Are capitalized R&D and expensed R&D costs “sticky”? Korean evidence
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.16(2).2019.08
-
Article InfoVolume 16 2019, Issue #2, pp. 89-100
- Cited by
- 1268 Views
-
197 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
The purpose of this study is to investigate the cost behavior of research and development (R&D) expenditures. R&D costs can be divided into capitalized R&D expenditures and expensed R&D expenditures. The authors examine the cost behavior of total R&D expenditures, as well as the cost behavior of capitalized and expensed R&D expenditures. In addition, it is investigated how the cost behavior varies depending on company management performance. Research results document that the total cost of R&D and capitalized R&D expenditures are not affected by changes in sales. While the cost of expensed R&D has a positive relationship with sales changes, asymmetric cost behavior does not exist. However, when combined with such factors as successive declines in sales, performance, and economic growth as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), asymmetric cost behavior emerges. In addition, the authors found that companies with high management performance smooth their earnings by expensing R&D expenditures as incurred rather than capitalizing them. For firms with high earnings, cost behavior of total R&D expenditures and capitalized R&D expenditures moves in the opposite direction of sales. That is, companies with high performance have low capitalization ratio of R&D. The results of this study are significant in that they expand the understanding of managers’ behaviors regarding R&D expenditures.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)D24, D25, D82, M41, O32
-
References18
-
Tables8
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. Descriptive statistics (n = 1,106)
- Table 2. Correlation matrix (n = 1,106)
- Table 3. Results of basic model (H1)
- Table 4. Results of research model (H1)
- Table 5. Results of extended research model (H1)
- Table 6. Results of basic model (H2)
- Table 7. Results of research model (H2)
- Table 8. Results of extended research model (H2)
-
- Anderson, M., Banker, R., & Janakiraman, S. (2003). Are selling, general and administrative costs “sticky”? Journal of Accounting Research, 41(1), 47-63.
- Anderson, M., Banker, R., Huang, R., & Janakiraman, S. (2007). Cost behavior and fundamental analysis of SG&A costs. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 22(1), 1-28.
- Anderson, S. W., & Lanen, W. N. (2009). Understanding cost management: What can we learn from the empirical evidence on “sticky cost”? (Working paper).
- Baber, W. R., Fairfield, P. M., & Haggard, J. A. (1991). The effect of concern about reported income on discretionary spending decisions: The case of research and development. Accounting Review, 66(4), 818-829.
- Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., Ciftci, M., & Mashruwala, R. (2014). The moderating effect of prior sales changes on asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 221-242.
- Banker, R. D., & Chen, L. (2012). Employment protection legislation, adjustment costs and cross-country differences in cost behavior, Journal of Accounting & Economics, 55(1), 111-127.
- Calleja, K., Steliaros, M., & Thomas, D. C. (2006). A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons. Management Accounting Research, 17(2), 127-140.
- 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.
- Darrough, M., & Rangan, S. (2005). Do insiders manipulate earnings when they sell their shares in an initial public offering? Journal of Accounting Research, 43(1), 1-33.
- 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.
- Gunny, K. A. (2010). The relation between earnings management using real activities manipulation and future performance: Evidence from meeting earnings benchmarks. Contemporary Accounting Research, 27(3), 855-888.
- Guo, R. X., Sun, D. F., Tan, Z. B., Rong, D. F., & Li, C. D. (2006). Two recessive genes controlling thermophotoperiod-sensitive male sterility in wheat. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 112(7), 1271-1276.
- Kama, I., & Weiss, D. (2013). Do earnings targets and managerial incentives affect Sticky Costs? Journal of Accounting Research, 51(1), 201-224.
- Noreen, E., & Soderstrom, N. S. (1997). The accuracy of proportional cost models: Evidence from hospital service departments. Review of Accounting Studies, 2(1), 89-114.
- Osma, B. G., & Young, S. (2009). R&D expenditure and earnings targets. European Accounting Review, 18(1), 7-32.
- Perry, S., & Grinaker, R. (1994). Earnings expectations and discretionary research and develop. Accounting Horizons, 8(4), 43-51.
- Roychowdhury, S. (2006). Earnings management through real activities manipulation. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 42(3), 335-370.
- Wyatt, A. (2005). Accounting recognition of intangible assets: theory and evidence on economic determinants. The Accounting Review, 80(3), 967-1003.