17.92
14.44
38.38
39.51
0.46
0.45
2006
2005
POOR
POOR
NTPC
NTPC
0.18
0.2
6.67
6.72
55.06
51.07
14.65
9.43
39.65
43.06
0.41
0.38
2008
2007
POOR
POOR
Maruti
Maruti
0.22
0.17
59.03
53.29
291.19
237.16
10.54
13.08
14.89
15.05
2.26
2.3
2006
2005
GOOD
POOR
0.11
0.21
40.65
29.25
188.67
151.52
17.3
9.34
13.93
13.48
2.67
2.85
0.15
44.54
181.44
12.76
13.47
1.86
0.21
43.1
148.72
15.03
14.73
2.16
0.21
35.26
124.06
14.31
14.35
2.45
POOR
GOOD
Maruti
Maruti
Mahindra
&Mahindra
Mahindra
&Mahindra
Mahindra
&Mahindra
Mahindra
&Mahindra
L&T
2008
POOR
2007
GOOD
2006
GOOD
2005
2008
0.3
0.41
44.02
71.73
176.64
325.95
8.22
38.56
12.14
13.98
2.54
1.92
2007
2006
GOOD
GOOD
L&T
L&T
0.2
0.12
47.65
70.58
202.67
335.57
30.38
31.04
12.83
11.08
2.29
2.47
2005
GOOD
L&T
0.35
71.94
256.98
12.65
11.18
2.58
--Continued
129
Year
2008
Perf
POOR
Company
Jaiprakash
NS
0.06
EPS
72.65
BV
330.16
PECEPS
12.39
PBIDTS
44.38
SNA
0.73
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2005
2008
POOR
POOR
POOR
POOR
GOOD
POOR
POOR
GOOD
POOR
GOOD
GOOD
POOR
Jaiprakash
Jaiprakash
Jaiprakash
Infosys
Infosys
Infosys
Infosys
ITC
ITC
ITC
ITC
ICICI
0.18
0.03
0.44
0.19
0.46
0.32
0.44
0.11
0.19
0.22
0.13
0.37
68.4
94.89
85.61
72.5
64.35
81.41
68.96
7.68
6.65
5.58
83.92
36.02
289.51
378.42
328.53
235.84
195.14
249.89
194.15
31.85
27.59
23.97
315.63
417.64
11.57
11.85
9.87
17.43
27.74
30.98
28.55
23.32
19.75
30.15
13.92
18.68
44.45
49.93
43.35
36.2
35.15
34.85
36.41
23.58
22.31
22.05
25.4
69.68
0.74
0.73
0.83
1.16
1.18
1.31
1.31
1.74
1.81
1.77
1.64
0.34
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2005
2008
GOOD
POOR
POOR
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
POOR
GOOD
GOOD
POOR
POOR
GOOD
ICICI
ICICI
ICICI
HDFC
HDFC
HDFC
HDFC
HDFC BANK
HDFC BANK
HDFC BANK
HDFC BANK
Hindalco
0.5
0.5
0.07
0.5
0.38
0.26
0.11
0.5
0.45
0.49
0.26
0.06
32.88
27.35
25.99
81.53
58.33
47.58
39.19
43.42
34.55
27.04
20.84
23.01
270.35
249.55
170.34
420.64
219.42
179.05
155.87
324.39
201.42
169.24
145.86
141.02
21.91
17.15
11.56
29.03
25.76
27.65
18.19
25.84
22.92
23.63
21.35
5.93
67.23
62.67
66.23
96.63
95.86
95.02
94.81
52.24
52.42
49.22
51.8
18.71
0.3
0.26
0.24
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.25
0.26
0.19
0.19
0.81
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2008
2007
2006
2005
POOR
POOR
POOR
POOR
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
POOR
GOOD
POOR
Hindalco
Hindalco
Hindalco
Bharti Airtel
Bharti Airtel
Bharti Airtel
Grasim
Grasim
Grasim
Grasim
0.61
0.19
0.57
0.44
0.59
0.42
0.21
0.26
0.06
0.17
24.34
16.49
140.43
32.9
21.27
10.62
239.03
163.68
91.36
94.34
119.03
97.46
826.32
106.34
60.19
38.71
887.12
679.19
543.01
471.65
4.4
8.4
6.8
16.66
22.66
21.97
9.28
10.54
16.71
9.68
21.82
23.34
24.65
41.72
40.7
36.23
31.43
27.64
20.96
23.98
1
0.84
0.9
0.96
1.07
0.93
1.03
1.05
1.1
1.14
--Continued
130
Year
2008
