The dynamics of cost behavior: Unveiling sticky costs in private companies

Journal title FINANCIAL REPORTING
Author/s Nicola Dalla Via
Publishing Year 2024 Issue 2024/2
Language English Pages 34 P. 13-46 File size 280 KB
DOI 10.3280/FR2024-002002
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Purpose: While research on cost stickiness has predominantly focused on large public companies, the variability in results has cast doubt on the generalizability of sticky cost behavior to all companies. This paper investigates whether cost sticki-ness is observable in smaller private companies – i.e., firms without publicly traded securities – thus addressing a notable gap in the literature. Design/methodology/approach: This study adopts the empirical framework of Anderson et al. (2003), using data from private Italian firms from 1998 to 2022. Furthermore, it extends the scope of analysis to include such diverse cost catego-ries as selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) costs, total labor cost, purchase costs, rent costs, and other operating expenses. Findings: The findings indicate that SG&A costs in private firms are significantly less sticky than those reported for large public firms. Cost stickiness is also ob-served in labor, rent, and other operating costs but not in purchase costs. Notably, cost stickiness varies across industries. Originality/value: This study sheds new light into the dynamics of cost stickiness by highlighting how asymmetrical cost behavior in small and medium-sized pri-vate companies differs from that in large public companies, enhancing the under-standing of cost management practices across business contexts.

Keywords: sticky costs, asymmetrical cost behavior, SG&A costs, private versus public companies, SMEs

