Cost Stickiness: Value Creating or Value Destroying (The Iranian Experience)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Islamic Azad University, Sciences and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

2 Accounting, Management & Economics, Islamic Azad University, Science & Research branch, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor of Accounting, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Karaj, Iran

Abstract

This research reviews and tests two contradicting notions in cost stickiness literature by empirical recognition of the consequences of cost stickiness. Cost stickiness is consistent with both rational resource planning and opportunistic incentives of manager to increase personal benefits arising from status and power. Although both mechanisms involve asymmetric retention of slack, some of the implications are starkly different: the former, according to the optimal resource adjustment view, represents that retaining slack resources during sale decrease are optimal responses to future expectations and contributes to firm value, whereas the latter, according to agency theory-based view, reflects wasteful overspending which can be value-destroying. This research examined a sample of 124 companies listed in Tehran Stock Exchange over the period of 2002 to 2018. The results show that SG&A cost stickiness is generally a signal of self-interested managers who may grow a firm beyond its optimal size opportunistically while COGS stickiness can be a signal of far-sighted management in the interest of the firm. The results also indicate that investors may not fully recognize the managerial expectations underlying the resource adjustment decisions and mostly perceives SG&A cost stickiness and COGS stickiness as a signal of self-interested managers who decide to maximize their personal utility rather than the interests of the firm’s shareholders.
 

Keywords

References

Anderson, M. A., R. D. Banker, and S. Janakiraman. (2003). Are Selling, General, and Administrative costs sticky? Journal of Accounting Research 41, 47–63.
2) Anderson, M. A., R. D. Banker, R. Huang, and S. Janakiraman. (2007). Cost behavior and fundamental analysis of SG&A costs. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 22 (1), 1–28.
3) Atasoy, H., R. D. Banker. (2014). Resource adjustment and DEA efficiency scores. Working paper, Temple University.
4) Bagherpour, M. A., Monroe, G. S. and G. Shailer. (2014). Government and managerial influence on auditor switching under partial privatization. Journal of accounting and public policy 33(4), 372-390.
5) Banker, R. D., and D. Byzalov. (2014). Asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research 26 (2), 43–79.
6) Brüggen, A., and J. O. Zehnder. (2014). SG&A cost stickiness and equity-based executive compensation: Does empire building matter? Journal of Management Control 25 (3-4), 169–192.
7) Calleja, K., Steliaros, M., & Thomas, D. C. (2006). A note on cost stickiness: some international
comparisons. Management Accounting Research, 17, 127–140. 8) Thomas G. Canace & Scott B. Jackson & Tao Ma, (2018). R&D investments, capital expenditures, and earnings thresholds, Review of Accounting Studies, 23(1), 265-295.
9) Chen, C. X., H. Lu, and T. Sougiannis. (2012). The agency problem, corporate governance, and the asymmetrical behavior of Selling, General, and Administrative costs. Contemporary Accounting Research 29, 252–282.
10) Kama, I., and D. Weiss. (2013). Do earnings targets and managerial incentives affect sticky costs? Journal of Accounting Research 51 (1), 201–224.
11) Kim, H. Soon and S. Jang. (2018). Does Hotel Ownership Structure Influence
12) Capital Expenditures? Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 59(4), 1-14.
13) Lev, B., and S. R. Thiagarajan. (1993). Fundamental Information Analysis. Journal of Accounting Research 31 (2), 190–215.
14) Li, W. L and K. Zheng. (2016). Product market competition and cost stickiness. Review of quantitative finance and accounting 49 (2), 283-313. 15) MohammadRezaei, f. and M. S. Norman. (2016). The role of auditor type and increased competition in the audit market. Accounting & Finance, 58 (3), 885-920
16) Park, Han-up. (2017). Changes in operating margins during a sales decline and abnormal return. Accounting dissertation, Temple University.
17) Rouxelin, F., W. Wongsunwai, and N. Yehuda. (2016). Aggregate cost stickiness in GAAP financial statements and future unemployment rate. Working paper, University of New South Wales.
18) Subramaniam, C., and M.L. Weidenmier. (2003). Additional evidence on the sticky behavior of costs. Working paper, Texas Christian University.
19) Weiss, D. (2010). Cost behavior and analysts’ earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review 85 (4), 1441–1474
International Journal of Finance & Managerial Accounting
Volume 5, Issue 17
May 2020
Pages 41-53

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics