Use of official data: The study relies on trustworthy sources such as the Superintendency of Higher Education and the National Accreditation Commission.

Broad coverage: Data from 52 Chilean universities were analyzed, covering 89.66% of the population.

Empirical approach: A rigorous quantitative methodology is applied using SPSS, providing objectivity to the results.

Transparency: Financial indicators (liquidity, solvency, profitability) and their formulas are clearly explained.

Contribution to academic debate: The article adds new empirical evidence on an underexplored topic—the link between financial management and institutional quality.

Inconclusive results: The model explains only 1.2% of the variation in accreditation years and lacks statistical significance.

Counterintuitive findings: It was expected that better financial health would correlate with more years of accreditation, but it does not.

Methodological limitations: Contextual and qualitative factors (e.g., governance, infrastructure, teaching quality) were not considered.

Institutional disconnection: Some universities with serious financial risk are still accredited, even at the highest level—raising doubts about the accreditation process.

Failed assumption: The model does not pass the normality test (Shapiro-Wilk), limiting statistical robustness.

Institutional paradox: Universities with severe financial issues are accredited, calling into question the reliability of the evaluation criteria.

Public policy implications: If accreditation does not reflect financial viability, public funds may be misallocated.

Connection with Modigliani and Miller's theory: Findings appear to align with this theory suggesting that financial structure doesn’t impact organizational value—though real markets are more complex.

Call for further research: The study highlights the need to explore other variables such as governance, faculty quality, and infrastructure to better understand university quality.

International contrast: Chile spends 2.4% of its GDP on higher education (more than the OECD average), yet lacks strong financial quality controls in accreditation.