Prediction of Bankruptcy using Financial Ratios

The provided assignment content presents the results of four hypothesis tests to determine whether there is a significant difference between non-bankrupt and bankrupt individuals for several variables including Total Liabilities (TL) to Assets (TA), Working Capital (WC) to Total Assets (TA), Operating Expenses (OE) to Total Liabilities (TL), Profitability Spread (PS) to Turnover Sales (TS), and Tangible Common Equity (TC) to Total Shareholders' Equity (TS). The tests used the t-statistic with a two-tailed critical value of 1.963. The results show that there is no significant difference between non-bankrupt and bankrupt individuals for any of the variables, suggesting that bankruptcy cannot be predicted based on these variables.

Running head : STATISTICS
Statistics
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author’s note

1STATISTICS
Table of Contents
Question 1........................................................................................................................................3
Part a............................................................................................................................................3
Part b............................................................................................................................................6
Part c............................................................................................................................................6
Part d............................................................................................................................................7
Question 2........................................................................................................................................8
Part a............................................................................................................................................8
Part b............................................................................................................................................9
Part c..........................................................................................................................................10
Part d..........................................................................................................................................10
Question 3......................................................................................................................................10
Part a..........................................................................................................................................10
Part b..........................................................................................................................................10
Part c..........................................................................................................................................11
Part d..........................................................................................................................................11
Question 4......................................................................................................................................12
Part a..........................................................................................................................................13
Part i.......................................................................................................................................15

2STATISTICS
Part ii......................................................................................................................................16
Part b..........................................................................................................................................16
Part i.......................................................................................................................................16
Part ii......................................................................................................................................16
Question 5......................................................................................................................................16
Part a..........................................................................................................................................16
Part b..........................................................................................................................................20
Part c..........................................................................................................................................20

3STATISTICS
Question 1
Part a
The opening prices of CWN (Crown Resorts Limited) and TAH (Tabcorp Holdings
Limited) from January 2008 to July 2017 is presented in table 1.
Table 1: Opening prices of CWN and TAH
Sl. No. Date CWN TAH
1 1/1/2008 13.45 6.92
2 4/1/2008 10.75 6.76
3 7/1/2008 9.44 4.68
4 10/1/2008 9.00 3.90
5 1/1/2009 5.91 3.27
6 4/1/2009 6.30 3.16
7 7/1/2009 7.30 3.30
8 10/1/2009 8.80 3.35
9 1/3/2010 8.07 3.25
10 4/6/2010 8.19 3.24
11 7/1/2010 7.66 2.95
12 10/1/2010 8.48 3.27
13 1/3/2011 8.37 3.37
14 4/4/2011 8.34 3.55
15 7/1/2011 8.93 3.21
16 10/3/2011 7.80 2.53
17 1/2/2012 8.09 2.68
18 4/2/2012 8.80 2.70
19 7/2/2012 8.57 2.91
20 10/1/2012 9.04 2.68
21 1/1/2013 10.67 3.00
22 4/1/2013 12.30 3.18
23 7/1/2013 12.00 2.95
24 10/1/2013 15.54 3.20
25 1/1/2014 16.85 3.57
26 4/1/2014 17.03 3.36
27 7/1/2014 15.10 3.30
28 10/1/2014 13.75 3.54
29 1/1/2015 12.69 4.08
30 4/1/2015 13.26 4.79

4STATISTICS
31 7/1/2015 12.61 4.59
32 10/1/2015 10.03 4.70
33 1/3/2016 12.50 4.71
34 4/4/2016 12.30 4.25
35 7/1/2016 12.60 4.55
36 10/2/2016 13.06 5.01
37 1/2/2017 11.58 4.81
38 4/3/2017 11.80 4.77
39 7/3/2017 12.15 4.35
Table 2 presents the stem and leaf plot of the opening prices with CWN on the right and
TAH on the left. The middle column presents the stem.
Table 2: Stem and Leaf Plot
TAH Stem CWN
9 9 9 7 6 6 5 2
3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 3
8 7 7 7 7 6 5 5 2 0 4
0 5 9
9 7 6 3
7 3 6 8
8 0 0 1 3 3 4 5 8 8 9
9 0 0 4
10 0 6 7
11 5 8
12 0 1 3 3 5 6 6 6
13 0 2 4 7
14
15 1 5
16 8 0
17 0

