Journal of the Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회논문지)

Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Empirical Study of Relationship between the obsolescence assets and Asymmetric Cost Behavior

자산 노후화율이 원가의 비대칭성에 미치는 영향

  • Cha, Sang-kwon (The Department of Accounting, Hanyang University) ;
  • Kim, Dong-Pil (The Department of Tax-Accounting, Jangan University)
  • 차상권 (한양대학교 대학원 회계학과) ;
  • 김동필 (장안대학교 유통물류학부 세무회계과)
  • Received : 2019.10.28
  • Accepted : 2020.01.20
  • Published : 2020.01.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study analyzes the effects of the obsolescence assets on the asymmetry of costs. Cost asymmetry refers to a lower percentage of costs when sales fall than increases in costs when sales increase. the obsolescence asset induces various decisions, including high maintenance costs and management improvements and replacement of facilities. This study is to analyze the cost behavior according to those decisions. The analysis showed that the higher the obsolescence of assets rate, we found cost elasticity, with a greater reduction in costs when sales decrease than the increase in costs when sales increase. Second, the lower the cost will not appear as the obsolescence of assets rate increases in case that the concentration of an item of property, plant and equipment is high, and when sales decrease. The above result means that the obsolescence of assets rate acts as operating risk and thus operates resources flexibly according to changes in sales, but when the concentration of property, plant and equipment is high, the decision-making constraint make it difficult for the flexible operation.

본 연구는 기업의 자산 노후화가 원가의 비대칭성에 미치는 영향을 분석하였다. 원가의 비대칭성이란 매출액이 증가할 때 원가의 증가율보다 매출액이 하락할 때 원가의 감소율이 더 낮은 것을 가리킨다. 선행연구에서는 경영자의 설비용량 조정이나 유형자산의 비중이 높을수록 원가의 비대칭성이 보다 강하게 나타난다는 결과를 제시하였으나 주로 경영자의 재량적 의사결정에 산물로써 진행되었다. 그러나 원가의 비대칭성은 설비자산의 규모와 비중, 자산의 노후화율 등과 같은 구조적인 문제에 기인한 현상이 존재할 것으로 예상되어 가설을 검증하였다. 실증분석결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 자산의 노후화가 높을수록 총원가, 판매비와관리비의 하방탄력성이 나타났다. 둘째, 유형자산의 비중이 높은 경우 설비자산의 노후화가 높을수록 매출원가의 하방경직성이 나타났다. 이상의 결과는 선행연구가 주로 경영자의 의사결정, 설비용량의 조정, 무형자산의 비중에 관해 다루었다면 본 연구는 설비자산의 노후화와 설비자산의 집중도를 고려하여 분석함으로써 선행연구를 확장하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. M. C. Anderson, R. D. Banker, & S. N. Janakiraman. (2003). Are Selling, General, and Administrative Costs "Sticky"?, Journal of Accounting Research, 41(1), 47-63. DOI: 10.1111/1475-679X.00095
  2. K. Calleja, M. Steliaros & D. C. Thomas. (2006). A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons. Management Accounting Research, 17(2), 127-140. DOI: 10.1016/j.mar.2006.02.001
  3. D. Yang. (2015). Mergers, CEO hubris, and Cost Stickiness. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 51(sup5), S46-S63. DOI: 10.1080/1540496X.2015.1062313
  4. M. E. Bradbury & T. Scott. (2018). Do managers forecast asymmetric cost behaviour?. Australian Journal of Management, 43(4), 538-554. DOI: 10.1177/0312896218773136
  5. M. Ciftci & F. M. Salama. (2018). Stickiness in Costs and Voluntary Disclosures: Evidence from Management Earnings Forecasts. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 30(3), 211-234. DOI: 10.2308/jmar-51966
  6. A. E. A. Ibrahim. (2018). Board characteristics and asymmetric cost behavior: evidence from Egypt. Accounting Research Journal, 31(2), 301-322. DOI: 10.1108/ARJ-11-2015-0148
  7. J. H. Koo. (2011). The effect of earnings management incentives on the asymmetric cost behavior: Focusing on loss avoiding, income smoothing and big-bath. Korean Accounting Review, 36(3), 135-177.
  8. I. Kama & D. Weiss. (2013). Do Earnings Targets and Managerial Incentives Affect Sticky Costs?. Journal of Accounting Research, 51(1), 201-224. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-679X.2012.00471.x
  9. C. Y. Chung, S. K. Hur & L. Chang. (2019). Institutional investors and cost stickiness: Theory and evidence. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance. 47, 336-350. DOI: 10.1016/j.najef.2018.05.002
  10. S. H. Jang & T. Y. Paik. (2009). The Effect of Corporate Business Conditions on the Asymmetric Cost Behavior: Roles of Cost Management and Earnings Management. Korean Accounting Review, 34(4), 71-107.
  11. S. Xue & Y. Hong. (2016). Earnings management, corporate governance and expense stickiness. China Journal of Accounting Research, 9(1), 41-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.cjar.2015.02.001
  12. Wu-Lung, Li & K. Zheng. (2016) Product market competition and cost stickiness. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting. 49(2), 283-313 DOI: 10.1007/s11156-016-0591-z
  13. J. Zhang, M. Yin, J. Han & R. Aroskar. (2019). Why is asset-light strategy necessary? An empirical analysis through the lens of cost stickiness. Tourism Management Perspectives, 32, 100571 DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12082
  14. M. Holzhacker, R. Krishnan & M. D. Mahlendorf. (2015). The impact of Changes in Regulation on Cost Behavior. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(2), 534-566. DOI: 10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100571
  15. H. R. Jung. (2007). Determinants of Asymmetrical Behavior of Manufacturing Costs: Korean Evidence. Korean Accounting Information Review, 25(3), 2-28. UCI : G704-001013.2007.25.3.004
  16. R. D. Banker & D. Byzalov. (2014). Asymmetric Cost Behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 43-79. DOI: 10.2308/jmar-50846
  17. J. K. Jang, Y. S. Kim & Y. S. Hong. (2015). The Effect of Intangible Assets on the Asymmetric Cost Behavior. Korean Journal of Management Accounting Research, 15(1), 1-32.