Cost stickiness and firm profitability: A study in Saudi Arabian industries
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.18(3).2021.27
-
Article InfoVolume 18 2021, Issue #3, pp. 327-333
- Cited by
- 937 Views
-
410 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
This study examined the impact of cost stickiness on firm profitability in different industrial sectors in Saudi Arabia. The sample size for the study consists of 102 companies listed on Tadawul (Saudi Stock Exchange) from 2009 to 2018. The study estimated a panel regression using pooled OLS, fixed and random effects, and Generalized Method of Moments (GMM). The variable Return on Investment (ROI) is used as a proxy to measure a firm’s profitability. The results of all the three models are similar to each other. The study found a negative and significant correlation between profitability and cost stickiness, indicating firms’ inability to control the selling, general and administrative costs (SG&A), ultimately leading to lower profits. In addition, firm size is positively associated with profitability, indicating that larger firms are more profitable compared to smaller ones, while the leverage is negatively related to profitability, indicating that companies have higher debts.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)L25, L61, L66, M41
-
References24
-
Tables6
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. Variables and their expected sign
- Table 2. Descriptive statistics
- Table 3. Correlation analysis
- Table 4. Pooled regression results
- Table 5. Panel results with fixed and random effects
- Table 6. GMM estimation results
-
- Abu-Serdaneh, J. (2014). The asymmetrical behavior of cost: evidence from Jordan. Industrial Business Research, 7(8), 113-122.
- Alenezi, M. M. (2020). The influence of the trade-off between profitability and future increase in sales on cost stickiness: evidence from Jordan. Modern Applied Science, 14(5), 19-28.
- Anderson, A., Banker, R., & Janakiraman, S. (2003). Are selling, general and administrative costs sticky? Journal of Accounting Research, 41(1), 47-63.
- Banker, R. D., & Byzalov, D. (2014). Asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 43-79.
- Bosch, J., Blandon, J., Ravenda, D., Silva, M., & Somoza, A. (2017). The Influence of the Trade-Off between Profitability and Future Increases in Sales on Cost Stickiness. Estudios de Economia, 44(1), 81-104.
- 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.
- Hoffmann, K. (2017). Cost Behavior: An Empirical Analysis of Determinants and Consequences of Asymmetries (PhD Series, No. 6.2017, ISBN 9788793483859).
- Hosomi, S., & Nagasawa, S. (2018). Empirical study on asymmetric cost behavior: Analysis of sticky costs of local public enterprises. Asia-Pacific Management Accounting Journal, 13(2), 55-82.
- Huong, D.T.H. (2018). Impacts of cost stickiness on profitability: The case of listed companies in Vietnam. External Economics Review, 111, 54-63.
- Ibrahim, A. E. A. (2015). Economic growth and cost stickiness: evidence from Egypt. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 13(1), 119-140.
- Jin, Y. (2017). Does earnings management affect the cost stickiness of corporate? Advances in Computer Science Research, 61, 618-628.
- Kama, I., & Weiss, D. (2012). Do Earnings Targets and Managerial Incentives Affect Sticky Costs? Journal of Accounting Research, 5(1), 201-224.
- Kontesa, M., & Brahmana, R. K. (2018). Cost stickiness effect on firm’s performance: Insights from Malaysia. Asia-Pacific Management Accounting Journal, 13(1), 1-19.
- Lev, B., & Thiagarajan, S. (1993). Fundamental information analysis. Journal of Accounting Research, 31, 190-215.
- Mohammadi, A., & Taherkhani, P. (2017). Organizational capital, intellectual capital and cost stickiness (evidence from Iran). Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(3), 625-642.
- Noreen, E. (1991). Conditions under which Activity-based Cost Systems Provide Relevant Costs. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 3(Fall), 159-168.
- Pamplona, E., Fiirst, C., Silva, T. B. J., & Zonatto, V. C. S. (2016). Sticky costs in cost behavior of the largest companies in Brazil, Chile and Mexico. Contaduria y Administracion, 61, 682-704.
- Silva, A., Zonatto, V. C. S., Magro, C. B. D., & Klann, R. (2019). Sticky costs behavior and earnings management. Brazilian Business Review, 16(2), 191-206.
- Via, N. D., & Perego, P. (2014). Sticky cost behavior: evidence from small and medium sized companies. Accounting and Finance, 54, 753-778.
- Warganegara, D. L., & Tamara, D. (2014). The impacts of cost stickiness on the profitability of Indonesian firms. International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, 8(11), 3621-3624.
- Weiss, D. (2010). Cost behavior and analysts’ earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review, 85(4), 1441-1471.
- Xu, J., & Sim, J. W. (2017). Are costs really sticky and biased? Evidence from manufacturing listed companies in China, Applied Economics, 49(55), 5601-5613.
- Yao, K. (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.
- Zanella, F., Oyelere, P., & Hossain, S. (2015). Are costs really sticky? Evidence from publicly listed companies in the UAE, Applied Economics, 47(60), 6519-6528.