Skip to content
Advances in Decision Sciences (ADS)

Advances in Decision Sciences (ADS)

Published by Scientific and Business World, Singapore

  • About This Journal
    • Aim and Scope
    • Abstracting and Indexing
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Workflow
    • Publication Ethics
    • Paper Submission
    • Manuscript Format
    • Manuscript FAQ
    • Subscription Information
  • Editors Menu
    • Editors’ Roles and Responsibilities
    • Handling a Manuscript
    • Peer Review at ADS
    • English Editing
  • Special Issues
    • About Special Issues
    • Editorial Board Special Issues
    • Preparing a Call for Papers
    • Promoting a Call for Papers
    • Special Invitation
    • Special Issues FAQ
    • Published Special Issues
  • Table of Contents
    • Table of Contents for Year 2025
    • Table of Contents for Year 2024
    • Table of Contents for Year 2023
    • Table of Contents for Year 2022
    • Table of Contents for Year 2021
    • Table of Contents for Year 2020
    • Table of Contents for Year 2019
    • Table of Contents for Year 2018
    • Archive Contents for Year 1997 to 2017
      • Table of Contents for Year 2017
      • Table of Contents for Year 2016
      • Table of Contents for Year 2015
      • Table of Contents for Year 2014
      • Table of Contents for Year 2013
      • Table of Contents for Year 2012
      • Table of Contents for Year 2011
      • Table of Contents for Year 2010
      • Table of Contents for Year 2009
      • Table of Contents for Year 2008
      • Table of Contents for Year 2007
      • Table of Contents for Year 2006
      • Table of Contents for Year 2005
      • Table of Contents for Year 2004
      • Table of Contents for Year 2003
      • Table of Contents for Year 2002
      • Table of Contents for Year 2001
      • Table of Contents for Year 2000
      • Table of Contents for Year 1999
      • Table of Contents for Year 1998
      • Table of Contents for Year 1997
  • Contact Us
  • Home

Identifying Fraudulent Financial Reports: Verification Between the M-Score Model and the Auditor’s Opinion

Identifying Fraudulent Financial Reports: Verification Between the M-Score Model and the Auditor's Opinion

Title

Identifying Fraudulent Financial Reports: Verification Between the M-Score Model and the Auditor’s Opinion

Authors

  • Nguyen Anh Phong
    University of Economics and Law, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam , Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
  • Phan Huy Tam
    University of Economics and Law, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam , Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
  • Ngo Phu Thanh
    University of Economics and Law, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam , Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Abstract

Purpose: This study examines and forecasts financial reporting fraud in listed enterprises using the M-score model and auditor opinions based on the fraud triangle model.
Methodology: Research data was collected from non-financial enterprises listed on the HSX and HNX exchanges from 2018-2022. This study uses today’s popular machine learning methods to evaluate the performance of models to have a basis for recommendations (machine learning methods such as ANN, KNN, Decision Tree, and Random Forest) and gradient boosting algorithms (XGBoost and LightGBM). These methods help make decisions more accurately and help financial managers identify fraudulent financial reporting of companies early. This is consistent with requirements in management science and decision sciences.
Findings: The ANN model for the M-Score achieved the highest accuracy (97.9%) and F1-score (0.979). In comparison, the Decision Tree model was most effective for auditor opinions with an accuracy of 82.1% and an F1-score of 0.831. Additionally, the XGBoost algorithm consistently delivered strong results across both models, with an F1-score of 0.984 for M-Score and 0.942 for auditor opinions.
Originality/Value: In this article, this study relies on the fraud triangle theory, briefly finding the elements of the three factors from the fraud triangle model, combined with the auditor’s opinion on all financial statements. From there, predict whether a company has fraudulent financial statements or not. This way, this study combines the financial statement fraud theory with reality based on auditors’ comments. In addition, this study also compares the traditional forecasting method, M-score, to evaluate the performance of forecasting models.
Implications: The auditor opinion model holds practical value, integrating qualitative and quantitative insights for early fraud detection.
Limitations: Further empirical research is required to select indicators representing identifying signs in the fraud triangle model. The model based on auditors’ opinions holds significant reference value as it integrates qualitative and quantitative aspects, thereby combining theory with practical application.

Keywords

Financial statement fraud, machine learning methods, Vietnamese listed companies, M-Score, Auditor opinion

Classification-JEL

C11, C23, C53, E37

Pages

23-45

How to Cite

Phong, N. A., Tam, P. H., & Thanh, N. P. (2024). Identifying Fraudulent Financial Reports: Verification Between the M-Score Model and the Auditor’s Opinion. Advances in Decision Sciences, 28(4), 23-45.

https://doi.org/10.47654/v28y2024i4p23-45

Post navigation

Previous PostIdentifying Fraudulent Financial Reports: Verification Between the M-Score Model and the Auditor’s Opinion

Submit Paper

Register / Submit




Special Issue Information

About Special Issues

Categories

ISSN 2090-3359 (Print)
ISSN 2090-3367 (Online)

Scientific and Business World

Asia University, Taiwan

8.3
2024CiteScore
 
88th percentile
Powered by  Scopus
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
Q2 in Scopus
CiteScore 2024 = 8.3
CiteScoreTracker 2025 = 8.2
SNIP 2024 = 0.632
SJR Quartile = Q1
SJR 2024 = 0.814
H-Index = 18

Flag Counter
Since July 28, 2021

Powered by Headline WordPress Theme
Go to mobile version