The recognition of behavioural elements in finance has caused major shifts in the analytic framework pertaining to ratio-based modeling of corporate collapse. The modeling approach so far has been based on the classical rational theory in behavioural economics, which assumes that the financial ratios (i.e., the predictors of collapse) are static over time. The paper argues that, in the absence of rational economic theory, a static model is flawed, and that a suitable model instead is one that reflects the heuristic behavioural framework, which is what characterises behavioural attributes of company directors and in turn influences the accounting numbers used in calculating the financial ratios. This calls for a dynamic model: dynamic in the sense that it does not rely on a coherent assortment of financial ratios for signaling corporate collapse over multiple time periods. This paper provides empirical evidence, using a data set of Australian publicly listed companies, to demonstrate that a dynamic model consistently outperforms its static counterpart in signaling the event of collapse. On average, the overall predictive power of the dynamic model is 86.83% compared to an average overall predictive power of 69.35% for the static model.