4.2 Article

NEXUS BETWEEN FINANCIAL INNOVATION AND BANKRUPTCY: EVIDENCE FROM INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION AND TECHNOLOGY (ICT) SECTOR

期刊

SINGAPORE ECONOMIC REVIEW
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S0217590821500181

关键词

Altman Z-score model; four-factor ratio; X1WC/TA; X2RE/TA; bankruptcy prediction; Pakistan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study examined the reliability of Altman's Z-score model to predict financial failure in the ICT sector in Pakistan. The results showed that out of 11 companies, four were in distress, four would not maintain businesses in the future, and seven were predicted not to go bankrupt. Additionally, the analysis revealed significant positive relationships between certain financial ratios.
This study examines the reliability of Altman's Z-score model to predict the financial failure of the ICT sector in Pakistan. Data for 11 PSE-listed (Pakistan Stock Exchange) ICT companies were collected through Altman's Z-score model in the period 2013-2018. The innovative Altman Z-bankruptcy forecast technique has been used for the analysis. Results show that the four companies, Pakistan International Airlines Corp. Ltd., TRG Pakistan Ltd., World call Telecom Ltd. and Media Times Ltd. were in the distress zone; Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. was in the gray zone; and the remaining six companies (i.e., Hum Network Ltd., Nestle Technologies Ltd., Pakistan Int., Container Terminal Ltd., Pak Datacom Ltd., Pakistan National Shipping Corp. and Tele card Ltd.) were able to meet the safe zone criteria. On the other hand, the Z-score analysis suggests that seven ICT companies would not go bankrupt, while the remaining four companies failed financially and would not maintain businesses in the future. Furthermore, according to the innovative outcome analysis, X3-EBIT/TA has a significant positive relationship with X1-WC/TA and X4-TE/TL and X2-RETA has a significant positive association with X1-WC/TA and a negative association with X4-TE/TL.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据