International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications

The effect of cost stickiness on the estimation of accounting conservatism by considering the effect of the company's life cycle

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Accounting, Qeshm Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qeshm, Iran

2 Department of Accounting, Bandarabbas Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bandarabbas, Iran

3 Department of Management and Economics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Recent studies show two important factors in the nonlinear behavior of cost and profit. The first factor is cost stickiness, which expresses economic asymmetry in the reaction of cost to increase and decrease in sales. The second factor is related to accounting conservatism, which indicates the asymmetry of financial reporting in identifying good news versus bad news. Although conservatism and cost stickiness are conceptually based on two different and separate phenomena, but they create two similar patterns in the temporal asymmetry of profits. This study examines the relationship between cost stickiness, levels of conservatism and firm life cycle. In this research, by using the combined data technique and by using three models of non-operating accrual items, Basu's model and market value model, and with a sample consisting of 113 companies admitted in the Tehran Stock Exchange during the years 2010-2019, this goal has been investigated.
The research results indicate that the stickiness of costs is related to conservatism in all three models. The findings of the research show that in the growth stage between cost stickiness and conservatism of companies, there is a significant negative relationship in all three models, of which Basu's model has more explanatory power. In the maturity stage, there is a negative and significant relationship between the stickiness of costs and the conservatism of companies in the Basu's model and non-operating accruals, but no significant relationship has been observed in the market value model. In the recession stage, the effect of cost stickiness on the reduction of conservatism is significant only based on the market value model. Finally, in the decline stage, no significant relationship was found in any of the three models.

Keywords

[1] A.A. Abdullah and N. Mohd-Saleh, Impact of firms’ life-cycle on conservatism: The Malaysian evidence, Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 145 (2014), 18–28.
[2] Ichak Adizes, Organizational passages—diagnosing and treating lifecycle problems of organizations, Organ. Dyn. 8 (1979), no. 1, 3–25.
[3] M.C. Anderson, R.D. Banker, and S.N. Janakiraman, Are selling, general, and administrative costs “sticky”?, J. Account. Res. 41 (2003), no. 1, 47–63.
[4] J.H. Anthony and K. Ramesh, Association between accounting performance measures and stock prices: A test of the life cycle hypothesis, J. Account. Econ. 15 (1992), no. 2-3, 203–227.
[5] M. Bahar Moghaddam and S. Khademi, Investigate costs stickiness in economic prosperity and recession cycles, Manag. Account. 9 (2016), no. 30, 67–86.
[6] R. Balakrishnan, M.J. Petersen, and N.S. Soderstrom, Does capacity utilization affect the “stickiness” of cost?, J. Account. Audit. Finance 19 (2004), no. 3, 283–300.
[7] R.D. Banker, S. Basu, D. Byzalov, and J.Y.S. Chen, The confounding effect of cost stickiness on conservatism estimates, J. Account. Econ. 61 (2016), no. 1, 203–220.
[8] R.D. Banker and D. Byzalov, Asymmetric cost behavior, J. Manag. Account. Res. 26 (2014), no. 2, 43–79.
[9] R.D. Banker, D. Byzalov, and L.T. Chen, Employment protection legislation, adjustment costs and cross-country differences in cost behavior, J. Account. Econ. 55 (2013), no. 1, 111–127.
[10] R.D. Banker, D. Byzalov, S. Fang, and Y. Liang, Cost management research, J. Manag. Account. Res. 30 (2018), no. 3, 187–209.
[11] R.D. Banker, D. Byzalov, and J.M. Plehn-Dujowich, Sticky cost behavior: theory and evidence, AAA, 2011.
[12] S. Basu, The conservatism principle and the asymmetric timeliness of earnings, J. Account. Econ. 24 (1997), no. 1, 3–37.
[13] M. Behar Moghadam and M. Kavosi, Investigating of asymmetric timelines of earning due to conservatism and cost stickiness, J. Account. Knowledge 4 (2014), no. 15, 55–77.
[14] K. Calleja, M. Steliaros, and D.C. Thomas, A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons, Manag. Account. Res. 17 (2006), no. 2, 127–140.
[15] A. Charitou, N. Lambertides, and L. Trigeorgis, Distress risk, growth and earnings quality, Abacus 47 (2011), no. 2, 158–181.
[16] C.X. Chen, H. Lu, and T. Sougiannis, The agency problem, corporate governance, and the asymmetrical behavior of selling, general, and administrative costs, Contemp. Account. Res. 29 (2012), no. 1, 252–282.
[17] V. Dickinson, Cash flow patterns as a proxy for firm life cycle, Account. Rev. 86 (2011), no. 6, 1969–1994.
[18] B. Dierynck, W.R. Landsman, and A. Renders, Do managerial incentives drive cost behavior? evidence about the role of the zero earnings benchmark for labor cost behavior in private Belgian firms, Account. Rev. 87 (2012), no. 4, 1219–1246.
[19] K. Ebrahimi E. Maleki and F. Jalali, The effect of companies’ life cycle on the level of conservatism, J. Financ. Account. Audit. 11 (2019), no. 44, 59–78.
[20] M. Ezadpour and H. Nikoomaram, Explanation of asymmetric cost behavior based on the synchronization of political and business cycles, J. Manag. Account. Audit. Knowledge 7 (2018), no. 27, 231–246.
[21] D. Givoly and C. Hayn, The changing time-series properties of earnings, cash flows and accruals: Has financial reporting become more conservative?, J. Account. Econ. 29 (2000), no. 3, 287–320.
[22] D. Givoly, C.K. Hayn, and A. Natarajan, Measuring reporting conservatism, Account. Rev. 82 (2007), no. 1, 65–106.
[23] T.W. Guenther, A. Riehl, and R. Rosler, Cost stickiness: state of the art of research and implications, J. Manag. Control 24 (2014), 301–318.
[24] J.C. Hansen, K.P. Hong, and S.H. Park, Accounting conservatism: A life cycle perspective, Adv. Account. 40 (2018), 76–88.
[25] S. Hartlieb, T.R. Loy, and B. Eierle, Does community social capital affect asymmetric cost behaviour?, Manag. Account. Res. 46 (2020), 100640.
[26] S.A. Hashemi, H. Amiri, and A. Nejati, The effect of costs stickiness on conditional conservatism and information asymmetry, Manag. Account. 7 (2014), no. 23, 43–56.
[27] C. Homburg and J. Nasev, How timely are earnings when costs are sticky? implications for the link between conditional conservatism and cost stickiness, AAA Manag. Account. Sect. (MAS) Meeting Paper (2009), 1–36.
[28] N. Izadinia and M. Hashemi Dehchi, Investigating the relation between corporation social responsibility and cost stickiness, Manag.t Account. 10 (2017), no. 32, 1–12.
[29] Y. Jang and N. Yehuda, Resource adjustment costs, cost stickiness, and value creation in M&A deals, Contemp. Account. Res. Forthcom. 38 (2020), no. 3, 2264–2301.
