بررسی رابطه بین چسبندگی هزینه و انعقاد قراردادهای بانکی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

گروه حسابداری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران جنوب، تهران، ایران.

چکیده
هدف: حسابداری بهای تمام‌شده سنتی هزینه‌ها را به دو نوع ثابت و متغیر طبقه‌بندی می‌کند. فرض ضمنی این است که رابطه بین هزینه و فعالیت برای افزایش و کاهش فعالیت متقارن است. در مقابل، رفتار هزینه نامتقارن شیوه جدیدی از تفکر در مورد رفتار هزینه را تشکیل می‌دهد. مدل چسبندگی هزینه به‌عنوان جایگزین رفتار هزینه‌ها به شمار می‌رود که ناشی از نیروهای محرکه رفتار هزینه تعدیل منابع و تصمیم‌های تعهد اتخاذشده توسط مدیران است؛ لذا بر پایه این استدلال، هدف پژوهش حاضر بررسی رابطه بین چسبندگی هزینه و انعقاد قراردادهای بانکی است.
روش‌شناسی پژوهش: روش‌ پژوهش حاضر از نوع کمی و همبستگی است و ازنظر ماهیت علی است و روش تحلیل فرضیه‌ها همبستگی می‌باشد. نمونه آماری این پژوهش شامل 24 بانک خصوصی و دولتی پذیرفته‌شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران بر اساس نمونه‌گیری تصادفی ساده طی دوره زمانی 1393 تا 1402 است.
یافته‌ها: نتایج حاصل از فرضیه نشان داد که ‌چسبندگی هزینه، باعث افزایش انعقاد قراردادهای بانکی می‌شود. بدین معنی هنگامی‌که سطح فعالیت کاهش می‌یابد، مدیران بانک‌هایی با هزینه‌های چسبنده در کاهش هزینه‌ها کندتر عمل می‌کنند که منجر به ‌صرفه‌جویی در هزینه کم‌تر می‌شود. ازاین‌رو، با کاهش فروش و‌ یا جریان‌های نقدی مورد انتظار بانک، ریسک نکول بانک افزایش می‌یابد.
اصالت/ارزش‌افزوده علمی: این انتظار وجود دارد که چسبندگی هزینه به دلایل مختلفی با هزینه بالاتر بدهی همراه باشد. اول، هزینه‌های چسبنده‌تر ممکن است منجر به تنوع بیش‌تر سود شود. بانک‌ها با هزینه‌های چسبنده‌تر نسبت به بانک‌هایی که هزینه‌های چسبنده کم‌تری دارد، کاهش بیش‌تری در سود نشان می‌دهد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Examining the relationship between cost stickiness and the conclusion of bank contracts

نویسندگان English

Sharzad Seraj
Mina Kalantari Khalilabad
Department of Accounting, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