5STATISTICS
Part b
Figure 1 presents the comparison of the prices of CWN and TAH.
$0 to < $2
$2 to < $4
$4 to < $6
$6 to < $8
$8 to < $10
$10 to < $12
$12 to < $14
$ 14 to < $16
$16 to < $18
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Comparison of CWN and TAH
CWN
TAH
Class Interval
Relative Frequency
Figure 1: Comparison of share prices of CWN and TAH
Table 3: Relative Frequencies of CWN and TAH
Range
Relative Frequency
CWN TAH
$0 to < $2 0.00
$2 to < $4 0.64
$4 to < $6 0.03 0.31
$6 to < $8 0.10 0.05
$8 to < $10 0.33
$10 to < $12 0.15
$12 to < $14 0.28
$ 14 to < $16 0.05
$16 to < $18 0.05

6STATISTICS
Part c
A comparison of the Market Capital of five companies dealing in leisure and
entertainment.
Table 4: Comparison of Market Capital
Name of the organization MKT CAP (M)
Aristocrat Leisure (ALL) 13614
Crown Resorts Limited (CWN) 8087
The star entertainment group (SGR) 4285
Tabcorp (TAH) 3475
Tatts Group (TTS) 5801
ALL CWN SGR TAH TTS
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Comparison of Market Capital
Organnization Name
Market Cap (M)
Figure 2: Comparison of Market Capital
Part d
The P/E % and Dividend yield of CWN is higher than TAH. Hence it is better to invest in
CWN than TAH InvestSMART (2017).

7STATISTICS
Question 2
Part a
The comparison of the annual dividends of the banks is presented in table 4.
Table 4: Comparison of Annual Dividends
CBA NAB ANZ WBC
Mean 3.10 2.31 2.06 2.04
Median 3.05 2.359 2.048 2.035
First Quartile 2.28 1.861 1.886 1.895
Third Quartile 4.01 2.105 2.183 2.242
Part b
The comparison of standard deviation, range and coefficient of variation of annual
dividends of the banks is presented in table 5.
CBA NAB ANZ WBC
Standard Deviation 0.79 0.23 0.36 0.37
Range 2.230 0.785 1.206 1.304
Coefficient of Variation 25% 10% 17% 18%

8STATISTICS
Part c
CBA NAB ANZ WBC
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Comparison of Annual dividends of Banks
Bank Name
Figure 3: Comparison of Annual dividends of Banks
Part d
APRA has initiated the process of limiting the flow of interest rate in the lending process.
According to APRA high risk, interest only loans should be restricted to 30% of the new
residential mortgages. According to business reporter banks have accepted the home loan
crackdown since it boosts the profits of the banks (abc.net.au, 2017).
Question 3
Part a
The maximum number of students above 90.05 or more is in the discipline of Society and
Culture. The number of students = 8180.
The total number of students offered in 2016 = 221060.

9STATISTICS
Thus the proportion of students offered = 8180
221060 =0.037
Part b
The total number of students studying in “Society and Culture” = 46841
The number of students in “Society and culture” having more than 80.05 = 8180 + 6043
= 14223
Thus the number of students in “Society and Culture” having less than 80.05 =
= 46841 - 14223 = 32681
Thus, the probability that a randomly selected Australian Student studying in “Society and
Culture” and has a score of less than 80.05 = 32681
221060 =0.148
Part c
The proportion of students in the discipline with highest proportion and lowest grades is
Education.
The proportion of students = 0.073
Part d
The maximum number of students with “No ATAR/Non-Yr 12” is in the field of health
education. This is due to the fact that a large number of universities take admission without
ATAR score of the students. The students are also offered alternate pathway programs
(uow.edu.au, 2017)

10STATISTICS
Question 4
Part a
The total number of days of no rainfall = 228
Thus λ= Σx
n =228
52 =4.385
Part i
Hence, the probability of NO rainfall in a given week ¿ P ( X=0 )∨λ=4.385¿= 4.3850 e−4.385
0 !
= 0.0125
Part ii
The probability that there will 2 or more days of rainfall in a week =
1−P ( X =0 )−P ( X =1 )=1−0.0125− 4.3851 e−4.385
1 !
¿ 1−0.0125−0.0546=0.9329
Thus the probability that there would be 2 or more days of rainfall in a week = 0.9329
Part b
The total amount of Rainfall at Adelaide Airport = 649.2 mm
Thus the average rainfall ¿ 649.2
52 =12.48
The standard deviation for the amount of rainfall = 14.59

11STATISTICS
Part i
The probability that the rainfall would be more than 8mm of rainfall in a week
( z >8 ) =8−12.48
14.59 =−4.48
14.59 =−0.3071
P ( z> 8 )=0.3794
The probability that the rainfall would be more than 16mm of rainfall in a week
( z <16 ) =16−12.48
14.59 = 3.52
14.59 =0.2413
P ( z<16 )=0.5953
Thus the probability P(8<x<16) = 0.3794+0.5953 = 0.9747
Part ii
The probability that the rainfall would be more than 12% = 1.1750
Thus 1.1750= x−12.48
14.59
Solving the above equation: X = 29.6231
Thus the amount of rainfall = 29.6231mm