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2005
2008
2007
2006
2005
Company
BHEL
BHEL
BHEL
BHEL
Sun Pharma
Sun Pharma
Sun Pharma
Sun Pharma
SAIL
SAIL
SAIL
SAIL
Dr Reddy
Dr Reddy
Dr Reddy
Dr Reddy
Wipro
Wipro
Wipro
Wipro
Asian Paints
Asian Paints
Asian Paints
Asian Paints
Shree_Cement
Shree_Cement
Shree_Cement
Shree_Cement
NS
0.14
0.29
0.4
0.19
0.39
0.32
0.39
0.26
0.16
0.21
0.02
0.33
-0.15
0.92
0.29
-0.07
0.28
0.34
0.41
0.4
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.15
0.51
0.96
0.14
0.19
EPS
55.82
94.86
66.57
37.86
47.16
31.57
24.06
15.94
17.62
14.54
9.44
16.06
27.62
69.45
26.82
7.85
19.94
18.61
13.47
20.55
36.23
26.51
17.72
16.81
73.38
49.96
4.58
7.78
BV
220.1
359.06
298.31
246.24
203.15
126.58
78.8
59.51
55.84
41.92
30.51
24.95
286.11
260.44
294.93
271.05
79.05
63.86
45.03
69.54
96.8
77.57
64.87
59.66
193.11
130.47
85.05
83.09
PECEPS
33.23
21.32
29.33
16.4
24.69
31.03
33
26.62
8.96
6.53
6.74
3.35
15.86
9.4
34.36
37.07
18.44
26.49
35.99
28.94
29.48
24.55
28.67
17.96
5.12
5.29
17.3
7.87
PBIDTS
21.92
21.31
19.46
17.82
34.68
30.21
31.04
29.34
28.17
27.78
22.58
34.8
22.05
38.35
18.99
9.19
22.89
25.75
25.67
26.77
15.18
13.86
12.77
13.75
36.84
39.3
24.9
24.25
NVA
2
2.14
1.88
1.61
0.74
0.65
0.54
0.43
1.77
1.85
1.96
2.03
0.65
0.86
0.66
0.69
1.14
1.44
1.59
1.47
3.99
3.89
3.93
3.58
1.22
1.12
1.14
1.11
131
Appendix 3
Evaluation Data Set (22 Observations)
Year
Perf
NS
EPS
BV
0.076155
44.64
0.089039
GOOD
Company
TATA
Tea
TATA
Tea
TATA
Tea
TATA
Tea
India
Infoline
India
Infoline
Unitech
Ltd
PECEPS
PBIDTS
2008
GOOD
2007
POOR
2006
GOOD
2005
POOR
2008
GOOD
2007
GOOD
2008
2007
GOOD
2006
2005
2008
POOR
2007
POOR
2006
GOOD
2005
2008
288.19
17.81
40.68
0.45
49.26
257.81
11.6
39.22
0.46
0.085851
31.57
202.67
24.78
27.49
0.71
0.149453
21.53
182.69
20.62
22.19
0.74
1.345285
21.52
173.35
30.9
37.16
0.6
4.789984
9.97
56.88
26.84
34.98
0.78
0.119135
6.31
13.21
43.42
63.07
0.27
Unitech
2.832803
12.03
14.3
32.04
61.62
0.53
GOOD
Unitech
0.282665
53.93
179.78
49.38
22.71
0.72
GOOD
0.362027
23.43
139.24
13.41
13.24
1.02
0.150905
2.8
10.91
10.67
9.87
3.24
0.184275
2.45
8.61
12.15
9.84
3.38
0.178203
3.25
11.45
20.75
10.35
4.1
GOOD
Unitech
Berger
Paints
Berger
Paints
Berger
Paints
Berger
Paints
0.230131
2.42
10.2
13.02
9.07
3.52
POOR
Pidilite
0.319534
7.15
25.28
15.32
16.65
1.49
2007
POOR
Pidilite
0.235473
4.5
19.33
19.84
14.99
2.06
2006
GOOD
Pidilite
0.173607
3.34
16.34
23.74
15.56
2.24
2005
POOR
0.177303
27.48
141.62
10.87
15.41
2.13
2008
POOR
-0.17658
1.22
34.59
6.72
3.84
2.57
2007
POOR
0.198751
2.68
34.07
9.36
4.77
3.23
2006
GOOD
0.123598
4.74
32.26
16.1
7.59
3.44
2005
POOR
Pidilite
TVS
Motors
TVS
Motors
TVS
Motors
TVS
Motors
0.018785
5.61
28.58
7.35
8.98
4.15
SNA
132
REFERENCES
Altman, E.I. 1968. Financial ratios, discriminant analysis, and the prediction of corporate
bankruptcy, Journal of Finance 23, 589-609.
