Maliyet Yapışkanlığının Panel Veri Analizi ile Test Edilmesi: BİST Taş ve Toprak Endeksi Örneği

Yıl 2024, , 700 - 722, 30.09.2024

Ömer Burak Paksoy , Hüseyin Şentürk

https://doi.org/10.18074/ckuiibfd.1464889

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, 2012-2022 dönemlerini kapsayan Borsa İstanbul (BİST) Taş ve Toprak Endeksinde (XTAST) yer alan şirketler açısından satış gelirleri ile satış maliyetleri, genel yönetim giderleri, pazarlama, satış ve dağıtım giderleri ve faaliyet giderleri arasında maliyet yapışkanlığı hipotezinin geçerliliğinin ampirik olarak test edilmesidir. Çalışmada, maliyet yapışkanlığının geçerliliğinin araştırılması için iki ayrı hipotez ve dört farklı model geliştirilmiş ve bu modeller, panel veri analiz yöntemi ile test edilmiştir. Araştırmada elde edilen bulgulara göre, birinci ve üçüncü modelde maliyet yapışkanlığının olmadığı, ikinci ve dördüncü modellerde ise maliyet yapışkanlığı hipotezlerinin geçerli olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda, satış maliyetleri ile pazarlama, satış ve dağıtım giderlerinde geleneksel maliyet yapısının geçerli olduğu; genel yönetim giderleri ve faaliyet giderlerinde ise maliyet yapışkanlığı hipotezinin geçerli olduğu kanaatine ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Maliyet ve yönetim muhasebesi, maliyet yapışkanlığı, asimetrik maliyet davranışı, borsa istanbul, taş ve toprak endeksi, panel veri analizi

Testing Cost Stickiness With Panel Data Analysis: The Case of BIST Stone and Soil Index

Öz

The purpose of this study is to empirically test the validity of the cost stickiness hypothesis between sales revenues and sales costs, general administrative expenses, marketing, selling and distribution expenses and operating expenses for the companies in the Borsa Istanbul (BIST) Stone and Soil Index (XTAST) covering the period 2012-2022. In the study, two different hypotheses and four different models were developed to investigate the validity of cost stickiness and these models were tested by panel data analysis method. According to the findings of the study, it is concluded that there is no cost stickiness in the first and third models, while the cost stickiness hypotheses are valid in the second and fourth models. As a result of the study, it is concluded that the traditional cost structure is valid in selling costs and marketing, selling and distribution expenses, while the cost stickiness hypothesis is valid in general administrative expenses and operating expenses.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cost and managerial accounting, cost stickiness, asymmetric cost behavior, istanbul stock exchange, stone and soil index, panel data analysis

