Evaluating The Impact of Growth Opportunities on Asymmetric Behavior of Costs: Information on Past (historical) Experiences Compared with Prospective Information

Subject Areas : Management Accounting

Sahar Sepasi ¹ (استادیار حسابداری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران)
Aidin Kiani ² (دانشجوی دکتری حسابداری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران)
Vahid Ahmadian ³ (دانشجوی دکتری حسابداری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران)

Received: 2016-05-19 Accepted : 2016-08-05 Published : 2017-03-21

Keywords: growth expectations, demand uncertainty, cost adhesion, structure of costs, Regression Analysis, Panel data,

Abstract :

One of the core issues in selecting the cost structure in a range of high adhesion and flexibility is to consider the impact of growth opportunities and demand uncertainty that company faces with them. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the impact of growth expectations on adhesion behavior of the cost of goods sold, sale, public, and official costs, and operational costs of the companies. The results of the regression analysis using pooled data for the years between 2005 and 2014 show that Q Tobin's ratio (prospective information) increases the adhesion of cost of goods sold, but average of sales growth rate (historical data) had no significant impact on adhesion of these types of costs. In addition, both of mentioned ratios (Q Tobin’s and average of sales growth rate) increased the adhesion of operating costs. On the other hand, variables of growth opportunity (historical and prospective) had no significant impact on sale, public and official costs. Based on obtained results, it can be concluded that the impact of growth opportunities on adhesion of sold cost structure related mostly to historical experiences, while adhesion sensitivity of total operating costs depended on both Q Tobin's ratio and average of sales growth rate.

References:

*      انواری رستمی، علی­اصغر و آیدین کیانی. (1394). بررسی نقش عدم اطمینان محیطی در رفتار هزینه ها؛ شواهدی از شرکتهای پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. پیشرفت­های حسابداری، 69: 33-57.

*      ایزدی­نیا، ناصر؛ سلطانی اسفریزی، علیرضا و محمدرضا فخارمنش. (1393). تأثیر تغییرات فروش دوره­های قبل بر رفتار نامتقارن هزینه. پژوهش­های تجربی حسابداری، 14: 205-221.

*      خالقی مقدم، حمید و فاروق کرمی. (1387). پیش­بینی سود با استفاده از مدل مبتنی بر تغییرپذیری و چسبندگی هزینه. مطالعات حسابداری، 23: 19-41.

*   راعی، رضا؛ حسن­زاده، پرویز و محسن حمشی. (1393). بررسی تاثیر نسبتهای مالی بر میزان چسبندگی هزینه­ها، حسابداری مالی، 22: 26-44.

*      زنجیردار، مجید و اعظم خادمی. (1394). مطالعه تأثیرمحدودیت­های مالی بر چسبندگی هزینه­ها. دانش حسابداری و حسابرسی مدیریت، 15: 117-124.

*      قائمی، محمدحسین و معصومه نعمت الهی. (1385). بررسی رفتار هزینه توزیع و فروش و عمومی و اداری و بهای تمام شده کالای فروش رفته در شرکت­های پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. مطالعات حسابداری،  16: 71-86.

*      قائمی، محمدحسین و معصومه نعمت الهی. (1386). رفتار و ساختار هزینه­های عملیاتی و هزینه­های مالی در شرکت­های تولیدی پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. دانش حسابرسی، 22: 16-29.

*      کردستانی، غلامرضا و سیدمرتضی مرتضوی. (1391). شناسایی عوامل تعیین کننده چسبندگی هزینه­ها. پژوهش­های حسابداری مالی، 13: 13-32.

*      نمازی، محمد و ایرج دوانی پور. (1389). ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻲ رﻓﺘﺎر ﭼﺴﺒﻨﺪﮔﻲ ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ­ﻫﺎ در ﺑﻮرس اوراق ﺑﻬﺎدار ﺗﻬﺮان. بررسیهای حسابداری و حسابرسی، 62: 85-102.

*      نمازی، محمد؛ فریدونی، محمدجواد و مرضیه فریدونی. (1391). ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺑﻨﻴﺎدی رﻓﺘﺎر ﭼﺴﺒﻨﺪگی ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎ و ﺑﻬﺎی  ﺗﻤﺎم ﺷﺪه ﺑﺎ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺑﺮ داﻣﻨﻪی ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات در ﺑﻮرس اوراق ﺑﻬﺎدارﺗﻬﺮان. ﻣﺠﻠﻪ پیشرفت­های ﺣﺴﺎﺑﺪاری، 2: 151-177.