Awales, George S. Jr. 1988. Another look at the Presidents letter to stockholders,
Financial Analysts Journal, 71-73, March-April.
Bhattacharya, Hrishikes. 2007. Total Management by Ratios, 2nd ed., New Delhi, India:
Sage Publications.
Bildirici, Melike, and zgr mer Ersin. 2009. Improving forecasts of GARCH family
models with the artificial neural networks: An application to the daily returns in
Istanbul Stock Exchange, Expert Systems with Applications 36(4), 7355-7362
Connor, M.C. 1973. On the usefulness of financial ratios to investors in common stock,
The Accounting Review, 339- 352.
Chen, Mu-Yen. 2011 Predicting corporate financial distress based on integration of
decision tree classification and logistic regression, Expert Systems with
Applications 38(9), 11261-11272.
Cheng, W; L. Wanger; and Ch. Lin. 1996. Forecasting the 30-year US treasury bond
with a system of neural networks, Journal of Computational Intelligence in
Finance 4, 106.
Davis, D. 2005. Business Research for Decision-Making, 1st ed., Belmont, CA: Thomson
Brooks/Cole.
Dutta, A., et al. 2008. Classification and Prediction of Stock Performance using Logistic
Regression: An Empirical Examination from Indian Stock Market: Redefining
Business Horizons: McMillan Advanced Research Series, 46-62.
Fama, E, and K. French. 1988. Permanent and temporary components of stock prices,
Journal of Political Economy 96, 24673.
Ferson, W.E., and C.R. Harvey. 1993. The risk and predictability of international equity
returns, Review of Financial Studies 6, 1993, 52766.
Guresen, Erkam, et al. 2011. Using artificial neural network models in stock market
index prediction, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (8),10389-10397.
Haines, L.M., et al. 2007. .D-optimal designs for logistic regression in two variables,
moda 8-advances in model-oriented design and analysis, Physica-Verlag HD,
91-98.
Hair, J.F., et.al. 2008. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hair, J.F. 1995, Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, 4th ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
133
Harvey, C.R. 1995. Predictable risk and returns in emerging markets, The Review of
Financial Studies 8, 773816.
Horrigan, James O. 1965. Some empirical bases of financial ratio analysis, The
Accounting Review, 284-294.
Hosmer, David, and Stanley Lemeshow. 1989. Applied Logistic Regression, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
Huang, Q.; Y. Cai; and J. Peng. 2007 .Modeling the spatial pattern of farmland using GIS
and multiple logistic regression: A case study of Maotiao River Basin, Guizhou
Province, China, Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 12(1), 55-61.
Jaffe, J; D. Keim; and R. Westerfield. 1989. Earnings yields, market values, and stock
returns, Journal of Finance 44, 13548.
Jaffe, J., and R. Westerfield. 1985. Patterns in Japanese common stock returns: Day of
the week and turn of the year effects, Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis 20, 26172.
Jung, C., and R. Boyd. 1996. Forecasting UK stock prices, Applied Financial Economics
6, 27986.
Kamruzzaman, J., and R.A. Sarker. 2004. ANN-based forecasting of foreign currency
exchange rates, Neural Information Processing - Letters and Reviews 3(2).
Kato, K.; W. Ziemba; and S. Schwartz. 1990. Day of the week effects in Japanese
stocks, In: E. Elton and M. Grubber, eds., Japanese Capital Markets, New York:
Harper & Row.
Kumar P.R., and V. Ravi. 2007. Bankruptcy prediction in banks and firms via statistical
and intelligent techniques: A review, European Journal of Operation Research
180: 1-28
Lee, S. 2004. Application of likelihood ratio and logistic regression models to landslide
susceptibility mapping using GIS. Environmental Management 34(2), 223-232.
Lee, S.; J. Ryu; and L. Kim. 2007. Landslide susceptibility analysis and its verification
using likelihood ratio, logistic regression, and artificial neural network models:
Case study of Youngin, Korea, Landslides 4: 327338.
