bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399

doi: https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v11i1.2187
ISSN: 2148-2586 Research Article

A review on financial failure models- The case of

manufacturing industry
Finansal başarısızlık modelleri üzerine bir inceleme- İmalat sanayi
örneği

Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz1

Mustafa Kenan Erkan2

1 Sakarya University, School of Business, Abstract

Master of Business Administration Student,
Sakarya, Turkiye, Increasingly globalized economic and financial dynamics create extensive complexity and uncertainty
for national economies and businesses. As a result of this financial stress experienced by firms,
nazmiye.ayvaz@ogr.sakarya.edu.tr researchers have developed models using financial ratios to measure the financial health of firms. One
ORCID: 0000-0002-9551-8050 of the implications of this situation for academic research is the continued importance of predicting
and modelling financial failure for businesses. This study aims to apply existing financial failure and
bankruptcy prediction models to the financial data of 45 manufacturing enterprises traded in Borsa
Istanbul and to establish a comparative analysis framework of the prediction results. In order to
2 Sakarya University, School of Business,
explain the risk of financial failure and bankruptcy, the financial statements of the enterprises covering
Sakarya, Turkiye, merkan@sakarya.edu.tr
the years 2011-2020 are used as a data set. Altman Z-Score, Springate S-Score and Zmijevski J-Score
ORCID: 0000-0002-9975-8182 values of these 45 enterprises were calculated and based on them, predictions were made about the
financial viability of the enterprises. In addition, financial failure models measured by Altman Z-
Score, Springate S-Score and Zmijevski J-Score were used in the study. According to the findings,
while Altman Z-Score and Springate S-Score show similar results, they are not similar to the results
of Zmijevski J-Score.
Keywords: Financial Failure, Bankruptcy, Altman Z-Score, Springate S-Score, Zmijevski J-Score
Corresponding Author:
Jel Codes: C35, G17, Z23
Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz,
Sakarya University, School of Business,
Master of Business Administration Öz
Student, Sakarya, Türkiye,
Küresel iktisadi ve finansal dinamikler ulusal ekonomiler ve işletmeler üzerinde giderek artan
nazmiye.ayvaz@ogr.sakarya.edu.tr boyutlarda karmaşıklık ve belirsizlik üretmektedir. Firmaların yaşadıkları bu finansal stresin sonucu
olarak yatırımcılar başarısızlık korkusu içerisinden riskten kaçma eğilimi içerisine girerler. Bu sonuç
doğrultusunda araştırmacılar bir firmanın finansal olarak başarı ve başarısızlığı ölçmek amacıyla
finansal oranlardan yararlanarak modeller geliştirmişlerdir. Bu durumun akademik araştırmalara
yansımalarından biri işletmeler için finansal başarısızlığın tahmin ve modellenmesinin önemini
muhafaza ediyor olması olgusudur. Bu çalışmanın amacı mevcut finansal başarısızlık ve iflas tahmin
modellerini Borsa İstanbul’da işlem görmekte olan 45 İmalat sanayi işletmesinin finansal verilerine
uygulayarak tahmin sonuçlarının mukayeseli bir analiz çerçevesini oluşturmaktır. Finansal
Submitted: 26/12/2022 başarısızlık ve iflas riskini açıklamak için işletmelerin 2011-2020 yıllarını kapsayan finansal tabloları
1st Revised: 27/01/2023 veri seti olarak kullanılmıştır. Söz konusu 45 işletmenin Altman Z- Skor, Springate S- Skor ve
Zmijevski J- Skor değerleri hesaplanmış ve bunlara dayanarak işletmelerin finansal başarısızlıkları
2nd Revised: 16/03/2023 hakkında tahminde bulunulmuştur. Araştırmada kullanılan finansal başarısızlık model sonuçları
Altman Z-Skor, Springate S-Skor ve Zmijevski J-Skorları ile ölçülen finansal başarısızlık riskidir. Elde
Accepted: 22/03/2023
edilen bulgulara göre Altman Z-Skorunun Springate S-Skoru ile paralel seviyede sonuçlar gösterirken
Online Published: 25/03/2022 Zmijevski J-Skor’un verdiği sonuçlar ile benzerlik göstermemektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Finansal Başarısızlık, İflas, Altman Z-Skor, Springate S-Skor, Zmijevski J-Skor
JEL Kodları: C35, G17, Z23

Citation: Ayvaz, R., & Erkan M.K.., A

review on financial failure models- The
case of manufacturing industry, bmij
(2023) 11 (1): 375-399, doi:
https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v11i1.2187

© 2023 The Author(s).

This article was prepared in line with research and publication ethics and scanned for plagiarism by using iThenticate.
 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

Introduction
Companies may experience financial difficulties from time to time. They may be unable to sustain their
lives due to problems arising from business management and financial reasons, economic crises in the
country where businesses operate, political issues, or global economic crises.
Deteriorations in the financial structure of a business may eventually cause concerns about the
business's ability to survive. Failure to ensure business continuity due to financial difficulties and the
emergence of various risks is referred to as financial failure in the literature.
The idea of financial failure continues to maintain its academic and practice-oriented importance as the
pressure and risks on companies grow and become more complex due to developing technologies and
increasing globalization. The magnitude and complexity of the risks and uncertainties may deteriorate
the financial structure of the enterprises and eventually cause them to face the risk of bankruptcy.
Therefore, financial distress models are essential conceptual elements in financial management,
especially when businesses face financial difficulties for various reasons and business management does
not develop the necessary early warning and follow-up systems. These developments eventually force
the concept of financial failure, its theoretical framework, and applications to measure the dimensions
of financial failure to become an integrated part of business management practices.
For businesses, the risk of financial failure arises due to a process that includes making wrong financial
decisions. Based on this fact, it requires timely detection of financial problems and proper
implementation of these models to solve the issues with an early warning system. In general, factors
such as the ability to create high profitability ratios, avoiding high-cost borrowing structures, and
ensuring sufficient liquidity levels are considered critical elements for the health of the financial
structure of the enterprises. However, financial models in the business finance literature include early
and timely detection indicators for analysing financial statements regarding potential financial distress
and bottleneck areas.
These financial models function as an early warning system for possible threats to business life, such as
financial failure and bankruptcy. Using these developed financial failure models aims to make potential
financial stress areas predictable by systematically analysing the financial statements of the enterprises
and interpreting the analysis results in a way that will serve as an early warning indicator for the future.
Beaver was the first researcher to use financial ratios to measure financial failure in his 1966 study. Since
this date, researchers have focused on modelling and estimating financial stress and financial failure.
As a result of the literature review carried out in the context of these developed models, it is seen that
the z-score model developed by Altman in 1968 came to the fore.
Within the scope of this study, the historical financial data of 45 companies that are traded in Borsa
Istanbul and operating in the manufacturing industry are examined. In addition, this study examines
the predictions produced by the financial failure models regarding probable financial failure and
financial stress problems in the future. In the first part of the study, the theoretical framework of the
concept of financial failure and the analytical structures of the prediction models developed for
measuring financial failure are examined. The second part of the study consists of a literature review
on financial failure models. In the third and last part, the Altman Z-Score, Springate S-Score, and
Zmijevski J-Score models are calculated using the companies' financial statements for 2011-2020. In line
with the analytical structures of the models, the model results were evaluated comparatively. In the
conclusion and evaluation part, a brief comparison of the financial failure and stress models included
in the research is made, and suggestions about possible application and development areas are tried to
be given.

Financial failure and forecast models

The increase in the pace of development of the business world brings intense competition. Free market
dynamics, financial and economic crises, environmental and sustainability impacts and concerns, and
international competition create pressures and constraints on businesses in various fields. Evaluation
of the possible effects of these pressures and constraints on the enterprise’s success and viability makes
it an essential element of its management function. Financial success and survival opportunities of
businesses that cannot comply with and respond to the increasing competition conditions may be
partially or eliminated. Therefore, objective identification, measurement, follow-up, and evaluation of
financial stress and failure are among the priorities of enterprises.

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 376

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

Financial failure describes businesses experiencing financial problems and being forced to terminate
their business activities (İloğlu, 2020). Financial failure refers to the difficulties businesses face in
fulfilling their financial obligations or, worse, the inability to fulfil them (Terzi, 2011). Financial failure
can end the lives of businesses and cause businesses to go to a new set of arrangements. Analysing the
current strengths and weaknesses of the business, as well as possible opportunities and threats,
improves the planning capabilities of the finance manager (Uzun, 2005).
Since monitoring financial failure prospects is vital in terms of its socio-economic consequences,
focusing on it helps to find solutions to the problems that will occur. There are many environmental
reasons why businesses experience financial failure. Moreover, the reasons that push businesses to
financial failure can occur at almost every stage of business activities. Therefore, it is possible to divide
the causes of business failure into internal and external factors (Uzun, 2005).
According to Akgüç (1989), the reasons for the failure of businesses can be listed as follows;
- Insufficient sales volume of enterprises
- Excessively high operating expenses
- Failure of businesses to collect receivables on time, increase in doubtful and worthless receivables
- Inventory turnover slower than desired
- To create idle production capacity in enterprises by investing primarily in tangible fixed assets
- Increased and excessive borrowing
- Making a mistake when choosing the place of establishment of the business
- Weakening of competition with other businesses in the market
- Mistake in company acquisitions
- Insufficient liquidity, failure to fulfil obligations on time
- Natural disaster situations
- Prolonged strikes that may occur in enterprises
Many methods are developed to anticipate these financial failures and take precautions. The most basic
tool used in these methods is financial ratios. Financial ratios are calculated using financial statements
for the current and prior periods to measure and analyse the financial position of a company (Uzun,
2005). These ratios are analysed in terms of the enterprise's operating performance development over
time and compared with competitor enterprises operating in the same sector. In this way, the company
management is provided with financial information that can be interpreted for future periods and an
analysis basis for the dynamics of the operating performance in future periods.
A comprehensive review of the literature on financial failure studies in Turkey shows that companies
are usually analysed and interpreted with only one financial failure model. Even though this type of
study, which is common in the literature, provides meaningful results in predicting the financial health
of companies, it is more difficult to interpret based on a single estimation method. In this context, it has
been observed that the number of studies in which several different financial failure models are
calculated, and their results are compared is insufficient. Based on this gap in the literature, in this study,
by analysing their financial data between 2020-2011, three of the most widely accepted and used
financial failure models were selected and applied to 45 manufacturing sector enterprises traded on the
BIST 100. Z-score, s-score and j-score values were compared and interpreted, and the models'
differences were determined. As a result of the study, it was determined that the Altman Z-score and
Springate S-score models show similar results, while the Zmijevski j-score model gives different results
from the previous two models.
Beaver model
The Beaver model for analysing financial failure emerged from a 10-year study between 1954 and 1964.
The study analysed 79 enterprises classified as failures in financial criteria and 79 with successful
financial status. The selected enterprises are of similar size and operate in the same sector. In this model,
a total of 30 ratios are used. In addition, the t-analysis framework is extended to cover past periods up
to five years before the firm's bankruptcy (Beaver, 1969). The ratio groups Beaver chose to use in his
study are as follows:
• Cash Flow/Total Debt

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 377

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

• Net Profit/Total Assets

• Total Debt/Total Assets
• Current Assets/Short-Term Liabilities
• Net Working Capital/Operating Expenses
• Net Working Capital/Total Assets.
The study was conducted using three separate tests and stages in the analysis. These stages:
• Comparison of Ratio Averages
• Dichotomous Classification Test
• Investigation of Probability Distributions
In the first of these tests, the averages of the ratios of the enterprises whose financial conditions were
classified as successful and unsuccessful were taken, and a comparison was made over the average
values. It was found that the values differed significantly from each other as we moved from the years
before the financial failure to the first year analysed.
A binary classification test was used in the second stage of the test. With this test, each ratio used in the
model was applied to all the selected enterprises to measure whether financial success or failure would
be experienced.
Two types of errors can occur in this binary classification test. The first type of error is the failure of the
model result of a financially successful enterprise. The second type of error means that the result of the
model applied to a financially unsuccessful business is successful. The margin of error for the first type
is 22 per cent, and the margin of error for the second type is 5 per cent (Outecheva, 2007).
In the last stage of Beaver's test, the ratio distributions of the ratios analysed were calculated. In this
study, Beaver proved that the cash flow/total debt ratio is one of the most effective ratios that can be
used to detect a business failure and gives effective results.
Weibel model
In the research conducted by Weibel, 36 firms with successful financial status and 36 firms with financial
failure were selected using criteria such as the sectors in which the enterprises operate, years of
operation, size, legal structure, and place of establishment. These selected firms were subjected to the
Wilcoxon analysis test. Within the scope of the analysis, 20 ratios were used, which were grouped into
six components. These are (Yıldırım, 2006):
• Cash Flow/Short-Term Liabilities
• Current Assets/Short-Term Liabilities
• Working Capital / (Operating Expenses - Depreciation)
• Inventory Turnover
• Liabilities/ Shareholders' Equity
The Wilcoxon test is a univariate statistical analysis method. This test ignores the sample’s
independence and does not consider the multiple relationships of the existing variables. Therefore, the
selected set of ratios can be interpreted differently and give different results since they are chosen with
a subjective decision. Moreover, according to the test, the interpretation of the results does not depend
on a certain systematization (Titiz, 2000).
Sinkey model
Sinkey is one of the most important studies to classify bank failures, and his model aims to determine
whether there is a significant difference between successful and unsuccessful banks. In his study, Sinkey
examines 62 banks on the FDIC's (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) list of troubled banks and
tries to model financial failure. Sinkey pays attention to the fact that the selected banks have similar
structural characteristics and analyses the financial data of the two groups, which he divides into
troubled and problematic banks, to reveal the differences in their operations and financial behaviour.
In this study, Sinkey uses a univariate analysis of variance and classifies the ratios he chooses to use in
this analysis under four main groups (Yıldırım, 2006).

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 378

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

Capital Adequacy;
• Shareholders' Equity / Total Assets
• Equity / Assets at Risk
• Total Equity Accounts / Risky Assets
• Loans / Equity

Liquidity Ratios;
• Treasury Bonds / Total Assets
• Cash / Total Assets
• Other Government Bonds / Total Assets

Efficiency Ratios;
• Net Profit / Total Assets
• Net Profit / Shareholders' Equity

Profitability Ratios;
• (Interest + Commission) / Total Operating Profit

Altman z-score model

Many models have been developed to predict financial failure. Among these models, the most widely
used and well-known model is the Altman Z-Score model. In his study, Altman compared 33 bankrupt
and 33 non-bankrupt firms operating in the manufacturing sector between 1946 and 1965. After making
this application with 22 variables, Altman determined the five ratios that gave the best results among
these variables and formed the discriminant model (Altman, 1968).
The model is one of the best examples of discriminant analysis. With discriminant analysis, through an
index derived from the values of more than one independent variable, it is possible to determine which
of the predefined groups or groups the unit whose observation results are obtained belongs to and,
therefore, which group it should be classified. The so-called Z-Score model was developed by Altman
in 1968 (Okka, 2018). The Altman Z-Score model is as follows:

Z=0.012X1 + 0.014X2+ 0.033X3 + 0.006X4+ 0.999X5

The five financial ratios selected are as follows:

X1: Net Working Capital / Total Assets

X2: Retained Earnings / Total Assets
X3: Earnings Before Interest and Taxes / Total Assets
X4: Total Market Value of Equity Shares / Book Value of Total Debt
X5: Sales / Total Assets

Z-Score values are classified as follows;

• Values less than 1.81; Bankruptcy (financial failure); Danger area, the probability of financial
failure is high.
• Values between 1.81 - 2.99; Healthy area; Grey area, financial failure is difficult to predict easily.

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 379

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

• Values greater than 2.99; Stable area; Financial failure seems unlikely to occur.
Since the Altman Z-Score model only applies to firms in the manufacturing sector listed on the stock
exchange, Altman et al. developed the Zeta Model in 1977 for firms in the manufacturing industry that
are not listed on the stock exchange (Şaşmaz, 2019).
Meyer and Pifer model
In 1970, Meyer and Pifer conducted a study on financial failure prediction. Unlike previous studies,
they used multivariate regression analysis. In their research, they selected 39 of the 55 banks that failed
in the period covering 1948-1965 in the USA and included them in the analysis. They randomly selected
the same number of 39 banks among the successful banks, included them in the scope of the research,
and formed the study sample consisting of 78 banks. With the regression analysis method, they used a
dummy variable, taking the values of 0 and 1 as the dependent variable and 32 financial ratios
determined as independent variables (Zinet, 2014).
As a result of the multiple regression they applied, financial failure forecasts are 80% successful 1 and 2
years before the relevant year. As a result, the model’s coefficient of determination (R2) was 70%, a high
value. However, it was determined that the prediction percentages started to decrease, and the model
became inadequate when periods longer than two years were used for forecasts (Zinet, 2014).
Springate s-score model
The Springate Model is developed by Gordon L.V. Springate using Multiple Discriminant Analysis
(MDA). In this model, which is presented as a revolution of the Altman model, the 19 financial ratios
most commonly used in the literature were initially preferred. However, after the tests, Springate chose
four financial ratios to be used to determine the result better. As a result of this test applied to 20
successful and 20 unsuccessful businesses, the accuracy rate in measuring financial success was 92,5%
(Husein & Pambekti, 2014).
Springate S- Score Model:
S =1.03X1 + 3.07X2 + 0.66X3 + 0.4X4

X1 = Working Capital / Total Assets

X2 = Earnings Before Interest and Taxes/Total Assets
X3 = Earnings Before Interest and Taxes / Short-Term Liabilities
X4 = Sales / Total Assets
S-Score values are classified as follows;
• S-Score > 0.862; The business is considered safe (successful).
• S-Score < 0.862; The business is considered unsafe (unsuccessful).

Ohlson o-score model

James A. Ohlson developed the Ohlson Model in 1980. The Ohlson Model was introduced to reduce the
method's limitations based on the sample size and numerous restrictive assumptions since the ratios in
Altman's Z score model differ by industry. Ohlson uses the logit regression model in his study (Kulalı,
2014).
Ohlson's model tries to predict the probability of default (inability to fulfil obligations) of enterprises.
Ohlson also uses an improved database derived from annual financial reports. The sample in this model
includes 2058 firms that did not experience financial failure between 1970 and 1976 and 105 firms that
went bankrupt. The model identifies four main factors that are statistically significant in assessing the
probability of default (inability to fulfil obligations) within a year: business size, measurement of
financial structure, measurement of performance, and measurement of liquidity (Outecheva, 2007).
O-Score Model:
O=0,407X1+6,03X2+1,43X3+0,076X4-1,72X5-2,37X6-1,83X7+0,285X8-0,521X9-1,32
(X1) = Log (Total Assets /GDP Index)
(X2) = Total Debt / Total Assets

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 380

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

(X3) = Working Capital / Total Assets

(X4) = Current Liabilities / Current Assets
(X5) = 1;0 if Total Debt > Total Assets
(X6) =Net Profit (NP)/ Total Assets
(X7) = Earnings Before Interest Tax / Total Debt
(X8) = 1 if net profit for the last two years is negative;0
(X9) = (N.Kt – N.Kt-1)/(|N.Kt| + |N.Kt-1|)
The O score obtained here is subjected to logistic transformation. For example, the following formula
gives the logistic transformation (Şaşmaz, 2019).