[30] I. Kama and D. Weiss, Do earnings targets and managerial incentives affect sticky costs?, J. Account. Res. 51 (2013), no. 1, 201–224.
[31] S. Khajavi and A. Ghauory Moghadam, Investigating the role of managers’ capacity and the conflict of interests in the usefulness of cost stickiness: Evidence of consciously decisions in the cost stickiness phenomenon, Financ. Manag. Strategy 9 (2021), no. 2, 1–20.
[32] M. Khan and R.L. Watts, Estimation and empirical properties of a firm-year measure of accounting conservatism, J. Account. Econ. 48 (2009), no. 2-3, 132–150.
[33] V. Khodadadi, J. Nik Kar, and E. Malek Khodai, Adjustment of conditional conservatism model with respect to the effects of theory cost stickiness, Financ. Account. Res. 9 (2017), no. 2, 45–70.
[34] Y. Kim, S. Li, C. Pan, and L. Zuo, The role of accounting conservatism in the equity market: Evidence from seasoned equity offerings, Account. Rev. 88 (2013), no. 4, 1327–1356.
[35] G. Kordestani and S.M. Mortazavi, The identification of determinant factors on firmsˆa costsˆa stickiness, Financ. Account. Res. 4 (2012), no. 3, 13–32.
[36] R. LaFond and R.L. Watts, The information role of conservatism, Account. Rev. 83 (2008), no. 2, 447–478.
[37] S. Liu, The impact of ownership structure on conditional and unconditional conservatism in China: Some new evidence, J. Int. Account. Audit. Tax. 34 (2019), 49–68.
[38] H. Nikoumaaram M. Mortazavi Nasiri and B. Banimahd, Asymmetric cost behavior: A review of texts and methodology, J. Manag. Account. Audit. Knowledge 7 (2018), no. 28, 29–50.
[39] D. Miller and P.H. Friesen, A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle, Manag. Sci. 30 (1984), no. 10, 1161–1183.
[40] M. Mohamadi and M. Zanjirdar, On the relationship between different types of institutional owners and accounting conservatism with cost stickiness, J. Manag. Account. Audit. Knowledge 7 (2018), no. 28, 201–214.
[41] M. Namazi and I. Davanipour, Empirical evaluation of the sticky behavior of costs in the Tehran Stock Exchange market, Account. Audit. Rev. 17 (2010), no. 4, 85–186.
[42] M.R. Nikbakht and A. Pourbagherian, A model for cost stickiness based on intellectual capital, J. Manag. Account. Audit. Knowledge 9 (2020), no. 33, 141–156.
[43] E. Pamplona, C. Fiirst, T.B.J. Silva, and V.C.S. Zonatto, Sticky costs in cost behavior of the largest companies in Brazil, Chile and Mexico, Contad. Admin. 61 (2016), no. 4, 682–704.
[44] Y. Park and K.H. Chen, The effect of accounting conservatism and life-cycle stages on firm valuation, J. Appl. Bus. Res. 22 (2006), no. 3.
[45] A. Rastegari, R. Hesarzadeh, and M. Saey, The impact of community social capital on asymmetric behavior of cost, J. Account. Knowledge 12 (2021), no. 1, 19–44.
[46] M.H. Safarzadeh and B. Beig Panah, The role of cost stickiness in estimating conditional conservatism, Empir. Res. Account. 4 (2015), no. 4, 39–59.
[47] H. Shamakhi and N. Nozari Nobar, Investigating the relationship between accounting conservatism and firm performance during the COVID-19 epidemic in companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange, J. Account. Manag. Vision 4 (2021), no. 49, 82–97.
[48] E. Shust and D. Weiss, Discussion of asymmetric cost behavior—sticky costs: Expenses versus cash flows, J. Manag. Account. Res. 26 (2014), no. 2, 81–90.
[49] H. Valipour, M. Sadeghzadeh Maharluie, and M. Jokar, Investigation of the moderating role of cost stickiness on the relationship between change of sale, general, and administrative costs and product market competition, Account. Audit. Res. 12 (2020), no. 46, 65–80.
[50] M. Weidenmier and C. Subramaniam, Additional evidence on the sticky behavior of costs, WorkingPaper, Texas Christian University, 2003.
[51] D. Weiss, Cost behavior and analysts’ earnings forecasts, Account. Rev. 85 (2010), no. 4, 1441–1471.
[52] S. Xue and Y. Hong, Earnings management, corporate governance and expense stickiness, China J. Account. Res. 9 (2016), no. 1, 41–58.
[53] Z. Y. and Y. Z., A new methodology of neasuring firm life-cycle stsges, Int. J. Econ. Perspect. 4 (2010), no. 4, 579–587.
[54] K. Yasukata, Are’sticky costs’ the result of deliberate decision of managers?, Available at SSRN 1444746 (2011).
[55] M. Zanjirdar, A.P. Ghafari, and year=2014 publisher=Manag. Account. Madhi, Z., Review and analyze the factors affecting the behavior of sticky costs, Manag. Account. 7 (2014), no. 20, 79–91.
[56] J. Zhang, The contracting benefits of accounting conservatism to lenders and borrowers, J. Account. Econ. 45 (2008), no. 1, 27–54.
International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications
Volume 15, Issue 9
September 2024
Pages 113-128
  • Receive Date: 15 December 2022
  • Accept Date: 08 May 2023