Li, Hui, et al., 2010 Predicting business failure using classification and regression tree:
An empirical comparison with popular classical statistical methods and top
classification mining methods, Expert Systems with Applications 37(8), 58955904
Li, Hui, and Jie Sun, 2011, Empirical research of hybridizing principal component
analysis with multivariate discriminant analysis and logistic regression for
business failure prediction, Expert Systems with Application 38(5), 6244-6253.
McConnell, Dennis; John A. Haslem, and Virginia R. Gibson. 1986. The presidents
letter to stockholders: A new look, Financial Analysis Journal: 66-70.
134
Menard, Scott. 1995. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Sage Publications. Series:
Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 106.
Metnyk, Z.L., and Iqbal Mathur. 1972. Business risk homogeneity: A multivariate
application and evaluation. Proceedings of the 1972 Midwest AIDS Conference.
Min, Jae H., and Chulwoo Jeong. 2009. A binary classification method for bankruptcy
prediction, Expert Systems with Applications 36(3), 5256-5263.
t, Hulisi, et al. 2009, Detecting stock-price manipulation in an emerging market: The
case of Turkey, Expert Systems with Applications 36(9), 11944-11949.
Mostafa, Mohamed M. 2010. Forecasting stock exchange movements using neural
networks: Empirical evidence from Kuwait, Expert Systems with Application
37(9), 6302-6309.
Nepal, S.K. 2003. Trail impacts in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal: A
logistic regression analysis, Environmental Management 32(3), 312-321.
Neter, J.; W. Wasserman; C.J. Nachtsheim; and M.H. Kutner. 1996. Applied Linear
Regression Models, 3rd ed., Chicago: Irwin.
Ohlson, J. 1980. Financial ratios and the probabilistic prediction of bankruptcy, Journal
of Accounting Research 18:109-31.
Pardo, J.A.; L. Pardo; and M.C. Pardo. 2005. Minimum -divergence estimator in
logistic regression models, Statistical Papers 47: 91-108.
Swiderski, Bartosz, et al. 2012. Multi-stage classification by using logistic regression
and neural networks for assessment of financial condition of company, Decision
Support System 52(2), 539-547.
Tabachnick, B.G., and L.S. Fidell. 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed., Boston,
Mass.: Allyn & Bacon.
Tsai, Chih-Fong, et al. 2011. Predicting stock returns by classifier ensembles, Applied
Soft Computing 11(2), 2452-2459
Van, E., and J. Robert. 1997. The application of neural networks in the forecasting of
share prices. Haymarket, VA, USA: Finance & Technology Publishing.
Zavgren, C. 1985. Assessing the vulnerability to failure of American industrial firms: A
logistic analysis, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 12(1):1945.
Zmijewski, M.E .1984. Methodological issues related to the estimation of financial
distress prediction models, Journal of Accounting Research 22:59-82.
135
Web Links
ANON. 2009. Logistic regression. Wikipedia. [Online]. Available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_regression [11th April 2009]
http://www.moneypore.com
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/3+Investigating+the+performance+of+alternative+default
-risk+models:...-a0160166497
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID485182_code238382.pdf?abstractid=48518
2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_test
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~efc/classes/biol710/logistic/logisticreg.htm
FAFF, Robert.2006. 3 Investigating the performance of alternative default-risk models:
option-based versus accounting-based approaches. Australian Journal of Management
,Dec 1[Online]. Available:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/3+Investigating+the+performance+of+alternative+default
-risk+models:...-a0160166497 [11th April 2009]
136
teaching and research activities. He received his Ph.D. from the Department of
Mathematics at Jadavpur University. He is also a fellow member of the Institute of Cost
& Works Accountants of India, and has presented several research papers at international
conferences in India and elsewhere. He is the author of many research papers in peerreviewed journals of national and international repute. He is now guiding several Ph.D.
students, and has advised others who have completed their Ph.D.
Suchismita Sengupta is an associate professor at the IES Management College and
Research Centre, Mumbai, India, and has 16 years experience in teaching, research, and
consultancy. She has a M.Com, MBA, a masters degree in international business
operations, and a Ph.D. in finance. She is actively involved in research and in the
publication and review process of a few international journals. She has published nine
papers in refereed national and international journals and has contributed book chapters
published by Allied Publishers, Deep and Deep, and McMillan Advance Research Series.
She has provided consulting services to clients on business operations and has carried out
various projects on a collaborative basis. She has experience in training and development,
identification of training needs with competency mapping activities, and conducting
training programs to enhance the efficiency in overall business operations. She has also
reviewed research papers for foreign journals.