Hello everyone.

Too often we find a red warning saying that "Altman Z-Score Screen" was triggered for a security we are interested in. Indeed, around 45% of non-financial shares have a Z-Score lower than 1.8: but a warning that pops up half of the time is not a very useful warning. So, to say that a company with a Z-score of less than 1.8 is very likely to go bankrupt within the year is like to say that the female half of the population (from 0 to 100+ years old) has a good chance of giving birth to a child within the year. In conclusion, to stay in the maternity metaphor, using Z-Score like this you really risk throwing the baby out with bathwater.

I believe that the problem derives from the fact of using fixed values ​​in a theoretically still valid model. Perhaps certain values ​​were perfect in 1968, but today they no longer work so well. That's why I worked out my personal version of the Altman screen: only 10% worse for Z-Score in the same industry. In this way the warning is triggered only for about 3-4% of non financial companies. This seems to me to be more reasonable, given that listed companies that go bankrupt every year are usually a smaller percentage. In 2018 there were only 58 bankruptcies over thousands of american public companies.

What do you think?

Unlock the rest of this Article in 15 seconds

or Unlock with your email

Already have an account?
Login here