Purpose: Traditional cost accounting classifies costs into two types: fixed and variable. The implicit assumption is that the relationship between cost and activity is symmetric for increases and decreases in activity. In contrast, asymmetric cost behavior constitutes a new way of thinking about cost behavior. The cost stickiness model is considered an alternative to cost behavior, which is caused by the driving forces of cost behavior, resource adjustment, and commitment decisions made by managers. Therefore, based on this argument, the current research aims to examine the relationship between cost stickiness and the conclusion of bank contracts.
Methodology: The current research method is quantitative, correlational, and causal, and the hypothesis analysis method is correlational. The statistical sample of this research comprises 24 private and public banks listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange, selected via simple random sampling during the period 2014 to 2023.
Findings: The results of the hypothesis showed that cost stickiness increases the likelihood of bank contracts. It means that when activity levels decrease, managers of banks with sticky costs respond more slowly to cost reductions, leading to lower cost savings. Therefore, as bank sales or expected cash flows decline, the risk of bank default increases.
Originality/Value: Cost stickiness is expected to be associated with a higher cost of debt for several reasons. First, more sticky costs may lead to greater profit variability. Banks with more sticky costs show a greater decline in profits than banks with less sticky costs.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Cost stickiness
Bank contract
Cost behavior
[1]     Anderson, S. W., & Widener, S. K. (2006). Doing quantitative field research in management accounting. Handbooks of management accounting research, 1, 319–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1751-3243(06)01012-1
[2]     Banker, R. D., & Chen, L. (2006). Predicting earnings using a model based on cost variability and cost stickiness. The accounting review, 81(2), 285–307. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2006.81.2.285
[3]     Weiss, D. (2010). Cost behavior and analysts’ earnings forecasts. The accounting review, 85(4), 1441–1471. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.4.1441
[4]     Bhardwaj, R. S. (2021). Literature review of Behavioral Finance: Then and Now. Elementary education online, 20(1), 2782. https://b2n.ir/sm1403
[5]     Balakrishnan, R., & Gruca, T. S. (2008). Cost stickiness and core competency: A note. Social science electronic publishing, 25(4), 993–1006. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1676310
[6]     Calleja, K., Steliaros, M., & Thomas, D. C. (2006). A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons. Management accounting research, 17(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2006.02.001
[7]     Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., & Chen, L. T. (2013). Employment protection legislation, adjustment costs and cross-country differences in cost behavior. Journal of accounting and economics, 55(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2012.08.003
[8]     Banker, R. D., & Byzalov, D. (2014). Asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of management accounting research, 26(2), 43–79. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-50846
[9]     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
[10]   Kim, J.-B., & Zhou, J. (2023). Cost stickiness and bank loan contracting. Advances in accounting, 61, 100645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2023.100645
[11]   Costa, M. D., & Habib, A. (2023). Cost stickiness and firm value. Journal of management control, 34(2), 235–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-023-00356-z
[12]   Shahbazi, S., & BadavarNahandi, Y. (2023). The relationship between comparability of financial statements and asymmetric behavior of costs with considering the moderating role of institutional investors’ ownership. Accounting and corporate governance research, 3(2), 7-27. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.71600/jacgr.2023.977482
[13]   Hamekhani, S., & Royaei, R. A. (2022). The impact of cultural factors on cost stickiness. Journal of financial accounting and auditing research, 14(15), 1-20.(In Persian). https://civilica.com/doc/1569551
[14]   Khajavai, S., Sadeghzadeh Maharluie, M., Jokar, M., & Taghizadeh, R. (2019). Cost stickiness and cost inertia: two cost driver model of cost asymmetric behavior. Journal of management accounting and auditing knowledge, 8(29), 135-148. (in persian). https://www.jmaak.ir/article_13840.html?lang=en
[15]   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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.00095
[16]   Kitching, K., Mashruwala, R., & Pevzner, M. (2016). Culture and cost stickiness: A cross-country study. The international journal of accounting, 51(3), 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2016.07.010
[17]   OH, H.-M. (2022). Cost stickiness and investment efficiency. The journal of industrial distribution & business, 13(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.13106/jidb.2021.vol13.no1.11
[18]   Levene, H. (1960). Contributions to probability and statistics: essays in honor of harold hotelling. Stanford university press, 3(3), 278–292. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=97177
[19]   Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of econometrics, 115(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
[20]   Duffie, D., & Lando, D. (2001). Term structures of credit spreads with incomplete accounting information. Econometrica, 69(3), 633–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00208
 [21] Brassil, A., Major, M., & Rickards, P. (2022). MARTIN gets a bank account: Adding a banking sector to the RBA’s macroeconometric model. Reserve Bank of Australia. https://ideas.repec.org/p/rba/rbardp/rdp2022-01.html
[22]   Brüggen, A., & Zehnder, J. O. (2014). SG&A cost stickiness and equity-based executive compensation: Does empire building matter? Journal of management control, 25(3), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-014-0195-5