𝑒𝑒 𝑜𝑜 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
1 + 𝑒𝑒 𝑜𝑜 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠

O-Score values are classified as follows;

• O-Score > 0.5; The business is in a safe condition (successful)
• O- Score < 0.5; Business is insecure (failing)

Zmijewski j-score model

The Zmijewski model was introduced in 1984 and categorized businesses that legally filed for
bankruptcy as failing. Zmijewski tested his probit analysis model on 800 non-bankrupt and 40 bankrupt
enterprises. The reliability of this model was found to be 99% (Bayramova, 2020).

Zmijewski model:

J=-4.3-4.5X1+5.7X2+0.004X3
It's here,
(X1) = Net Profits / Total Assets
(X2) = Total Debt / Total Assets
(X3) = Current Assets / Short-Term Liabilities.

J-Score values are classified as follows;

• J-Score < 0; The business is safe (successful)
• J- Score > 0; The business is insecure (failing)

Canada c-score model

The Canada C-Score model was applied to 173 businesses operating in Canada that have experienced
financial failure. Multiple discriminant methods were used in the model. Therefore, it is considered
more appropriate to apply the model to small enterprises (Şaşmaz, 2019).

The Canada C-Score function is as follows:

C=4,59X1+4,51X2+0,3936X3-2,76
(X1) =Shareholders' Shares / Total Assetst-1

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 381

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

(X2) = (Earnings Before Interest and Taxes + Finance Expensest-1)/Total Assetst-1

(X3) = Sales Revenuet-2/ Total Assetst-2.

Within the scope of the model, (t-1) = data from one year ago, while (t-2) = data from two years ago.
C-Score values are categorized as follows;
• C-Score>-0.3; Enterprise is in a safe state (successful)
• C- Score <-0.3; The business is insecure (failed)

Literature review
Chairunnisa, Arshed, and Shafitranata (2020) aimed to calculate the potential bankruptcy forecasts of
Islamic banking using Altman Z-Score and Springate models. The financial data of 12 Islamic banks in
Indonesia between 2013 and 2019 were analysed. As a result of the study, the Z-score estimated that
1.19% of Islamic banks are in the grey area and 98.81% are in a non-failure zone. At the same time, the
S-Score showed that 38.10% of Islamic banks are in a financial distress position, and 61.90% are in a non-
failure zone.
Öztürk and Yılmaz (2019) aim to analyse the relationship between Altman Z-Score and Beneish M-Score
in the context of 17 companies traded in the BIST Emerging Companies Market. It is concluded that
there is a significant relationship between financial distress and accounting manipulation. The Z-score
values calculated with the data obtained from the financial statements of the enterprises with a high
probability of manipulation are above the threshold value of 2.99 in parallel with this situation.
The research conducted by Soba, Akyüz, and Uğurcan (2016) aims to predict unsuccessful, successful,
and at-risk firms by applying the Altman Model in measuring financial failure in firms registered in
Borsa Istanbul. Within the scope of the research, financial failure forecasts were made between 2011 and
2015. In addition, the study tried to determine the level of impact of the analysed enterprises from
possible financial crisis environments they may face in the future.
In Kulalı's (2016) study, the Altman Z-Score model is applied to 19 companies that experienced financial
failure and bankruptcy while trading in the BIST between 2000 and 2013. It is aimed to evaluate the
indicators in the model and to calculate the Type I error rate, which shows the ratio of companies
included in the non-bankruptcy group despite being bankrupt. As a result of the study, it is concluded
that the Z-Score model predicts bankrupt enterprises 95% one year before bankruptcy and 90% two
years before the bankruptcy.
In İskenderoğlu and Karakozak's (2013) study, the Altman model Z-Score value is a combined ratio
method with various financial ratios of 158 manufacturing industry enterprises traded on BIST between
2007-2011, calculated quarterly. In line with the study's results, it was determined that the global
financial crisis in 2008 did not significantly affect the averages of ratios such as liquidity, cash, and
current ratios, which show the ability of enterprises to fulfil their short-term liabilities.
Büyükarıkan and Büyükarıkan (2014) aimed to analyse the IT sector companies traded in Borsa Istanbul
with Altman Z-Score and Springate financial failure models. The data used in the study were obtained
from the consolidated financial statements of six firms operating in the IT sector for six accounting
periods between 2008 and 2013. As a result of the study, based on the data obtained from the Altman
Z-Score and S-Score models, it was found that the results of both models in determining financial failure
are similar.
Rahayu, Suwendra, and Yulianthini (2016) aimed to determine and analyse the financial distress
prediction of telecommunication enterprises traded on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for 2012-2014 with
the Altman Z-Score, Springate S-Score and Zmijewski J-Score method. As a result of the study, two
firms were found to be financially unsuccessful when the Altman Z-Score model was applied.
Furthermore, when the Springate S-Score model was applied, four firms were found to be financially
unsuccessful. Finally, when the Zmijewski J-Score model was applied, it was determined that the two
firms were financially unsuccessful.
In the research conducted by Anjum (2012), the financial failure studies were analysed, and different
models were compared. Among these comparisons, it was stated that models using multiple

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 382

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

discriminant analysis obtained the most effective results. It was concluded that the results of the Altman
Z-score model could be applied for up to three years in predicting financial failure.
Şahin and Özkan (2022) analysed the financial success of 8 major automotive industry firms traded on
the BIST during COVID-19, using data from 2017-2021. Within the scope of the analysis, z-score, s-score,
t-score and j-score are used as financial failure models, and their results are compared. According to the
study results, Altman Z-Score and Springate S-Score models report similar results. While automotive
firms are expected to be negatively affected financially due to the unfavourable conditions created by
COVID-19, the findings of the study do not support this expectation
The study by Pakdaman (2018) compares the results of Altman, Springate, Zmijevski and Grover
models by predicting the financial failure of companies traded in the Tehran Stock Exchange. In this
context, 35 companies from the textile and ceramics sector were selected, and their financial data
covering the years 2011-2016 were analysed. As a result of the study, the Grover model predicts the
highest number of firms experiencing financial stress, followed by the Altman and Springate models.
The Zmijevski model, on the other hand, shows fewer firms in financial failure.
In the study by Poyraz and Uçma (2006), the financial failure levels of tourism, textile, agricultural
products, food, and vehicles during the 1994 and 2001 crises are analysed with the help of the Altman
Z (score) model. However, the z-score values, which measure the level of financial failure, are
interpreted according to the sectors. As a result of this interpretation, it is impossible to predict the
financial failure of the tourism, textile, agricultural products-food, and vehicles sectors, which constitute
Turkey's main exporting sectors with the Altman z-score model.
Karadeniz and Öcek (2019) aimed to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference
between the firms that carry the risk of financial failure and those that do not by examining the financial
ratios of tourism enterprises whose shares are traded in Borsa Istanbul. For this purpose, 11 tourism
companies were included in the analysis, and their financial data for the last six years were analysed
and interpreted with the help of a z-score. As a result of this calculation, 66 observations were made on
11 companies selected from the tourism sector within the 6-year analysis period. In total, 29 of these
observations did not show the risk of financial failure, 29 identified the risk of financial failure, and
eight observations were found to be in the grey zone. After separating the enterprises included in the
analysis according to their financial failure risks, 13 important financial ratios measuring liquidity,
financial structure, activity, profitability and market performance were calculated and analysed to
determine whether there is a statistically significant difference in these ratios.

Research methodology
Purpose of the study and sample selection
This study aims to predict financial failure by analysing the historical financial data of 45 manufacturing
sector companies traded in BIST 100. Previous studies in Turkey have either used a single financial
failure model or limited the number of enterprises and the number of years analysed. In order to avoid
these limitations in our study, we selected three widely used financial failure models in the literature,
and 45 of the 46 enterprises in the manufacturing sector in Borsa Istanbul were included in the study.
The reason for not including the remaining enterprise in the study is the lack of financial data for the
period to be analysed. The reason for choosing the manufacturing sector is that the models used for
financial failure forecasting give the most accurate results in the manufacturing sector.
A literature review reveals that financial failure models have been studied over 1-2 years. Therefore, it
is impossible to interpret whether there is an ongoing financial failure situation. Accordingly, this study
analyses ten years and tries to measure how much financial stress shows continuity through financial
failure prediction models. The study uses the financial statements of 45 manufacturing sector
enterprises traded in Borsa Istanbul (BIST 100) for 2011-2020 as a data set. The financial statements and
financial data of the enterprises analysed within the scope of the analysis were obtained from the Public
Disclosure Platform (KAP) website. In addition, market capitalization data of these enterprises is
obtained from IS Investment website.