Kaynakça

• Abu-Serdaneh, J. (2014). The asymmetrical behavior of cost: evidence from Jordan. International Business Research, 7(8), 113-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v7n8p113
• Ahn, S.C. & Moon, H.R. (2014). Large-n and large-t properties of panel data estimators and the Hausman test. In Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt, Springer: New York.
• Alexandridis, G., Mavrovitis, C.F. & Travlos, N.G. (2012). How have M&As changed? Evidence from the sixth merger wave. The European Journal of Finance, 18, 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847X.2011.628401
• 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.
• Atasel, O.Y., Şeker, Y. & Yıldırım, F. (2021). Sticky cost behavior: evidence from BRICS+T countries. Ege Academic Review, 21(2), 125-137. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.907413
• Balakrishnan, R. & Gruca, T. S. (2008). Cost stickiness and core competency: a note. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(4), 993-1006.
• Baltagi, B.H. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: England.
• Banker, R.D. & Byzalov, D. (2014). Asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 43-79.
• Banker, R.D., Byzalov, D. & Threinen, L. (2013). Determinants of international differences in asymmetric cost behavior (SSRN Working Paper). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2312772
• Bengü, H. & Fidancan, C. (2020). Bist kimya ve metal ana sanayi sektörlerindeki imalat işletmelerinde maliyet yapışkanlığının test edilmesine ilişkin bir uygulama. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2), 331–342.
• Betzer, A., Doumet, M. & Goergen, M. (2015). Disentangling the link between stock and accounting performance in acquisitions. The European Journal of Finance, 21(9), 755–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847X.2014.890633
• Calleja, K., Steliaros, M. & Thomas, D.C. (2006). A note on cost stickiness: some international comparisons. Management Accounting Research, 17, 127-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2006.02.001
• Cannon, J. (2014). Determinants of "sticky costs": An analysis of cost behavior using United States air transportation industry data. The Accounting Review, 89(5), 1645-1672.
• Chen, C.X., 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01094.x
• Cook, D.O., Kieschnick, R. & Moussawi, R. (2019). Operating leases, operating leverage, operational inflexibility and sticky costs. Finance Research Letters, 31, 369-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.12.012
• Çelik, M. & Kök, D. (2013). Türkiye’de maliyet yapışkanlığının geçerliliği: İstanbul menkul kıymetler borsası (IMKB) örneğinde panel veri analizi. Business and Economics Research Journal, 4(4), 37-48.
• Dalla Via, N. & Perego, P. (2014). Sticky cost behavior: evidence from small and medium-sized companies. Accounting & Finance, 54(3), 753-778. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12020
• De Medeiros, O.R. & De Souza Costa, P. (2004). Cost stickiness in Brazilian firms. SSRN, 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.632365
• 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. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50153
• Driscoll, J.C. & Kraay, A.C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549-560.
• Elden Ürgüp, S. (2022). Maliyet yapışkanlığı teorisinin test edilmesi: bist kimya, ilaç, petrol, lastik ve plastik ürünler sektörü örneği. Ekonomi, Politika & Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 442-456. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.1098349
• Erdoğan, M., Demirgubuz, M.Ö., Erdoğan, E.O. & Ömürbek, V. (2019). Bist’de sektörler itibariyle maliyet yapışkanlığının panel veri analizi ile incelenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 10(24), 264-274.
• Gu, O., Hackbarth. D. & Johnson, T.C. (2017). Inflexibility and stock returns. SSRN Electronical Journal. 1-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3032838
• Gujarati, D.N. (2004). Basic Econometrics. The McGraw Hill Companies: USA.
• Günay, F. & Koşan, L. (2020). Maliyet yapışkanlığının pay getirisine etkisi: turizm alt sektörlerinde bir uygulama. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları, 13(3), 667-707.
• Gürkan, S. & Kaya, Ö. (2020). Asimetrik maliyet davranışı teorisi açısından şirketlerin maliyet davranışlarının incelenmesi: Thy, turkcell ve tüpraş örneği. Mali Çözüm, 30(157), 31 - 47.
• Hacıhasanoğlu, T. & Dalkılıç, E. (2018). Maliyet yapışkanlığı hipotezinin bist imalat sektörü kapsamında test edilmesi. Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(3), 1802-1808. https://doi.org/10.17218/hititsosbil.479221
• Hausman, J.A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1251-1271.
• He, D.S., Teruya, J. & Shimizu, T. (2010). Sticky selling, general and administrative cost behavior and its changes in Japan. Global Journal of Business Research, 4(4), 1-10.
