PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 1, 2011Auditing A Journal of Practice & Theory391 citations

Financial Statement Fraud Detection: An Analysis of Statistical and Machine Learning Algorithms

View Full Paper
JPJohan Perols

Key Points

  • To compare the efficacy of six statistical and machine learning algorithms in detecting financial statement fraud under varying misclassification costs and fraud-to-nonfraud firm ratios.
  • Evaluated six classification models: logistic regression, support vector machines, artificial neural networks, bagging, C4.5, and stacking.
  • Tested model performance across 42 candidate financial and operational predictors under different ratios of fraud firms to nonfraud firms and misclassification cost assumptions.
  • Logistic regression and support vector machines demonstrated superior classification performance relative to artificial neural networks, bagging, C4.5 decision trees, and stacking.
  • Only six of the 42 examined predictors were consistently selected across classification models: auditor turnover, total discretionary accruals, Big 4 auditor presence, accounts receivable, meeting or beating analyst forecasts, and unexpected employee productivity.

Abstract

SUMMARY This study compares the performance of six popular statistical and machine learning models in detecting financial statement fraud under different assumptions of misclassification costs and ratios of fraud firms to nonfraud firms. The results show, somewhat surprisingly, that logistic regression and support vector machines perform well relative to an artificial neural network, bagging, C4.5, and stacking. The results also reveal some diversity in predictors used across the classification algorithms. Out of 42 predictors examined, only six are consistently selected and used by different classification algorithms: auditor turnover, total discretionary accruals, Big 4 auditor, accounts receivable, meeting or beating analyst forecasts, and unexpected employee productivity. These findings extend financial statement fraud research and can be used by practitioners and regulators to improve fraud risk models. Data Availability: A list of fraud companies used in this study is available from the author upon request. All other data sources are described in the text.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Johan Perols (2011) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69dcb4a5d7a2ed3138133401https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50009
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Bagging predictors1996 · 16,471 citations
  2. 2The Kernel-Adatron Algorithm: A Fast and Simple Learning Procedure for Support Vector Machines1998 · 246 citations
  3. 3Editorial: New AE Introduction2003 · 41 citations
  4. 4Neural network detection of management fraud using published financial data1998 · 243 citations
  5. 5A fuzzy neural network for assessing the risk of fraudulent financial reporting2003 · 222 citations