REVISITING COST STICKINESS: THE CASE OF TURKISH MANUFACTURING FIRMS QUOTED ON İSTANBUL STOCK EXCHANGE

Year 2019, , 317 - 330, 01.07.2019

Mehmet Emin Karabayır

https://doi.org/10.29067/muvu.512534

Cited By: 4

Abstract

Cost behavior studies revealed that costs increase
more with activity increases than they decrease with activity decreases, i.e.
increases and decreases in costs are asymmetrical. This reveals the opposite of
the thesis that "costs react equally to the increase and decrease in
activity" in the traditional cost approach. This situation is called cost stickiness in the literature. This
study also aims to test whether 116 manufacturing firms trading in İstanbul
Stock Exchange show cost stickiness behavior for 2008-2016 period. For this
purpose, three different models with (1) sales and cost of sales; (2) sales and
marketing, selling and distribution expenses; (3) sales and general
administration expenses were established and tested with panel data analysis.
Results of the analyses revealed that cost stickiness exists for all three
models, supporting previous studies.

Keywords

Cost Stickiness, Cost Behavior, Management Accounting

MALİYET YAPIŞKANLIĞININ YENİDEN GÖZDEN GEÇİRİLMESİ: BORSA İSTANBUL İMALAT SANAYİ ÖRNEĞİ

Abstract

Maliyet
davranışı ile ilgili çalışmalar; maliyetlerde faaliyetler arttıkça meydana
gelen artış ile faaliyetler azaldıkça meydana gelen azalışın aynı oranda
gerçekleşmediğini, yani faaliyetlere bağlı olarak ortaya çıkan maliyet artış ve
azalışlarının asimetrik olduğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Literatürde maliyet yapışkanlığı olarak adlandırılan
bu durum, geleneksel maliyet yaklaşımında savunulan “maliyetlerin faaliyet
artışına ve azalışına aynı derecede tepki verdiği” tezinin tersini ortaya
koymaktadır. Bu çalışmada da, Borsa İstanbul’da faaliyet gösteren 116 imalat
firmasının 2008-2016 dönemi yıllık verilerinin maliyet yapışkanlığı davranışı
gösterip göstermediği test edilmiştir.  Bu
amaçla; satışlar ile satışların maliyeti, satışlar ile pazarlama satış ve
dağıtım giderleri ve satışlar ile genel yönetim giderleri dâhil edilmek
suretiyle üç farklı model kurulmuş ve panel veri analizi ile test edilmiştir.
Yapılan analizler sonucunda, her üç modele göre de maliyet yapışkanlığının
varlığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu durum önceki çalışmaları destekler niteliktedir.

Keywords

Maliyet Yapışkanlığı, Maliyet Davranışı, Yönetim Muhasebesi

References

• Alavinasab, S. M., Mehrabanpour, M. R. ve Ahmadi, A. (2017). The effect of economic growth on cost stickiness in Tehran Stock Exchange. International Journal of Finance and Accounting, 6(3), 87-94.
• Anderson, M. C., Banker, R. D. ve Janakiraman, S. N. (2003). Are selling, general and administrative costs “sticky”?, Journal of Accounting Research, 41(1), 47-63.
• Balakrishnan, R., Gruca, T. S. (2008). Cost stickiness and core competency: A note. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(4), 993-1006.
• Baltagi, B. (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, (3. Baskı). England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• Calleja, K., Steliaros, M. ve Thomas, D.C. (2006). A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons, Management Accounting Research, (17), 127-140.
• Chen, C. X., Lu, H. Ve 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.
• Çelik, M. ve Kök, D. (2013). Türkiye'de maliyet yapışkanlığının geçerliliği: İstanbul Menkul Kıymetler Borsası (İMKB) örneğinde panel veri analizi. Business and Economics Research Journal, 4(4), 37-48.
• Erlat, H., (2006). Panel Data: A Selective Survey. Ders Notları, Ankara: ODTÜ.
• Garrison, R. H. (1988). Managerial Accounting: Concepts for planning, control, decision making (5. Baskı). Boston: BPI Irwin.
• He, D. S., Teruya, J. ve Shimizu, T. (2010). Sticky selling, general and administrative cost behavior and its changes in Japan, Global Journal of Business Research, 4(4), 1-10.
• Kokotakis, V., Mantalis, G., Garefalakis, A., Zanidakis, N. ve 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. (2011), The effect of earnings management incentives on the asymmetric cost behavior: focusing on loss avoiding, income smoothing and big-bath. Korean Accounting Review, 36(3), 135-177.
• Lee, M. ve Choi, M. (2015). The determinants of research and development investment in the pharmaceutical industry: Focus on financial structures. Osong public health and research perspectives, 6(5), 302-309.
• Medeiros, O. R. ve Costa, S. (2004). Cost stickiness in Brazilian firms. SSRN Working Paper, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=632365 (Erişim Tarihi, 05 Ekim 2018).
• Namazi, M. ve Davanipour, I. (2010). Emperical evaluation of the sticky behavior of costs in the Tehran Stock Exchange Market. Accounting and Auditing Review, 17(62), 85-102.
• Noreen, E. ve Sodestrom, N. (1997). The accuracy of proportional cost models: Evidence from hospital service departments, Review of Accounting Studies, (2), 89-114.
• Özcan, B. ve Arı, A. (2010). Doğrudan yabancı yatırımların belirleyicileri üzerine bir analiz: OECD örneği. Ekonometri ve İstatistik E-Dergisi, (12), 65-88.
• Öztürk, E. ve Zeren, F. (2016). Maliyet yapışkanlığının geçerliliğinin test edilmesi: Borsa İstanbul örneği. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(15), 31-42.
• Pervan, M. ve 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, 10 Ekim 2018)
• Weidenmier, M. L. ve Subramaniam, C. (2003). Additional evidence on the sticky behavior of costs, SSRN Working Paper, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=369941, (Erişim Tarihi, 11 Kasım 2018)
• Yang, D. H., Lee, Y. T. ve Park, K. H. (2005). Sticky cost behavior analysis of general hospitals in Korea. Korean Journal of Health Policy and Administration, 15(1), 78-96.
• Yao, K. N. (2018). Cost stickiness, ownership concentration and enterprise risk: Empirical evidence from Chinese listed manufacturing companies. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 8, 163-173.
• Yükçü, S. ve 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.
• Zeren, F. ve Ergun, S. (2010). The determinants of foreign direct investment flows in EU: Dynamic panel data analysis. Business and Economics Research Journal, 1(4), 1-67.