12STATISTICS
Question 5
Part a
The normal probability plot of NP/TA, TL/TA, WC/TA, OE/TL, PS/TS and TC/TS can
be represented as:
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
probability plot NP/TA
z-value
Observed Values
Figure 4: Plot of NP/TA
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
TL/TA
Figure 5: Plot of TL/TA

13STATISTICS
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
WC/TA
Figure 6: Plot of WC/TA
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
OE/TL
Figure 7: Plot of OE / TL

14STATISTICS
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
PS/TS
Figure 8: Plot of PS/ TS
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
TC/TS
Figure 9: Plot of TC/ TS

15STATISTICS
Part b
The 95% confidence interval of NP/TA, TL/TA, WC/TA, OE/TL, PS/TS and TC/TS are:
Table 7: 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Limit Upper Limit
NP/TA 3.561 3.561
TL/TA 2.108 2.108
WC/TA 0.158 0.158
OE/TL 2.545 2.545
PS/TS 5.024 5.024
TC/TS 3.424 3.424
Part c
Table 8: Test for Hypothesis NP/TA
Non-Bankrupt Bankrupt
Mean 0.070 -1.372
Variance 0.023 529.636
Observations 501 408
Pooled Variance 237.677
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 907
t Stat 1.402
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.081
t Critical one-tail 1.647
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.161
t Critical two-tail 1.963
The test for hypothesis finds that there is no difference between Non-Bankrupt (0.070)
and Bankrupt (-1.372) for NP/TA, t(907) = 0.161, p = 1.963.

16STATISTICS
Table 9: Test for Hypothesis TL/TA
Non-Bankrupt Bankrupt
Mean 0.474 1.219
Variance 0.097 18.447
Observations 501 408
Pooled Variance 8.331
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 907
t Stat -3.869
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000
t Critical one-tail 1.647
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000
t Critical two-tail 1.963
The test for hypothesis finds that there is no difference between Non-Bankrupt (0.474)
and Bankrupt (1.219) for TL/TA, t(907) = 0.000, p = 1.963.
Table 10: Test for Hypothesis WC/TA
Non-Bankrupt Bankrupt
Mean 0.236 -0.385
Variance 0.105 13.626
Observations 501 408
Pooled Variance 6.172
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 907
t Stat 3.750
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000
t Critical one-tail 1.647
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000
t Critical two-tail 1.963
The test for hypothesis finds that there is no difference between Non-Bankrupt (0.236)
and Bankrupt (-0.385) for WC/TA, t(907) = 0.000, p = 1.963.

17STATISTICS
Table 11: Test for Hypothesis OE/TL
Non-Bankrupt Bankrupt
Mean 3.676 7.322
Variance 34.458 2268.054
Observations 501 408
Pooled Variance 1036.744
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 907
t Stat -1.698
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.045
t Critical one-tail 1.647
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.090
t Critical two-tail 1.963
The test for hypothesis finds that there is no difference between Non-Bankrupt (3.676)
and Bankrupt (7.322) for OE/TL, t(907) = 0.090, p = 1.963.
Table 12: Test for Hypothesis PS/TS
Non-Bankrupt Bankrupt
Mean 0.054 -0.249
Variance 0.027 1.101
Observations 501 408
Pooled Variance 0.509
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 907
t Stat 6.360
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000
t Critical one-tail 1.647
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000
t Critical two-tail 1.963
The test for hypothesis finds that there is no difference between Non-Bankrupt (0.054)
and Bankrupt (-0.249) for PS/TS, t(907) = 0.000, p = 1.963.

18STATISTICS
Table 13: Test for Hypothesis TC/TS
Non-Bankrupt Bankrupt
Mean 0.914 1.170
Variance 0.026 1.493
Observations 501 408
Pooled Variance 0.684
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 907
t Stat -4.632
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000
t Critical one-tail 1.647
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000
t Critical two-tail 1.963
The test for hypothesis finds that there is no difference between Non-Bankrupt (0.914)
and Bankrupt (1.170) for PS/TS, t(907) = 0.000, p = 1.963.
Thus bankruptcy cannot be predicted from any of the independent variables.

19STATISTICS
References
Abc.net.au [2017] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-11/why-tougher-apra-rules-do-not-
worry-banks/8421804
Investsmart.com.au [20147] https://www.investsmart.com.au/shares/asx-tah/tabcorp-holdings-
limited
Uow.edu.au [2017] https://www.uow.edu.au/future/school/apply/index.html