• Horasan, E., Ağ, A. & Yılmaz, T. (2020). Bist imalat sektöründe yer alan işletmelerde maliyet yapışkanlığının incelenmesi. Maliye ve Finans Yazıları, (113), 185 – 206.
• Ibrahim, A.E.A. (2018). Board characteristics and asymmetric cost behavior: evidence from Egypt. Accounting Research Journal, 31(2), 301-322. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-11-2015-0148.
• Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H. & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
• Jang, Y., Yehuda, N. & Radhakrishnan, S. (2017). Asymmetric cost behavior and value creation in M&A deals. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2824132
• Kaçar, H. & Demirci, Ş.D. (2022). BİST gayrimenkul yatırım ortaklığı sektörü itibarıyla maliyet yapışkanlığının panel veri analizi ile test edilmesi. Yalova Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,12(2), 76-98.
• Kama, I. & Weiss, D. (2013). Do earnings targets and managerial ıncentives affect sticky costs?. Journal of Accounting Research, 51(1), 201-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2012.00471.x
• Karabayır, M.E. (2019). Maliyet yapışkanlığının yeniden gözden geçirilmesi: Borsa İstanbul imalat sanayi örneği. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, 12(2), 317-330.
• Karadeniz, E., Günay, F. & Koşan, L. (2019). Halka açık konaklama işletmelerinde maliyet yapışkanlığının analizi. Journal of Tourism Theory and Research, 5(2), 171-181.
• Kokotakis, V., Mantalis, G., Garefalakis, A., Zanidakis, N. & Galifianakis, G. (2013). The sticky cost on Greek food, beverages and tobacco limited companies. International Journal of Economics & Business Administration, 1(2), 49-58.
• Koo, J.H., Song, S. & Paik, T.Y. (2015). Earnings management and cost stickiness. Advanced Science and Technology Letter, 84, 40-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/astl.2015.84.09
• Noreen, E. (1991). Conditions under which activity-based cost systems provide relevant costs. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 3(4), 159-168.
• Noreen, E. & Soderstrom, N. (1994). Are overhead costs strictly proportional to activity?: Evidence from hospital departments. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 17(1-2), 255-278.
• Noreen, E. & Sodestrom, N. (1997). The accuracy of proportional cost models: Evidence from hospital service departments, Review of Accounting Studies, (2), 89-114.
• Novy-Marx, R. (2011). Operating leverage. Review of Finance, 15(1), 103-134. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfq019
• Öztürk, E. & Zeren, F. (2016). Maliyet yapışkanlığının geçerliliğinin test edilmesi: borsa İstanbul örneği. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(15), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.20875/sb.05076
• Pervan, M. & Pervan I. (2012). Analysis of sticky costs: Croatian evidence. Z. Panian (Ed.), Recent Researches in Business and Economics. 4th World Multiconference on Applied Economics, Business and Development (s. 152-157) içinde. Porto, Portekiz: ISEP Business and Economics Series 1. http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2012/Porto/AEBD/AEBD-23.pdf (Erişim Tarihi, 20.02.2024).
• Pesaran, M.H. (2003). Estimation and inference in large heterogenous panels with cross section dependence. SSRN Working Paper. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.385123
• Pesaran, M.H., Ullah, A. & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
• Pichetkun, N. (2012). The determinants of sticky cost behavior on political costs, agency costs, and corporate governance perspectives. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Business Administration, Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, Thanyaburi.
• Porporato, M. & Werbin, E. (2012). Evidence of sticky costs in banks of Argentina, Brazil and Canada. International Journal of Financial Services Management, 5(4), 303-320. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFSM.2012.048834
• Subramaniam, C. & Weidenmier, M. (2003). Additional evidence on the sticky behavior of costs. Working Paper, Texas: Christian University.
• Uğurlu, M., Danışman, G.Ö., Bilyay Erdoğan, S. & Vural Yavaş, Ç. (2019). Asymmetric cost behavior and acquirer returns: evidence from U.S. Mergers. Ege Academic Rewiew, 19(3), 323-339. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.536640
• Vargün, H., Başçı, E.S. & Savsar, C. (2021). BİST kobi sanayi endeksinde yer alan işletmelerin maliyet yapışkanlığının test edilmesi. Vergi Sorunları Dergisi, 394, 49 - 58.
• Wooldridge, J.M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• Xue, S. & Hong, Y. (2016). Earnings management, corporate governance and expense stickiness. China Journal of Accounting Research, 9(1), 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjar.2015.02.001
• Yükçü, S. & Özkaya, H. (2011). Cost behavior in Turkish firms: are selling, general and administrative costs and total operating costs “sticky”?. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 13(3), 1-27.