*      Anderson, M. C., Banker, R. D., & Janakiraman, S. N. (2003). Are selling, general, and administrative costs ‘sticky’? Journal of Accounting Research, 41(1), 47–63.

*      Anderson, M. C., Banker, R. D., Huang, R., & Janakiraman, S. N. (2007). Cost behavior and fundamental analysis of SG&A costs. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 22(1), 1–28.

*      Balakrishnan, R., & Gruca, T.S. (2008). Cost stickiness and core competency: A note. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(4), 993-1006.

*      Balakrishnan, R., Peterson, M., & Soderstrom, N. (2004). Does capacity utilization affect the "stickiness" of cost? Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 19 (3), 99-283.

*      Banker, R., Byzalov, D. & Plehn-Dujowich, J. (2014). Demand Uncertainty and Cost Behavior. The Accounting Review 89 (3): 839-865.

*      Banker, R., Byzalov, D. & Plehn-Dujowich, J. (2011). Sticky cost behavior: Theory and evidence. Available at: http://astro.temple.edu.

*      Calleja, K., Steliaros, M., & Thomas, D. C. (2006). A Note on Cost Stickiness: Some International Comparisons. Management Accounting Research, 17(2): 127- 140.

*      Daniel, F., Lohrke, F. T., Fornaciari, C. J., & Turner, R. A., Jr. (2004). Slack resources and firm performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 565–574.

*      Dierynck, B., Landsman, W. R., & Renders, A. (2012). Do managerial incentives drive cost behavior? Evidence about the role of the zero earnings benchmark for labor cost behavior in private Belgian .rms. The Accounting Review 87 (4): 1219-1246.

*      Finney, R. Z., Campbell, N.D., & Powell, C. M. (2005). Strategies and resources: pathways to success? Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1721–1729.

*      Hooley, G. J., Greenley, G. E., Cadogan, J. W., & Fahy, J. (2005). The performance impact of marketing resources. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 18–27.

*      Ibrahim, A.S., (2015), Economic growth and cost stickiness: evidence from Egypt. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, Vol. 13 Iss 1 pp. 119 – 140.

*      Kallapur, S., and L. Eldenburg. (2005). Uncertainty, real options, and cost behavior: evidence fromWashington State hospitals. Journal of Accounting Research 43 (5): 735.752.

*      Kaya, M., & Özer, Ö. (2009). Quality risk in outsourcing: noncontractible product quality and private quality cost information. Naval Research Logistics, 56(7), 669–685.

*      Martin, B., Lu, M., and Shan, Y. (2015). Cost Stickiness in Australia: Characteristic and Determinants. Australian AccountingReview, 25(3): 248-261.

*      Medeiros, O. R., and Costa, P. S. (2004). Cost Stickiness in Brazilian Firms. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=632365.

*      Noreen, E., & Soderstrom, N. (1994). Are overhead costs strictly proportional to activity?: Evidence from hospital departments. Journal of Accounting and Economics 17 (1): 255-278.

*      Noreen, E., & Soderstrom, N. (1997). The accuracy of proportional cost models: Evidence from hospital service departments. Review of Accounting Studies 2 (1): 89-114.

*      Pinker, E. J., & Larson, R. C. (2003). Optimizing the use of contingent labor when demand is uncertain. European Journal of Operational Research, 144(1), 39–55.

*      Rebitzer, J. B., & Taylor, L. J. (1991). A model of dual labor markets when product demand is uncertain. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1373–1383.

*      Ren, Z. J., & Zhang, F. (2009). Service outsourcing: capacity, quality and correlated costs. Washington University Working paper.

*      Ren, Z. J., & Zhou, Y. P. (2008). Call center outsourcing: coordinating staffing level and service quality. Management Science, 54(2), 369–383.

*      Shuang Xue., Yun Hong., (2015), Earnings Management, Corporate Governance and Expense Stickiness. China Journal of Accounting Research.

*      Subramaniam, C., & Weidenmier, M. L. (2003). Additional evidence on the sticky behavior of costs. Texas Christian University Working paper.

*      Weiss, D. (2010). Cost behavior and analysts. earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review 85 (4): 1441-1471.

*      Yasukata, K., & Kajiwara, T. (2011). Are Sticky Costs the Result of Deliberate Decision of Managers?, Working Paper, Kinki University