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 383

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

Table 1: BIST 100 Manufacturing Sector Enterprises Included in the Study (2011-2020)

Company Name Bist Code Company Name Bist Code

Anadolu Efes Biracılık ve Malt Sanayii A.Ş. Aefes Karsan Otomotiv Sanayii ve Ticaret A.Ş. Karsn
Aksa Akrilik Kimya Sanayii A.Ş. Aksa Kartonsan Karton Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. Kartn
Alkim Alkali Kimya A.Ş. Alkim Kent Gida Maddeleri Sanayii ve Ticaret A.Ş. Kent
Arçelik A.Ş. Arclk Kerevitaş Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. Kervt
Bagfaş Bandirma Gübre Fabrikalari A.Ş. Bagfs Konya Çimento Sanayii A.Ş. Konya
Brisa Bridgestone Sabanci Lastik Sanayi ve
Brisa Kordsa Teknik Tekstil A.Ş. Kords
Ticaret A.Ş.
Kardemir Karabük Demir Çelik Sanayi ve
Birlik Mensucat Ticaret Ve Sanayi İşletmesi A.Ş. Brmen Krdmd
Ticaret A.Ş.
Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret
Brsan Nuh Çimento Sanayi A.Ş. Nuhcm
A.Ş.
Bursa Çimento Fabrikasi A.Ş. Bucim Otokar Otomotiv ve Savunma Sanayi A.Ş. Otkar
Coca-Cola İçecek A.Ş. Ccola Oyak Çimento Fabrikalari A.Ş. Oyakc
Çemaş Döküm Sanayi A.Ş. Cemas Parsan Makina Parçalari Sanayii A.Ş. Parsn
Çemtaş Çelik Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. Cemts Petkim Petrokimya Holding A.Ş. Petkm
Çimsa Çimento Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. Cimsa Sasa Polyester Sanayi A.Ş. Sasa
Deva Holding A.Ş. Deva Tat Gida Sanayi A.Ş. Tatgd
Ege Endüstri ve Ticaret A.Ş. Egeen Türk Tuborg Bira ve Malt Sanayii A.Ş. Tborg
Ege Gübre Sanayii A.Ş. Eggub Tofaş Türk Otomobil Fabrikasi A.Ş. Toaso
Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari T.A.Ş. Eregl Tukaş Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. Tukas
Ford Otomotiv Sanayi A.Ş. Froto Tüpraş-Türkiye Petrol Rafinerileri A.Ş. Tuprs
Goodyear Lastikleri T.A.Ş. Goody Türk Traktör ve Ziraat Makineleri A.Ş Ttrak
Gübre Fabrikalari T.A.Ş. Gubrf Ülker Bisküvi Sanayi A.Ş. Ulker
Hektaş Ticaret T.A.Ş. Hekts Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. Vestl
Jantsa Jant Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. Jants Yataş Yatak Ve Yorgan Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. Yatas
Source: www.borsaistanbul.com

Variables
The study variables are Altman Z-Score, Springate S-Score, and Zmijevski J-Score. In addition, the
financial data of 45 manufacturing sector enterprises traded in the BIST 100 were used to determine
these values. These variables and the models to be used in the analysis are given in Table 3.
Table 2: Variables Used in the Study
Variables Model
X1: Net Working Capital / Total Assets
X2: Retained Earnings / Total Assets
X3: Earnings Before Interest and Taxes / Total Assets
Altman Z-Score
X4: Total Market Value of Equity Shares / Book Value of Total Debt
X5: Sales / Total Assets
Z=0.012X1 + 0.014X2+ 0.033X3 + 0.006X4+ 0.999X5
X1 = Working Capital / Total Assets
X2 = Earnings before Interest and Taxes/Total Assets
Springate S-Score X3 = Earnings before interest and taxes / Short-term liabilities
X4 = Sales / Total Assets
S =1.03X1 + 3.07X2 + 0.66X3 + 0.4X4

X1 = Net Profit / Total Assets

X2 = Total Debt / Total Assets
Zmijevski J-Score
X3 = Current Assets / Short-Term Liabilities
J=-4.3-4.5X1+5.7X2+0.004X3

The survival indicators (Z-value) of the Altman Z-Score model used to determine the risk of financial
failure are interpreted as follows.
Values less than 1.81; Bankruptcy (financial failure); Danger area, the probability of financial failure is
high.
Values between 1.81 - 2.99; Healthy area, Grey area, financial failure is difficult to predict.
Values greater than 2.99; Stable area (Financially successful) Financial failure is unlikely.

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 384

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

In the Springate S-Score model, another model used to determine the risk of financial failure, the
survival indicators (S-value) are interpreted as follows.
S-Score > 0.862; The business is safe (successful).
S-Score < 0.862; The business is unsafe (unsuccessful).
The last model used to determine the risk of financial failure is the Zmijevski (J) Model. This model's
survival indicators (J value) are interpreted as follows.
J-Score > 0.5; Business is safe (successful)
J- Score < 0.5; The business is insecure (failed)
Data Analysis
The firms to be evaluated according to the early warning models were selected from the manufacturing
sector traded on Borsa Istanbul in Türkiye. A 10-year review was conducted based on the period
between 2011-2020. As a result of this analysis, Altman Z-Score, Springate S-Score, and Zmijevski J-
Score models were applied to the data of the companies in question, and the results were classified
within their ranges. Table 4 shows the 10-year Z-scores, S-scores, and J-scores of 45 manufacturing
enterprises operating in the BIST 100. The values are separated and coloured according to their
classification degrees as successful, unsuccessful, and Altman Z-Score specific grey area.
Table 3: Calculated Scores of Companies for 2020
COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE

AEFES 1.218 0.583 -1.4426 KARSN 1.847 1.304 -0.1054

AKSA 2.229 1.323 -1.1029 KARTN 15.404 2.739 -4.0004

ALKIM 7.888 3.005 -3.7368 KENT 56.969 1.033 -2.7068

ARCLK 1.893 1.01 -0.537 KERVT 2.419 1.247 -1.3857

BAGFS 1.171 0.297 0.3618 KONYA 12.427 0.635 -2.9211

BRISA 1.724 0.89 -0.3026 KORDS 1.337 0.541 -1.102

BRMEN -11.137 -2.78 21.951 KRDMD 1.233 0.518 -0.6405

BRSAN 0.835 0.279 -1.0711 NUHCM 4.208 1.462 -3.614

BUCİM 4.2 1.594 -2.9776 OTKAR 2.236 1.166 -0.5069

CCOLA 2.174 1.151 -1.4196 OYAKC 3.456 0.848 -2.2313

CEMAS 3.796 0.669 -3.3805 PARSN 0.875 0.2 -1.3169

CEMTS 8.782 2.39 -4.1016 PETKM 1.877 0.94 -0.921

CIMSA 1.081 0.374 -0.7629 SASA 1.512 0.471 -0.2299

CMENT 2.865 0.047 -2.1133 TATGD 3.226 1.326 -2.1306

DEVA 3.436 1.82 -2.4873 TBORG 3.698 1.357 -2.2398

EGEEN 6.574 1.612 -3.4545 TOASO 2.393 1.039 -0.2729

EGGUB 3.285 1.162 -1.9122 TTRAK 3.507 1.842 -1.0773

EREGL 2.539 1.245 -2.7776 TUKAS 3.906 1.216 -1.5086

FROTO 4.135 1.889 -0.9678 TUPRS 1.466 0.407 0.539

GOODY 3.957 1.647 -2.0065 ULKER 2.21 1.49 -0.7017

GUBRF 3.06 0.782 -0.7324 VESTL 1.1 0.487 -0.4255

HEKTS 2.491 0.847 -0.9201 YATAS 3.079 1.558 -1.2108

JANTS 7.229 2.306 -3.5247 Ort. 4.351 1.066 -1.114

The calculated score values of the companies analysed within the scope of the study for 2020 are given
in Table 3 above. ALKIM, BUCIM, DEVA, EGEEN, EGGUB, FROTO, GOODY, JANTS, KARTN, KENT,
NUHCM, TATGD, TBORG, TTRAK, TUKAS and YATAS were found to be successful in all three
models. On the other hand, BAGFS, BRMEN and TUPRS were identified as unsuccessful in 2020 in all
three models.

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 385

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

Table 4: Calculated Scores of Companies for 2019

COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE

AEFES 1.21 0.576 -1.6452 KARSN 1.005 0.674 -0.0856

AKSA 1.842 0.897 -0.9458 KARTN 9.113 2.256 -3.8428

ALKIM 6.378 2.907 -3.8872 KENT 7.402 0.965 -1.7032

ARCLK 1.951 0.973 -0.2679 KERVT 2.376 1.396 -0.7517

BAGFS 1.088 0.487 -0.3277 KONYA 8.856 0.605 -3.0751

BRISA 1.229 0.575 0.3722 KORDS 1.536 0.772 -1.0074

BRMEN -1.218 -0.696 0.2963 KRDMD 1.153 0.425 -1.0487

BRSAN 1.048 0.452 -0.9761 NUHCM 2.576 1.01 -2.6392

BUCİM 3.515 1.082 -2.8476 OTKAR 2.829 1.538 -0.4733

CCOLA 1.952 1.008 -1.4424 OYAKC 6.003 1.153 -3.4368

CEMAS 0.588 0.121 -0.4185 PARSN 0.83 0.136 -0.9484

CEMTS 7.359 2.057 -3.6012 PETKM 2.121 1.031 -0.6401

CIMSA 1.124 0.317 -0.8279 SASA 0.783 0.053 -1.0988

CMENT 2.264 -0.188 -2.3507 TATGD 3.195 1.527 -1.8897

DEVA 2.43 1.575 -1.9055 TBORG 3.327 1.579 -2.2576

EGEEN 6.361 2.44 -3.8684 TOASO 2.986 1.235 -1.0015

EGGUB 2.013 0.792 -1.1993 TTRAK 2.775 1.296 -0.1955

EREGL 2.406 1.153 -2.6338 TUKAS 2.9 1.344 -1.1246

FROTO 4.261 1.689 -0.7112 TUPRS 2.345 0.818 0.0482

GOODY 4.302 2.522 -2.5228 ULKER 1.753 0.787 -1.0659

GUBRF 1.388 0.478 0.4738 VESTL 0.949 0.345 0.2437

HEKTS 2.856 1.794 -1.3897 YATAS 2.923 1.386 -1.3407

JANTS 4.632 1.947 -3.2179 Ort. 2.905 1.051 -1.448

The calculated scores of the companies analysed within the scope of the study for 2019 are given in
Table 4 above. ALKIM, BUCIM, CEMTS, EGEEN, FROTO, GOODY, JANTS, KARTN, KENT, OYAKC,
TATGD and TBORG companies were found to be successful in all three models, while BRISA, BRMEN,
GUBRF and VESTL companies were found to be in financial distress in all three models. When the
financial failure predictions of the companies in 2019 are generally examined, the number of companies
in the grey area according to the z-score model is higher. The number of companies found to be
successful according to the s-score and j-score models is higher.

