, Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran , h.ameri@umz.ac.ir
Abstract: (246 Views)
Recent research findings regarding cost behavior have shown that costs do not change in proportion to changes in sales. In other words, while costs increase with rising sales, they do not decrease proportionately with falling sales. This asymmetric behavior of costs is referred to as cost stickiness. Furthermore, competition has led to a reduction in stagnation and recession in the market, compelling economic entities to operate with greater efficiency and productivity in order to survive under competitive conditions. Therefore, competition is recognized as a catalyst for innovation and creativity, which can contribute to the dynamism and economic development of society. The objective of this study is to examine the effect of competition on cost stickiness in the banking industry of Iran. To achieve this goal, data from 20 banks over the period of 2016-2023 were analyzed using the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) and panel data techniques. The findings indicate a significant positive relationship between competition and cost stickiness in banks. In other words, with an increase in competition, the cost stickiness of banks also rises.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
financial economics
Received: May 10 2024 | Accepted: Nov 10 2024
Received: May 10 2024 | Accepted: Nov 10 2024
References
1. Alaee, A. (2016). Investigating the relationship between competition in the product market and cost sensitivity in companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange. Journal of Management and Accounting Studies, 4(36), 246-259. [http://www.uctjournals.com/farsi/archive/accounting/1396/winter/22.pdf [In Farsi]]
2. 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. [DOI:10.1111/1475-679X.00095.]
3. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277-297. [DOI:10.2307/2297968]
4. Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., & Chen, L. (2014). Employment protection legislation, adjustment costs and cross-country differences in cost behavior. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 57(1), 17-35. [DOI:10.1016/j.jacceco.2012.08.003]
5. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel datamodels.JournalofEconometrics,87(1),115-143. [DOI:10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8]
6. Calleja, K., Steliaros, M., & Thomas, D. C. (2006). A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons. Management Accounting Research, 17(2), 127-140. [DOI:10.1016/j.mar.2006.02.001]
7. 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. [DOI:10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01094.x]
8. Cheung, J., Kim, H., Kim, S., & Rong, H. (2018). Is the asymmetric cost behavior affected by competition factors? Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 25, p.218-234. [DOI:10.1080/16081625.2016.1266271]
9. Dierynck, B., Landsman, W., & 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), p.1219-1246. [DOI:10.2308/accr-50153]
10. Esmaili, Rahman & Awl Khosrowshahi, Razavi. (2018). Relationship between cost stickiness and profitability in banks (case study of Kausar Credit Institution). Second National Conference on Sustainable Development in Management and Accounting Sciences of Iran, Tehran, [https://civilica.com/doc/929180 . [In Farsi]]
11. Fattahi Y, Kordestani G, Rastguian H.. (2020). Cost stickiness and credit risk of banks. Journal of Islamic Economics and Banking, 9(31), 115-99 . [http://mieaoi.ir/article-1-961-fa.html [In Farsi]]
12. Hashemi, S. A., Asghari, M., & Sadrizade, S. (2018). The Effect of Managerial Ability and Product Market Competition on Selling, General and Administrative Costs Stickiness of the Listed Companies. Accounting and Auditing Studies, 7(26), 31-44 . [https://www.iaaaas.com/article_98707_en.html [In Farsi]]
13. Homburg, C., Hoppe, A., Nasev, J., Reimer, K., & Uhrig-Homburg, M. (2018). How Cost Stickiness Affects Credit Risk. Available at SSRN 2792085. [https://ssrn.com/abstract=3232822]
14. Hassani, M., & Lal Bar, A. (2021). The impact of competitive strategies (cost leadership and differentiation) and the ability to manage profit quality and cost stickiness in listed companies. National Defense Strategic Management Studies, 5(18), 229-262 . 20.1001.1.74672588.1400.5.18.8.2 [In Farsi]
15. Kama, I., & Weiss, D. (2013). Do Earnings Targets and Managerial Incentives Affect Sticky Costs? Journal of Accounting Research, 51(1), p.201-224. [DOI:10.1111/j.1475-679X.2012.00471.x]
16. Karimzadeh, Akbar, Rezaei, Nader, Hajiha, Zohra, & Abdi, Rasool. (2022). The effect of competitive factors on the asymmetric behavior of costs. Ethics and behavior studies in accounting and auditing, 2(1), 29-52 . [https://sanad.iau.ir/journal/sebaa/Article/700307?jid=700307 [In Farsi]]
17. Kim, J.S., & Ra, K. (2022). Employee satisfaction and asymmetric cost behavior: Evidence from Glassdoor. Economics Letters, 219, p.110829. [DOI:10.1016/j.econlet.2022.110829]
18. Lee, E., Kim, C., & Leach-López, M. A. (2021). Banking competition and cost stickiness. Finance Research Letters, 41, 101859. [DOI:10.1016/j.frl.2020.101859]
19. Li, T., & Zhang, Z. (2021). The Impact of Macroeconomic Environment on Cost Stickiness: Evidence from China, Advances in Economics. Business and Management Research, 190, p.209-212. [DOI:10.2991/aebmr.k.210917.033]
20. Li, W. L., & Zheng, K. (2017). Product market competition and cost stickiness. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 49, 283-313. [DOI:10.1007/s11156-016-0591-z]
21. Nickell, S. J. (1996). Competition and corporate performance. Journal of political economy, 724-746. [DOI:10.1086/262040]
22. Noreen, E., & Soderstrom, N. (1997). The accuracy of proportional cost models: evidence from hospital service departments. Review of accounting Studies, 2, 89-114. [DOI:10.1023/A:1018325711417]
23. Reimer, K. (2019). Does Cost Stickiness Affect Credit Risk? In Asymmetric Cost Behavior (pp. 63-106). Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-658-22822-4_4]
24. Safarzadeh, Mohammad Hossein, & Anari, Hamed. (2019). The relationship of competitive market with sticky cost behavior and corporate governance. Applied research in financial reporting. 8(1), 119-146 . [https://www.arfr.ir/article_93104.html [In Farsi]]
25. Yasukata, K. (2011). Are'Sticky Costs' the Result of Deliberate Decision of Managers?. Available at SSRN 1444746. [DOI:10.2139/ssrn.1444746]
26. Zhang, Y. (2016). The Stickiness of SG&A Costs, Agency Problems and Competition Intensity. Economics. Available at: [http://hdl.handle.net/2105/33799]
| Rights and permissions | |
.jpg) |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
