| 摘要(英) |
Most of extant research documented the phenomenon of stickiness through a single-period model, following Anderson et al. (2003), which does not take prior sales change direction into account. Thus the model seizes the weighted average degree of cost asymmetry and the conclusion may be biased. Given this view, this study, following Banker et al. (2014), incorporates two dummy variables－prior sales increase and prior sales decrease, which allows us to examine the effect of prior sales increase and decrease on cost behavior.
This study uses listed companies on the TWSE, OTC, and ESM in Taiwan as research subjects and investigates the influence of prior sales change direction on asymmetric cost behavior. The cost categories that we study are operating costs, and its components－cost of goods sold, SG&A costs, marketing expenses, administrative expenses, R&D expenses, and number of employees. As expected, for all cost categories, this study documents evidences that the extent of costs rise for concurrent sales increase is smaller following prior sales decrease than following a prior sales increase. On the contrary, the magnitude of a decrease in costs for concurrent sales decrease is greater following prior sales decrease than following prior sales increase. Also, we find that costs exhibit stickiness behavior as sales increase in prior period, and exhibit anti-stickiness behavior as sales decrease in prior period. |
| 參考文獻 |
中文文獻:
[1]林秉翰，2008，〈前期銷貨收入變動對成本習性之影響-以台灣公司為例〉，國立成功大學會計研究所未出版碩士論文。
[2]林有志，傅鍾仁，陳筱平，2011，〈成本僵固性之實證研究〉，《當代會計》，12(2):191-220。
[3]曾聯洲，2003，〈銷管費用僵固性之研究〉，國立政治大學會計研究所未出版碩士論文。
外文文獻:
[1]Anderson, M., C., R. D. Banker, and S.N. Janakiraman. 2001. Drivers of stickiness in the cost of sales at services firms. Working Paper, The University of Taxas at Dalles.
[2]Anderson, M. C., R. D. Banker, and S. N. Janakiraman. 2003. Are selling, general, and administrative costs “sticky”?. Journal of Accounting Research 41(1): 47-63.
[3]Anderson, M. C., R. D. Banker, R. Huang, and S. N. Janakiraman. 2007. Cost behavior and fundamental analysis of SG&A costs. Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance 22(1): 1-28.
[4]Anderson, S. W., and W. N. Lanen. 2007. Understanding cost management: What can we learn from the evidence on “Sticky Costs”? Social Science Research Network (SSRN) 975135.
[5]Balakrishnan, R., M. J. Peterson, and N. S. Soderstrom. 2004. Does capacity utilization affect the “stickiness” of costs? Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 19 (3): 283–299.
[6]Balakrishnan, R., and T. S. Gruca. 2008. Cost stickiness and core competency: A note. Contemporary Accounting Research 25(4): 993-1006.
[7]Banker, R. D., and L. Chen. 2006. Predicting earnings using a model based on cost variability and cost stickiness. The Accounting Review 81(2): 285-307.
[8]Banker, R. D., S. Basu, D. Byzalov, and J. Chen. 2013. Asymmetries in cost-volume-profit relation: Cost stickiness and conditional conservatism. Working paper, Temple University.
[9]Banker, R. D., and D. Byzalov. 2014. Asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research 26(2): 43-79.
[10]Banker, R. D., D. Byzalov, M. Ciftci, and R. Mashruwala. 2014. The moderating effect of prior sales changes on asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research 26(2): 221-242.
[11]Banker, R. D., J. Chen, and Han-Up Park. 2014. Cost behavior models analysts and investors use. Social Science Research Network (SSRN) 2482723.
[12]Calleja, K., M. Steliaros, and D. C. Thomas. 2006. A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons. Management Accounting Research 17(2):127-140.
[13]Chen, C. X., Lu, H., and T .Sougiannis. 2012. The agency problem, corporate governance, and the asymmetrical behavior of aelling, general, and administrative costs. Contemporary Accounting Research 29(1): 252-282.
[14]Cooper, R., and R. S. Kaplan. 1992. Activity-based systems: Measuring the costs of resource usage. Accounting Horizons 6(3): 1-13.
[15]Cooper, R., and R. S. Kaplan. 1998. The design of cost management systems: text, cases and readings. Prentice Hall.
[16]Kama, I., and D. Weiss. 2013. Do earnings targets and managerial incentives affect sticky costs? Journal of Accounting Research 51 (1): 201–224.
[17]Lazere, C. 1995. Spotlight on SG&A. CFO 11(12): 39-45.
[18]Lazere, C. 1996. Spotlight on SG&A. CFO 12(12): 28-34.
[19]Noreen, E. 1991. Conditions under which activity - based cost systems provide relevant costs. Journal of Management Accounting Research 3(4): 159-168.
[20]Noreen, E., and N. Soderstrom. 1994. Are overhead costs strictly proportional to activity?: Evidence from hospital departments. Journal of Accounting and Economics 17(1-2): 255-278.
[21]Noreen, E. and N. Soderstrom. 1997. The accuracy of proportional cost models: Evidence from hospital service departments. Review of Accounting Studies 2(1): 89-114.
[22]Subramaniam, C., and M. L.Weidenmier. 2003. Additional evidence on the sticky behavior of costs. Working Paper, Texas Christian University.
[23]Weiss, D. 2010. Cost behavior and analysts′ earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review 85(4): 1441-1471.
|
[Endnote RIS 格式]
[相關文章]
[文章引用]
[完整記錄]
[館藏目錄]
至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)
plurk
funp
live
udn
HD
myshare
netvibes
friend
youpush
delicious
baidu
Google bookmarks
del.icio.us
hemidemi
facebook
twitter
google
reddit