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 386

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

Table 5: Calculated Scores of Companies for 2018

COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE

AEFES 1.311 0.521 -1.6823 KARSN 0.848 0.571 0.6868

AKSA 2.011 0.994 -0.7631 KARTN 9.51 3.028 -4.2501

ALKIM 5.8 2.785 -3.4541 KENT 8.941 1.043 -2.0843

ARCLK 2.047 1.047 -0.3251 KERVT 2.16 1.15 0.078

BAGFS 0.577 -0.464 0.1979 KONYA 9.242 1.221 -3.3872

BRISA 1.487 0.904 0.2101 KORDS 1.855 0.966 -1.5815

BRMEN -0.657 -0.445 -0.0678 KRDMD 1.964 1.493 -1.8196

BRSAN 1.261 0.661 -1.0578 NUHCM 2.539 1.048 -2.2323

BUCİM 4.587 2.508 -3.3432 OTKAR 2.266 1.194 0.1976

CCOLA 2.046 1.025 -1.2594 OYAKC 3.747 1.165 -2.8595

CEMAS 2.032 0.381 -0.2542 PARSN 1.346 0.458 -0.5488

CEMTS 6.948 3.712 -4.2099 PETKM 2.229 1.125 -0.7012

CIMSA 1.377 0.472 -1.1486 SASA 2.403 0.996 -1.5804

CMENT 2.067 0.039 -2.5601 TATGD 3.466 1.377 -2.0001

DEVA 2.075 1.306 -1.4519 TBORG 3.997 1.454 -2.7784

EGEEN 5.743 2.653 -4.5803 TOASO 2.844 1.057 -0.6389

EGGUB 2.589 0.952 -1.8805 TTRAK 3.008 1.563 -0.0706

EREGL 3.493 1.847 -3.0797 TUKAS 1.284 0.764 -0.4265

FROTO 4.705 1.765 -0.8167 TUPRS 3.62 1.691 -0.3808

GOODY 3.203 1.485 -1.2942 ULKER 1.972 1.165 -0.7227

GUBRF 1.672 0.762 -0.1411 VESTL 0.859 0.257 0.2835

HEKTS 2.958 1.606 -1.2973 YATAS 3.4 1.508 -1.4793

JANTS 4.292 2.004 -2.85 Ort. 3.424 1.120 -1.608

The calculated scores of the companies analysed within the scope of the study for 2018 are given in
Table 5 above. ALKIM, BUCIM, CEMTS, EGEEN, EREGL, FROTO, GOODY, JANTS, KARTN, KENT,
KONYA, OYAKC, TATGD, TBORG, TTRAK, TUPRS and YATAS were found to be successful in all
three models. In contrast, the failure prediction of BAGFS, KARSN and VESTL was unsuccessful in all
three models.

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 387

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

Table 6: Calculated Scores of Companies for 2017

COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE

AEFES 1.424 0.563 -1.5978 KARSN 0.968 0.878 0.3353

AKSA 2.249 1.08 -1.2851 KARTN 10.409 1.954 -3.6835

ALKIM 6.068 2.02 -3.4167 KENT 14.837 1.244 -2.5548

ARCLK 2.525 1.062 -0.6495 KERVT 1.048 0.477 0.0972

BAGFS 1.355 0.404 -0.7011 KONYA 11.506 1.484 -3.4681

BRISA 1.523 0.75 0.1997 KORDS 2.287 0.938 -2.0846

BRMEN -0.633 -0.233 -0.8903 KRDMD 1.04 0.555 -0.7381

BRSAN 1.37 0.672 -1.3245 NUHCM 2.814 0.837 -2.5813

BUCİM 3.407 1.487 -2.5348 OTKAR 2.652 1.126 0.434

CCOLA 1.884 0.716 -0.9394 OYAKC 6.162 1.621 -3.8248

CEMAS 1.484 0.175 0.1035 PARSN 1.105 0.318 -1.3085

CEMTS 4.812 1.606 -3.1037 PETKM 3.282 1.741 -2.1587

CIMSA 1.674 0.604 -1.3853 SASA 2.588 1.26 -1.6362

CMENT 2.784 0.402 -2.8996 TATGD 4.19 1.378 -2.4422

DEVA 2.005 1.005 -1.6172 TBORG 4.938 1.612 -2.9166

EGEEN 8.94 3.352 -4.2874 TOASO 2.634 0.907 -0.4428

EGGUB 3.513 1.292 -2.7094 TTRAK 3.829 1.738 -0.5947

EREGL 3.376 1.701 -2.9503 TUKAS 1.799 0.716 -0.8006

FROTO 4.008 1.533 -0.8669 TUPRS 2.688 1.21 -0.5683

GOODY 3.964 1.595 -1.8282 ULKER 2.024 0.993 -0.5566

GUBRF 1.483 0.42 -0.4653 VESTL 0.993 0.382 0.4794

HEKTS 3.187 1.527 -1.748 YATAS 3.445 1.588 -1.6074

JANTS 4.439 1.693 -2.8465 Ort. 3.346 1.013 -1.616

The calculated scores of the companies analysed within the scope of the study for 2017 are given in
Table 6 above. ALKIM, BUCIM, CEMTS, EGEEN, EREGL, FROTO, GOODY, HEKTS, JANTS, KARTN,
KENT, KONYA, OYAKC, PETKM, TATGD, TBORG, TTRAK and YATAS are predicted as financially
successful in all three models. In contrast, BRİSA, CEMAS, KERVT and VESTL are predicted to be in
financial stress in all three models.

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 388

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

Table 7: Calculated Scores of Companies for 2016

COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE

AEFES 1.509 0.64 -1.7935 KARSN 0.28 0.031 0.5016

AKSA 2.316 1.072 -1.4699 KARTN 8.361 0.809 -3.1531

ALKIM 4.371 1.718 -3.1026 KENT 12.903 0.577 -1.8007

ARCLK 2.491 1.069 -0.9035 KERVT 0.016 -0.408 2.4572

BAGFS 1.462 0.239 -0.8064 KONYA 13.549 1.343 -3.5928

BRISA 1.54 0.675 0.1731 KORDS 2.093 0.927 -2.0945

BRMEN -0.465 -0.259 -0.7642 KRDMD 0.755 0.295 -0.7162

BRSAN 1.094 0.485 -1.2704 NUHCM 4.369 1.594 -3.4099

BUCİM 3.884 1.689 -2.9351 OTKAR 2.488 0.973 0.5024

CCOLA 2.297 0.901 -1.2282 OYAKC 8.385 1.757 -3.9676

CEMAS 1.301 0.296 -1.3463 PARSN 1.097 0.133 -1.4948

CEMTS 3.565 1.35 -3.0164 PETKM 2.439 1.056 -1.8529

CIMSA 2.1 0.642 -2.0593 SASA 3.036 1.901 -2.0105

CMENT 2.722 0.434 -3.007 TATGD 4.613 1.698 -2.6905

DEVA 2.162 1.174 -1.6664 TBORG 4.002 1.537 -2.6706

EGEEN 9.44 3.333 -4.1033 TOASO 2.382 0.829 -0.3503

EGGUB 2.824 1.024 -2.1364 TTRAK 4.264 2.047 -0.9751

EREGL 2.383 1.096 -2.5579 TUKAS 2.023 1.015 -1.4159

FROTO 3.832 1.366 -0.9614 TUPRS 2.084 0.835 -0.3065

GOODY 4.644 1.545 -1.9981 ULKER 2.244 0.701 -0.6563

GUBRF 1.494 0.341 -0.4976 VESTL 1.33 0.625 0.2804

HEKTS 4.043 2.052 -2.5521 YATAS 2.409 1.238 -0.5262

JANTS 4.438 1.178 -2.7685 Ort. 3.346 1.013 -1.616

The calculated scores of the companies analysed within the scope of the study for 2016 are given in
Table 7 above. ALKIM, BUCIM, EGEEN, FROTO, GOODY, HEKTS, JANTS, KONYA, NUHCM,
OYAKC, SASA, TATGD, TBORG and TTRAK companies are found to be financially successful in all
three models. In contrast, BRISA, KARSN, KERVT and VESTL companies are predicted to fail in all
three models. However, considering the averages of the models, it is seen that the average is determined
as successful in all three models.