Jel codes: M21, M41

  1. Anderson, M., Banker, R., & Janakiraman, S. (2003). Are selling, general, and administrative costs ‘sticky’?. Journal of Accounting Research, 41(1), 47-63. DOI: 10.1111/1475-679X.00095
  2. Anderson, S. W., & Lanen, W. N. (2009). Understanding cost management: What can we learn from the evidence on ‘sticky costs’? (Working Paper). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
  3. Bafundi, A., & Imperatore, C. (2023). Information asymmetries and debt financing: New evidence from the 2007-2008 financial crisis. Financial Reporting, 2, 5-38. DOI: 10.3280/FR2023-002001
  4. Balakrishnan, R., & Gruca, T. S. (2008). Cost stickiness and core competency: A note. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(4), 993-1006.
  5. Balakrishnan, R., Labro, E., & Soderstrom, N. S. (2011). Cost structure and sticky costs (Working paper). The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
  6. Banker, R., & Chen, L. (2006). Predicting earnings using a model based on cost variability and cost stickiness. The Accounting Review, 81(2), 285-307. -- http://www.jstor.org/stable/4093140.
  7. Banker, R., Basu, S., Byzalov, D., & Chen, J. (2016). The confounding effect of cost stickiness on conservatism estimates. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 61(1), 203-220.
  8. Banker, R., Byzalov, D., & Chen, L. (2013). Employment protection legislation, adjustment costs and cross-country differences in cost behavior. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 55(1), 111-127.
  9. Banker, R., Byzalov, D., Ciftci, M., & Mashruwala, R. (2014a). The moderating effect of prior sales changes on asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 221-242.
  10. Banker, R., Byzalov, D., & Plehn-Dujowich, J. (2014b). Demand uncertainty and cost behavior. The Accounting Review, 89(3), 839-865.
  11. Calleja, K., Steliaros, M., & Thomas, D. C. (2006). A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons. Management Accounting Research, 17(2), 127-140.
  12. Cannon, J. N. (2014). Determinants of ‘sticky costs’: An analysis of cost behavior using United States air transportation industry data. The Accounting Review, 89(5), 1645-1672.
  13. Chang, H., Dai, X., Lohwasser, E., & Qiu, Y. (2022). Organized labor effects on SG&A cost behavior. Contemporary Accounting Research, 39, 404-427. DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12737
  14. Chen, C., Lu, H., & Sougiannis, T. (2012). The agency problem, corporate governance, and the asymmetrical behavior of selling, general, and administrative costs. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(1), 252-282.
  15. Chen, J., Kama, I., & Lehavy, R. (2019). A contextual analysis of the impact of managerial expectations on asymmetric cost behavior. Review of Accounting Studies, 24(2), 665-693.
  16. Cheng, S., Jiang, W., & Zeng, Y. (2018). Does access to capital affect cost stickiness? Evidence from China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Economics, 25(1-2), 177-198. DOI: 10.1080/16081625.2016.1253483
  17. Cohen, S., Karatzimas, S., & Naoum, V.-C. (2017). The sticky cost phenomenon at the local government level: Empirical evidence from Greece. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 18(4), 445-463. DOI: 10.1108/JAAR-03-2015-0019
  18. Dalla Via, N., & Perego, P. (2014). Sticky cost behaviour: Evidence from small and medium sized companies. Accounting and Finance, 54(3), 753-778.
  19. De Villiers, C., Hay, D., & Zhang, Z. (2014). Audit fee stickiness. Managerial Auditing Journal, 29(1), 2-26. DOI: 10.1108/MAJ-08-2013-0915
  20. 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 firms. The Accounting Review, 87(4), 1219-1246. -- http://www.jstor.org/stable/23246275.
  21. Dye, R. A., & Sridhar, S. (2002). Resource allocation effects of price reactions to disclosures. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19, 385-410.
  22. Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. Wiley.
  23. Habib, A., & Huang, H. J. (2019). Cost stickiness in the New Zealand charity sector. The International Journal of Accounting, 54(3).
  24. Hall, C. M. (2016). Does ownership structure affect labor decisions? The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1671-1696.
  25. He, J., Tian, X., Yang, H., & Zuo, L. (2020). Asymmetric cost behavior and dividend policy. Journal of Accounting Research, 58(4), 989-1021. DOI: 10.1111/1475-679X.12328
  26. Holzhacker, M., Krishnan, R., & Mahlendorf, M. D. (2015a). Unraveling the black box of cost behavior: An empirical investigation of risk drivers, managerial resource procurement, and cost elasticity. The Accounting Review, 90(6), 2305-2335.
  27. Holzhacker, M., Krishnan, R., & Mahlendorf, M. D. (2015b). The impact of changes in regulation on cost behavior. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(2), 534-566. DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12082
  28. Jang, Y., & Yehuda, N. (2021). Resource adjustment costs, cost stickiness, and value creation in mergers and acquisitions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 38(3), 2264-2301. DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12668
  29. Kama, I., & Weiss, D. (2013). Do earnings targets and managerial incentives affect sticky costs? Journal of Accounting Research, 51(1), 201-224.
  30. Krishnan, R., & Ramasubramanian, H. (2023). Factors that influence the learning curve: Evidence from cost behavior in clinical labs. Contemporary Accounting Research, 40, 257-291. DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12818
  31. Krisnadewi, K. A., & Soewarno, N. (2019). Competitiveness and cost behaviour: Evidence from the retail industry. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 21(1), 125-141. DOI: 10.1108/JAAR-08-2018-0120
  32. Lee, E., Kim, C., & Leach-López, M. (2020). Banking competition and cost stickiness. Finance Research Letters, 101859.
  33. Liu, X., Liu, X., & Reid, C. (2019). Stakeholder orientations and cost management. Contemporary Accounting Research, 36(1), 486-512. DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12389
  34. Loy, T. R., & Hartlieb, S. (2018). Have estimates of cost stickiness changed across listing cohorts? Journal of Management Control, 29(2), 161-181.
  35. Noreen, E., & Soderstrom, N. (1997). The accuracy of proportional cost models: Evidence from hospital service departments. Review of Accounting Studies, 2(1), 89-114. DOI: 10.1023/A:1018325711417
  36. 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. DOI: 10.1016/0165-4101(94)90012-4
  37. Rouxelin, F., Wongsunwai, W., & Yehuda, N. (2018). Aggregate cost stickiness in GAAP financial statements and future unemployment rate. The Accounting Review, 93(3), 299-325.
  38. Subramaniam, C., & Watson, M. W. (2016). Additional evidence on the sticky behavior of costs. Advances in Management Accounting, 26, 275-305. DOI: 10.1108/S1474-787120150000026006
  39. Weiss, D. (2010). Cost behavior and analysts’ earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review, 85(4), 1441-1471. -- http://www.jstor.org/stable/20744165.
  40. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817-838.

Nicola Dalla Via, The dynamics of cost behavior: Unveiling sticky costs in private companies in "FINANCIAL REPORTING" 2/2024, pp 13-46, DOI: 10.3280/FR2024-002002