Are Selling, General, and Administrative Costs "Sticky"?

By Mark C. Anderson, Rajiv D. Banker, Surya N. Janakiraman. 2003

1,035 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Management Information Systems, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/907127c30ea05370f14b0caec5b33299e07d1974

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Management Information Systems

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Asymmetric Cost Behavior (2014, neutral): “In addition to optimal resource planning with adjustment costs, cost stickiness may reflect agency factors such as empire-building (Anderson et al. 2003; Chen et al. 2012).”
Abnormal real operations, real earnings management, and subsequent crashes in stock prices (2014, positive): “Considering the ‘‘sticky’’ cost behavior (see Anderson et al. 2003), Gunny (2010) interacts change in sales (DSt) with an indicator variable (DD) that is equal to one when total sales decrease from the prior year and zero if not.”
The Confounding Effect of Cost Stickiness on Conservatism Estimates (2016, neutral): “The cost accounting literature has documented four primary drivers of this variation: the size of the resource adjustment costs (Anderson et al., 2003; Banker et al., 2013), managerial optimism and pessimism about future sales (Anderson et al.”
Determinants of ‘Sticky Costs': An Analysis of Cost Behavior using United States Air Transportation Industry Data (2014, neutral): “Prior literature has positively associated capital-intensity (as a proxy for adjustment costs) with sticky costs (Anderson et al., 2003).”
Earnings Management Using Classification Shifting: an Examination of Core Earnings and Special Items (2006, positive): “Consistent with Anderson et al. (2003), the slope coefficient on sales growth ( SALESt) is significantly larger for firms that experience a sales decline (0.05 versus 0.26, where 0.26 is obtained by summing 5 and 6).”
The Relation Between Earnings Management Using Real Activities Manipulation and Future Performance: Evidence from Meeting Earnings Benchmarks*: Real Activities Manipulation and Future Performance (2009, neutral): “One exception is that SG&A in (2) does not exhibit sticky cost behavior as predicted by Anderson et al. 2003.”
The Moderating Effect of Prior Sales Changes on Asymmetric Cost Behavior (2014, background): “For example, empire-building managers are reluctant to cut slack resources when sales decrease and are motivated to acquire additional resources when sales increase (Anderson et al. 2003; Chen et al. 2012).”
Cost stickiness: state of the art of research and implications (2013, positive): “Anderson et al. (2003) (the ABJ model) and subsequent studies (e.g. Balakrishnan et al. 2004; Weidenmier and Subramaniam 2003) find evidence that the decline in costs is smaller for decreasing than the rise in costs for increasing activity levels of the same amount of activity change and label that ”
Customer-base concentration, profitability and distress across the corporate life cycle (2013, neutral): “Column (1) of Table 7 documents a negative association between customer-base concentration and credit rating; the greater is Rank(CC), the worse the firm’s credit rating.”
The Impact of Changes in Regulation on Cost Behavior (2015, positive): “Prior research in large sample archival studies across a variety of industries has documented that the elasticity of SG&A (Anderson et al. 2003) and operating cost (Calleja et al.”
Demand Uncertainty and Cost Behavior (2014, methodology): “This approach is standard in the literature, e.g., Anderson et al. (2003), Kallapur and Eldenburg (2005).”