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 389

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

Table 8: Calculated Scores of Companies for 2015

COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE

AEFES 1.807 0.656 -1.7355 KARSN 0.765 0.385 0.7839

AKSA 2.995 1.299 -2.5901 KARTN 6.676 0.476 -3.2743

ALKIM 5.148 1.514 -3.2875 KENT 17.46 0.919 -2.7975

ARCLK 2.56 1.173 -0.76 KERVT 0.343 -0.112 1.7972

BAGFS 1.265 0.341 -1.995 KONYA 15.708 1.586 -3.6966

BRISA 2.604 1.124 -0.6884 KORDS 1.844 0.889 -1.9335

BRMEN -0.35 -0.131 -1.2984 KRDMD 0.879 0.29 -1.1439

BRSAN 1.078 0.395 -0.8465 NUHCM 4.447 1.873 -3.3025

BUCİM 3.715 1.53 -2.7277 OTKAR 2.329 0.893 0.3582

CCOLA 2.73 0.922 -1.228 OYAKC 6.851 1.595 -3.8332

CEMAS 1.095 0.152 -1.7917 PARSN 1.174 0.307 -2.0579

CEMTS 4 1.198 -2.9852 PETKM 2.345 1.06 -1.9747

CIMSA 3.557 1.318 -2.8102 SASA 3.187 1.633 -2.1738

CMENT 2.899 0.56 -3.185 TATGD 4.379 1.557 -2.6094

DEVA 1.53 0.689 -1.376 TBORG 4.03 1.552 -2.5136

EGEEN 9.759 4.077 -4.228 TOASO 2.158 0.787 -0.4247

EGGUB 1.822 0.523 -1.0812 TTRAK 4.352 1.765 -0.9491

EREGL 2.893 1.217 -2.5848 TUKAS 2.099 0.936 -1.7196

FROTO 3.979 1.376 -1.0767 TUPRS 2.619 1.111 -0.884

GOODY 4.342 1.472 -2.2645 ULKER 3.392 1.469 -1.1301

GUBRF 2.006 0.789 -1.2001 VESTL 1.131 0.577 0.4531

HEKTS 3.795 1.794 -2.6273 YATAS 1.816 0.958 -0.4187

JANTS 4.65 1.23 -2.5326 Ort. 3.553 1.061 -1.785

The calculated scores of the companies analysed within the scope of the study for 2015 are given in
Table 8 above. In 2015, AKSA, ALKIM, BUCIM, CEMTS, CIMSA, EGEEN, FROTO, GOODY, HEKTS,
JANTS, KENT, KONYA, NUHCM, OYAKC, SASA, TATGD, TBORG, TTRAK and ULKER were
determined as financially successful, while KARSN, KERVT and VESTL were determined as financially
unsuccessful in all three models.

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 390

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

Table 9: Calculated Scores of Companies for 2014

COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE

AEFES 2.182 0.679 -1.7652 KARSN 0.381 -0.087 0.6336

AKSA 2.808 1.103 -2.0909 KARTN 6.685 0.324 -3.2778

ALKIM 6.584 1.342 -3.3742 KENT 7.24 0.926 -2.3184

ARCLK 2.517 1.124 -0.7703 KERVT 0.322 0.205 1.8285

BAGFS 1.524 0.466 -0.8847 KONYA 13.99 2.048 -3.8828

BRISA 3.184 1.554 -1.1605 KORDS 1.687 0.741 -1.8644

BRMEN -0.408 0.106 -1.0358 KRDMD 1.567 1.009 -1.492

BRSAN 1.098 0.387 -0.7223 NUHCM 4.115 1.53 -3.1511

BUCİM 4.666 1.957 -3.1276 OTKAR 2.256 0.859 0.0501

CCOLA 3.51 1.003 -1.4044 OYAKC 7.264 2.058 -4.0332

CEMAS 1.909 0.154 -2.8145 PARSN 2.081 0.623 -3.0247

CEMTS 5.045 1.467 -3.5479 PETKM 2.491 0.524 -1.8305

CIMSA 5.282 1.521 -3.533 SASA 2.647 1.504 -1.77

CMENT 2.389 0.794 -3.2567 TATGD 2.689 1.245 -2.5435

DEVA 1.233 0.651 -1.2087 TBORG 3.165 1.546 -2.43

EGEEN 11.734 4.292 -4.7496 TOASO 2.311 0.815 -0.7106

EGGUB 1.338 0.334 -1.0805 TTRAK 4.21 1.635 -1.2414

EREGL 3.063 1.413 -2.6457 TUKAS -0.402 -0.339 0.4705

FROTO 3.334 1.007 -1.0999 TUPRS 2.424 0.745 -0.4813

GOODY 5.901 1.689 -2.725 ULKER 3.42 1.37 -0.9739

GUBRF 2.007 1.107 -1.0718 VESTL 1.28 0.604 0.3156

HEKTS 4.144 1.914 -3.0353 YATAS 1.594 0.958 -0.3487

JANTS 4.865 1.889 -3.2172 Ort. 3.407 1.084 -1.831

The calculated scores of the companies analysed within the scope of the study for 2014 are given in
Table 9 above. In 2014, ALKIM, BRISA, BUCIM, CEMTS, CIMSA, EGEEN, EREGL, FROTO, GOODY,
HEKTS, JANTS, KENT, KONYA, NUHCM, OYAKC, TBORG, TTRAK and ULKER were found
financially successful while KARSN, KERVT, TUKAS and VESTL were found financially unsuccessful
in all three models.

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 391

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

Table 10: Calculated Scores of Companies for 2013

COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE

AEFES 1.792 0.506 -2.4925 KARSN 1.385 0.968 -0.4314

AKSA 2.761 1.044 -2.1896 KARTN 15.288 1.74 -4.0009

ALKIM 4.18 1.291 -2.7173 KENT 10.03 0.501 -1.997

ARCLK 2.552 1.2 -0.8283 KERVT 0.173 -0.01 2.2836

BAGFS 2.309 0.748 -1.0922 KONYA 14.787 1.362 -3.5372

BRISA 3.064 1.436 -1.2956 KORDS 1.732 0.721 -1.9652

BRMEN -0.008 0.11 -1.2895 KRDMD 1.524 0.817 -1.4637

BRSAN 1.2 0.379 -0.6883 NUHCM 3.733 0.92 -2.5608

BUCİM 4.066 1.56 -2.599 OTKAR 2.369 0.995 -0.0021

CCOLA 3.26 0.918 -1.1884 OYAKC 7.013 2.1 -3.8342

CEMAS 2.393 0.405 -3.3421 PARSN 2.064 0.507 -3.1827

CEMTS 4.995 1.902 -3.5754 PETKM 2.774 0.772 -1.6108

CIMSA 4.692 1.283 -3.9376 SASA 1.917 0.973 -0.7815

CMENT 2.004 0.479 -2.8116 TATGD 2.772 1.303 -0.7698

DEVA 1.367 0.74 -1.4413 TBORG 2.927 1.521 -2.2822

EGEEN 5.187 1.917 -3.311 TOASO 2.65 0.911 -0.7022

EGGUB 1.808 0.342 -1.0625 TTRAK 5.611 2.379 -2.165

EREGL 2.511 1.295 -2.3341 TUKAS 0.184 0.361 1.2567

FROTO 3.897 1.297 -1.1689 TUPRS 2.485 0.755 -0.2028

GOODY 5.246 1.875 -2.8176 ULKER 2.815 0.862 -1.108

GUBRF 1.778 0.933 -0.7281 VESTL 1.202 0.535 0.1576

HEKTS 4.949 2.123 -3.4478 YATAS 1.466 0.863 -0.3497

JANTS 5.003 1.5 -2.2762 Ort. 3.509 1.048 -1.731

The calculated scores of the companies analysed within the scope of the study for 2013 are given in
Table 10 above. In 2013, ALKIM, BRISA, BUCIM, CEMTS, CIMSA, EGEEN, FROTO, GOODY, HEKTS,
JANTS, KARTN, KONYA, NUHCM, OYAKC and TTRAK were founded financially successful while
KERVT, TUKAS and YATAS were found financially unsuccessful in all three models.

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 392

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

Table 11: Calculated Scores of Companies for 2012

COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE

AEFES 2.915 0.81 -2.0848 KARSN 0.861 0.269 -0.163

AKSA 2.927 1.42 -2.5698 KARTN 16.908 2.092 -3.8593

ALKIM 3.101 1.095 -2.5914 KENT 13.323 0.898 -2.2509

ARCLK 2.372 1.047 -0.9512 KERVT 0.806 0.443 2.2529

BAGFS 5.464 1.289 -2.8422 KONYA 18.49 1.486 -3.7111

BRISA 2.941 0.933 -1.142 KORDS 2.126 0.935 -2.2324

BRMEN -1.576 -0.343 -0.7108 KRDMD 1.743 1.102 -1.9352

BRSAN 1.667 0.519 -1.1079 NUHCM 3.254 0.59 -2.3512

BUCİM 3.885 0.992 -2.4742 OTKAR 2.135 0.926 -0.2085

CCOLA 3.634 1.39 -1.4682 OYAKC 6.243 1.222 -3.3051

CEMAS 1.264 0.197 -2.8573 PARSN 2.723 0.55 -3.1699

CEMTS 5.261 1.225 -3.6253 PETKM 2.908 0.759 -1.9603

CIMSA 2.547 0.806 -2.648 SASA 1.524 0.555 -0.3877

CMENT 2.129 0.316 -2.734 TATGD 2.401 1.064 -0.7679

DEVA 1.454 0.771 -1.7452 TBORG 0.705 0.896 -1.647

EGEEN 5.038 1.8 -2.7543 TOASO 2.386 1.013 -0.8138

EGGUB 2.199 0.37 -2.0055 TTRAK 4.873 2.271 -2.2805

EREGL 2.108 0.84 -1.8805 TUKAS 0.196 0.169 -0.3235

FROTO 4.286 1.709 -1.6425 TUPRS 3.672 1.448 -0.5671

GOODY 5.172 1.784 -2.5198 ULKER 2.097 0.974 -0.7087

GUBRF 2.512 1.441 -1.1567 VESTL 1.567 0.577 -0.0117

HEKTS 4.735 2.237 -3.6209 YATAS 1.282 0.654 -0.2261

JANTS 3.49 1.282 -2.3996 Ort. 3.594 0.996 -1.781

The calculated scores of the companies analysed within the scope of the study for 2012 are given in
Table 11 above. In 2012, ALKIM, BUCIM, CEMTS, EGEEN, FROTO, GOODY, HEKTS, JANTS, KARTN,
KENT, KONYA, OYAKC, TTRAK and TUPRS were found to be financially successful in all three
models, while only KERVT was found to be unsuccessful in all three models.

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 393

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

Table 12: Calculated Scores of Companies for 2011

COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE COMPANY Z-SCORE S-SCORE J-SCORE

AEFES 2.247 0.946 -1.6285 KARSN 1.975 0.813 -0.178

AKSA 2.416 1.095 -1.7284 KARTN 15.925 2.63 -4.1054

ALKIM 2.949 1.226 -2.5671 KENT 11.885 0.507 -1.7799

ARCLK 2.198 0.984 -1.0424 KERVT 0.933 0.318 2.7018

BAGFS 5.212 1.962 -3.3188 KONYA 14.185 1.336 -3.5074

BRISA 2.973 1.13 -1.3751 KORDS 2.243 1.053 -2.2942

BRMEN -0.536 0.111 -0.5882 KRDMD 1.976 1.336 -2.3657

BRSAN 1.574 0.579 -1.2817 NUHCM 4.371 0.929 -2.6906

BUCİM 5.063 1.773 -3.1789 OTKAR 2.147 0.789 -0.2697

CCOLA 3.292 1.289 -1.1698 OYAKC 10.798 2.699 -4.4246

CEMAS 1.358 0.386 -1.4864 PARSN 3.075 1.056 -3.672

CEMTS 4.551 1.857 -3.7168 PETKM 3.4 1.088 -2.3424

CIMSA 3.426 1.061 -2.9274 SASA 2.102 1.071 -1.3786

CMENT 2.625 0.74 -2.8312 TATGD 2.667 1.174 -0.7793

DEVA 1.501 0.603 -1.3862 TBORG -0.644 0.259 -0.5429

EGEEN 3.324 1.859 -1.8736 TOASO 2.192 0.956 -0.505

EGGUB 2.029 0.523 -1.1409 TTRAK 4.65 2.252 -2.2591

EREGL 2.341 1.396 -1.942 TUKAS -0.042 -0.207 0.9888

FROTO 4.574 2.046 -1.6496 TUPRS 4.012 1.738 -0.637

GOODY 4.049 1.582 -1.86 ULKER 1.543 0.672 -1.9914

GUBRF 1.901 1.152 -1.0602 VESTL 1.732 0.898 0.2225

HEKTS 2.884 1.331 -2.4745 YATAS 1.202 0.677 -0.2963

JANTS 1.483 0.977 -1.192 Ort. 3.461 1.126 -1.678

The calculated scores of the companies analysed within the scope of the study for 2011 are given in
Table 12 above. In 2011, BUCIM, CEMTS, CIMSA, EGEEN, FROTO, GOODY, KARTN, KONYA,
NUHCM, OYAKC, PARSN, PETKM, TTRAK and TUPRS were found to be financially successful in all
three models, while KERVT and TUKAS were found to be unsuccessful in all three models.
Table 13: Percentage of Average Financial Success of Enterprises by Year
Z-Score S-Score J-Score
Number of
YEAR Grey
Enterprises Successful Failure Successful Failure Successful Failure
Area
2020 45 %46.66 %26.66 %26.66 %64.44 %35.55 %93.34 %6.66
2019 45 %28.88 %37.77 %33.33 %57.77 %42.22 %88.89 %11.11
2018 45 %37.77 %37.77 %24.44 %71.11 %28.88 %86.67 %13.33
2017 45 %42.22 %26.66 %31.11 %66.66 %33.33 %86.67 %13.33
2016 45 %37.77 %35.55 %26.66 %55.55 %44.44 %88.89 %11.11
2015 45 %44.44 %31.11 %24.44 %64.44 %35.55 %91.12 %8.88
2014 45 %44.44 %28.88 %26.66 %57.77 %42.22 %88.89 %11.11
2013 45 %37.77 %33.33 %28.88 %59.99 %39.99 %93.34 %6.66
2012 45 %37.77 %35.55 %26.66 %62.22 %37.77 %97.78 %2.22
2011 45 %37.77 %37.77 %24.44 %68.88 %31.11 %93.34 %6.66
*Successful: Fixed Area (Secure)
*Grey Area: Healthy Zone. Bankruptcy is difficult to predict.
*Danger Area (Unsafe)

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 394

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

According to the table above, the Z-Score value of 46.66% of the enterprises included in the analysis is
classified as successful in 2020. The number of enterprises whose financial success is classified in the
grey area was highest in 2011, 2018, and 2019. The year in which 33.33% of the enterprises had a z-score
indicating financial failure was 2019. The years in which S-Score values were ranked as financially
successful were in 2018, with 71.11% of the enterprises, while 44.44% were classified as financially
unsuccessful in 2016. Finally, according to the J-Score values examined, 13.33% of the enterprises were
considered financially successful in 2018 and 2017, while 93.34% of the enterprises were found to be
financially unsuccessful in 2011,2013 and 2020,
In general, while the financial success rates of the firms between 2014 and 2017 and thus their score
values increased, in the following years, 2018 and 2019, an increase is observed in the proportion of
firms classified in the grey area due to the uncertainty. According to the analysis, the year with the most
negative model results in terms of financial failure is 2019. Furthermore, in all three models applied, the
values indicating financial failure are at the highest level in percentage terms in 2019, which was
obtained as a result of the year when the number of financially unsuccessful enterprises increased.

25
21
20 20
20 19
17 1717 17 17 17 1717
16 16
15 15
15 14 14
13 13 13
1212 12 12 12 12
11 11 11
10

0
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Successful Gray Area Failure

Graph 1: Changes in Altman Z-Score Values of Enterprises by Years

While the highest number of firms with a Z-Score value greater than 2.99, that is, the number of firms
classified as successful, is between 2015 and 2014, the highest number of firms in the grey area with a
Z-Score value of 1.81 - 2.99 is observed in 2019, 2018 and 2011. According to the Z-Score, which accepts
values less than 1.81 as financially unsuccessful, the highest number of unsuccessful enterprises was
observed in 2019. In 2015-2014, the financial success of the enterprises was almost the same. However,
with the increase in the uncertainty represented by the grey area, changes were observed in the number
of enterprises.

40 36
35 32 31
29 30 29
30 27 28
26 26
25
19 19 19 18
20 16 16 17
15 14
15 13

10
5
0
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Successful Failure

Graph 2: Changes in Springate S-Score Values of Enterprises by Years

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 395

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

The highest number of enterprises with an S-Score value greater than 0.862 financially successful was
observed in 2016. On the other hand, the S-Score, which considers values less than 0.862 as unsuccessful,
is seen as the years with the highest number of financial failures with the equal number of enterprises
in 2019, 2016, and 2014.

50
44
45 42 42 42
40 40 39 40 39 40
40
35
30
25
20
15
10 5 5 6 5 5
3 4 3 3
5 1
0
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

Successful Failure

Graph 3: Changes in Zmijevski J-Score Values of Enterprises by Years

According to J-Score, which considers values below 0 as successful, the highest number of successful
enterprises was observed in 2012. On the other hand, J-Score considered values greater than 0 as
financially unsuccessful, and 38 enterprises were classified as unsuccessful in 2017.

Conclusion
In this study, Altman Z-Score, Springate S-Score, and Zmijevski J-Score models, the most preferred early
warning models developed for financial failure, are applied to the data of 45 manufacturing industry
enterprises traded in Borsa Istanbul between 2011-2020. As a result of this application, the model results
are compared and analysed in detail.
Since the model result values of all enterprises included in the scope of the analysis cannot be listed
within the study’s limits, the analysis results are presented collectively by years of financial success and
failure in percentages.
According to the Altman Z-score model, all financial failure forecasts of BUCIM, EGEEN, FROTO,
GOODY, JANTS, KARTN, KENT, KONYA and OYAKC for the period between 2011 and 2020 are in
the safe zone. In other words, according to the z-Score model, there has been no financial failure in the
last ten years of these nine companies. ARCLK, CMENT, OTKAR and TOASO were in the grey area
where the risk of financial failure may be present, albeit low, in all years examined. BRMEN, BRISA and
VESTL have been identified in the unsafe area with a risk of financial failure in all years analysed.
According to the Springate S-Score model, the financial failure forecasts of AKSA, ALKIM, ARCLK,
BUCIM, CCOLA, CEMTS, EGEEN, EREGL, FROTO, GOODY, HEKTS, JANTS, TATGD and TTRAK for
the period between 2011 and 2020 were found to be in the safe zone which indicates no financial failure
risk for the ten years examined. On the other hand, BRMEN, BRSAN, CEMAS, CMENT and VESTL are
estimated to have a high risk of financial failure in all ten years.
According to the Zmijevski J-Score model, AEFES, AKSA, ALKIM, ARCLK, BRSAN, BUCIM, CCOLA,
CEMTS, CIMSA, CMENT, DEVA, EGEEN, EGGUB, EREGL, FROTO, GOODY, HEKTS, JANTS,
KARTN, KENT, KONYA, KORDS, KRDMD, NUHCM, OYAKC, PARSN, PETKİM, SASA, TATGD,
TBORG, TOASO, TTRAK, ULKER and YATAS companies' financial failure forecasts for the period
2011-2020 were all determined as successful. In this study on the manufacturing sector, it is observed
that in 2020, all three models gave the same results for 19 companies, 16 of which were successful and
three unsuccessful. Z-score and s-score obtained the same results for 28 companies. S-Score and J-score
have the same prediction results for 32 companies. In 2019, the same results were obtained from all three
models for 16 companies, 12 successful and four unsuccessful. Z-score and s-score obtained similar
results for 27 companies. S-Score and J-score had similar prediction results for 31 companies. In 2018,
all three models obtained the same results for 20 companies, 17 successful and three unsuccessful. Z-

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 396

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

score and s-score obtained similar results for 27 companies. Similar prediction results were found for S-
Score and J-score for 32 companies. In 2017, all three models obtained similar results for 22 companies,
18 successful and four unsuccessful. Z-score and s-score obtained similar results for 32 companies. In S-
Score and J-score, common prediction results were found in 32 companies. In 2016, all three models
yielded the same results for 18 companies, 14 successful and four unsuccessful. Z-score and s-score
obtained similar results in 27 companies. Similar prediction results were found for S-Score and J-score
for 29 companies. In 2015, all three models yielded the same results for 22 companies, 19 successful and
three unsuccessful, while Z-score and s-score yielded similar results for 30 companies. In S-Score and J-
score, common prediction results were found in 28 companies. In 2014, all three models obtained the
same results for 22 companies, 18 successful and four unsuccessful, while Z-score and s-score obtained
similar results for 28 companies. In S-Score and J-score, common prediction results were found in 28
companies. In 2013, all three models yielded the same results for 18 companies, 15 successful and three
unsuccessful, while Z-score and s-score yielded similar results for 27 companies. In S-Score and J-score,
common prediction results were found in 29 companies. In 2012, the same results were obtained from
all three models in 15 companies, 14 successful and one unsuccessful, while Z-score and s-score obtained
similar results in 24 companies. In 2011, all three models obtained the same results for 16 companies, 14
successful and two unsuccessful, while Z-score and s-score obtained similar results for 23 companies.
Similar prediction results for S-Score and J-score were found for 29 companies.
As a result of the analysis, the prediction results of the financial failure prediction models Springate s-
score and Zmijevski J-score are found to be closer to each other. In contrast, Altman Z-score results
differ from the other two models. According to the literature review, it is generally observed that
narrower studies have been conducted in terms of the years studied. As a result of the findings of these
studies, the results of the Altman and Springate models are closer to each other. The Zmijevski j-score
model has not been compared sufficiently among the financial failure models. However, this study
shows that the Springate model gives more similar results to the Zmijevski model. Therefore, the
Altman Z-score model produces similar results to the Springate S-score model, as observed in previous
studies, because no other model was included. Hence, our study provides a comparison between the
three models.
In addition, in this study, the results obtained from the financial data of 45 manufacturing companies
between 2011 and 2020 are used to predict financial failure. It can be interpreted that the financial
situation of the companies in the manufacturing sector is generally healthy and away from the danger
of bankruptcy according to all models except the Z-Score average of 2019.
While the phenomenon of financial success and failure is examined by accepting the internal factors of
firms as the framework of analysis, the effects of sectoral dynamics and macroeconomic variables that
constitute the economic environment of firms on model result values emerge as possible research areas.
Furthermore, in line with the fact that economic activity is primarily realized through small and
medium-sized enterprises in terms of their contribution to the level of employment and economic
output, academic and practice-oriented research aiming to ensure the integration of financial success
and failure measurement and prediction models with organizational cultures in SMEs within the
framework of management practices and performance evaluation approaches are considered as
possible areas of study.

Peer-review:

Externally peer-reviewed

Conflict of interests:

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Grant Support:

The authors declared that this study had received no financial support.

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 397

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

Author Contributions:

Idea/Concept/Design: R.N.A., M.K.E. Data Collection and/or Processing: R.N.A., M.K.E. Analysis
and/or Interpretation: R.N.A., M.K.E. Literature Review: R.N.A., M.K.E., Writing the Article: R.N.A.,
M.K.E. Critical Review: R.N.A., M.K.E., Approval: A R.N.A., M.K.E.

References
Akgüç, Ö. (1989). Finansal yönetim (8 B.). İstanbul: Avcıol Basım Yayın
Altman, E. I. (1968). Financial ratios, disciıminant analysıs and the predıctıon of corporate bankruptcy.
The Journal of Finance, 23(4), 589-609.
Anjum, S. (2012). Business bankruptcy prediction models: A significant study of the altman’s z-score
model. Asıan Journal of Management Research, 3, 212-219.
Bayramova, A. (2020). altman z-skor ve adaptif ağ tabanlı bulanık çıkarım sistemi (anfis) modelleri ile
işletmelerde finansal başarısızlık tahmini: borsa istanbul’da bir uygulama. Yüksek Lisans Tezi,
Kocaeli.
Beaver, W. H. (1969, Ocak). Alternative accounting measures as predictors of failure. The Accounting
Review, 43(1), 113-122.
Büyükarıkan, B., & Büyükarıkan, U. (2014). Bilişim sektöründe faaliyet gösteren firmaların finansal
başarısızlık tahmin modelleriyle incelenmesi. Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 46, 160-172.
Chairunnisa, R., Arshed, N., & Shafitranata. (2020). prediction of islamic banking bankruptcy in
indonesia: Comparative study of altman z-score and springate models. Jurnal Ekonomi Dan Bisnis
Islam, 5, 231-248.
Husein, M., & Pambekti, G. (2014). Precision of the models of altman, springate, zmijewski, and grover
for predicting the financial distress. Journal of Economics, Business, And Accountancy Ventura, 16,
405-416.
İloğlu, H. S. (2020). Altman z” skor yöntemi ile havayolu şirketlerinde finansal başarısızlık tahmini.
Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ankara.
İskenderoğlu, Ö., & Karakozak, Ö. (2013). 2008 Küresel finansal krizinin finansal oranlar üzerine etkisi:
bıst'de işlem gören imalat sanayi işletmeleri üzerine bir uygulama. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi
Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. 28(2), 98-129.
Karadeniz, E., & Öcek, C. (2019). Finansal başarısızlık riski taşıyan ile taşımayan işletmelerin finansal
oranlarının karşılaştırmalı analizi: Borsa istanbul turizm işletmelerinde bir araştırma. Seyahat ve
Otel İşletmeciliği Dergisi, 16(2), 191-206.
Kulalı, İ. (2014). Muhasebe temelli tahmin modelleri işığında, finansal sıkıntı ve iflasın karşılaştırılması.
Sosyoekonomi. 22. (22). 154-170.

Kulalı, İ. (2016). Altman z-skor modelinin bist şirketlerinin finansal başarısızlık riskinin tahmin
edilmesinde uygulanması. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 12(27). 283-291.
Okka, O. (2018). Finansal yönetim teori ve çözümlü problemler. Nobel Yayın.
Outecheva, N. (2007). Corporate financial distress: An empirical analysis of distress Risk. Doctoral
dissertation.University of St.Gallen The Graduate School of Business Administration, Economics,
Law and Social Sciences (HSG), Zurich.
Öztürk, S., & Yilmaz, C. (2019). Finansal sıkıntının muhasebe manipülasyonu ile ilişkisi: BİST gelişen
işletmeler piyasasında bir uygulama. Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi, 41, 241-254.
Pakdaman, H. (2018). Investigating the ability of altman and springate and zmijewski and grover
bankruptcy prediction models in tehran stock exchange. Revista ESPACIOS, 39(14), S. 33.
Poyraz, E., & Uçma, T. (2006). Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren ihracatçı sektörlerin mali kriz ortamlarında
finansal başarısızlıklarının altman (z-score) modeli yardımıyla ölçülmesi. Muhasebe Ve Finansman

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 398

 Rabia Nazmiye Ayvaz & Mustafa Kenan Erkan

Dergisi, 32, 1-10

Rahayu, F., Suwendra, I., & Yulianthini, N. (2016). Analısıs fınancıal dıstress dengan menggunakan
metode altman z-score, sprıngate, dan zmıjewskı pada perusahaan telekomunıkası. E-Journal Bisma
Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, 4, 1-13.
Soba, M., Akyüz, F., & Uğurcan, Y. (2016). Şirketlerin finansal performanslarının altman yöntemiyle
analizi: Borsa İstanbul örneği. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(28), 65-87.
Şahin, T., & Özkan, N. (2022). Covıd-19’un borsa istanbul’da işlem gören otomotiv firmalarının finansal
başarısına etkisi. Finans Ekonomi Ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(3), S. 516-527.
Şaşmaz, O. C. (2019). Altman z-score ve springate s-score modellerinin imalat sektöründe iflas etmiş
şirketler üzerindeki tutarlılığının karşılaştırılmalı analizi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Muğla.
Terzi, S. (2011). Finansal rasyolar yardımıyla finansal başarısızlık tahmini: gıda sektöründe ampirik bir
araştırma. Çukurova Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 15, 1-18.
Titiz, İ. (2000). Kriz dönemlerinde mali oran analiz temelli erken uyarı sisteminin işletme başarısının
belirlenmesinde kullanılması. Doktora Tezi, Isparta.
Uzun, E. (2005). İşletmelerde finansal başarısızlığın teorik olarak irdelenmesi. Muhasebe ve Finansman
Dergisi, 27, 158-168
Yıldırım, İ. (2006). İşletmelerde Mali başarısızlıkların tahmininde erken uyarı sistemleri ve türkiye için
bir model önerisi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Doktora Tezi. Ankara.
Zinet, T. Ç. (2014). İşletmelerin finansal başarısızlıklarının erken uyarı sistemleri ile tespiti ve BİST’te
2005 -2013 dönemi bir uygulama. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul.

bmij (2023) 11 (1):375-399 399