Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
Abstract
An increase in the ratio of sales, general and administrative costs to sales (SG&A ratio) is associated with contradictory interpretations, namely a negative one due to deficient cost control and a positive one derived primarily from investments for improvement of operational processes. Based on these conflicting explanations, it is crucial to distinguish between whether an increase in the ratio of SG&A costs to sales is actually intended by management in order to enhance future profitability or it is because of deficient cost control. These explanations were investigated in this research. So the impact of cost efficiency on the relation between SG&A ratio and future performance is examined among 150 firms during 1380 to 1389. Findings show that intended increases significantly enhance future operating income and future sales, but non-intended increases in this ratio, decreases future operating income. Moreover, increases in SG&A ratio, cause decreases in future SG&A expenses in both efficient and inefficient firms, but dosen’t have a significant impact on future cost of goods sold (COGS). To study in more details, the SG&A efficiency and COGS efficiency were used in model at the same time and findings show that the impact of SG&A ratio on future operating income is significantly positive only if SG&A efficiency exists and also there is ample latitude for reduction of COGS. Because only in this way, SG&A costs represent investments in improving manufacturing efficiency.
Keywords
تحقیقات تعاون دانشگاه تهران.
.0 بدری، احمد و عبدالباقی، عبدالمجید. ) 3100 (. سودمندی استراتژی تحلیل بنیادی در کسبب
- .13 30 ، بازده غیرعادی. پژوهش های حسابداری مال . ی شماره 0
.1 ثقفی، علی و شعری، صابر. ) 3131 (. نقش اطلاعات بنیادی حسابداری در پبیش بینبی ببازده
- .300 34 ، سهام. مطالعات حسابدار . ی شماره 3
.7 عارفی، اصغر و دادرس، عباس. ) 3100 (. پیش بینی بازده سهام با استفاده از استراتژی تحلیبل
- .03 33 ، بنیادی. بررسی های حسابداری و حسابرس . ی شماره 25
.5 کردستانی، غلامرضا و مرتضبوی، سیدمرتضبی ) 3103 (. بررسبی تبثثیر تصبمیمات سبنجیده
- .00 41 ، مدیران بر چسبندگی هزینه ها. بررسی های حسابداری و حسابرس . ی شماره 24
.2 کردسببتانی، غلامرضببا و مرتضببوی، سیدمرتضببی ) 3103 (. شناسببایی عوامببل تعیببین کننببده
چسبندگی هزینه های شرکت ها. پژوهش های حسابداری مال . ی پذیرفته شده ببرای چباد در
شماره های آتی.
.4 کمیته تدوین استانداردهای حسبابداری. ) 3134 (. اصول و ضوابط حسابداری و حسابرسی:
استانداردهای حسابدار . ی تهران: سازمان حسابرسی.
.3 نمازی، محمد و دوانی پور، ایرج. ) 3130 (. بررسبی تجرببی رفتبار چسببندگی هزینبه هبا در
- .300 35 ، بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. بررسی های حسابداری و حسابرس . ی شماره 20
9. Abarbanell, J., and B. Bushee. (1997). Fundamental analysis, future earnings, and stock prices. Journal of Accounting Research 35 _1_: 1–24.
10. Anderson, M., R. Banker and S. Janakiraman. (2003). Are selling, general, and administrative costs “sticky?”. Journal of Accounting Research 41 _1_: 47–63.
11. Anderson, M., R. Banker, R. Huang, and S. Janakiraman. (2007). Cost behavior and fundamental analysis of SG&A costs. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 22 _1_: 1–28.
12. Balakrishnan, R., and T. Gruca. (2008). Cost stickiness and core competency: A note. Contemporary Accounting Research 25 _4_: 993–1006.
13. Balakrishnan, R., M. Petersen, and N. Soderstrom. (2004). Does capacity utilization affect the “stickiness” of cost?. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 19 _3_: 283–299.
14. Banker, R., R. Huang, and R. Natarajan (2009). Equity incentives and long-term value created by SG&A expenditure. Working paper, Temple University, Baruch College–CUNY, and The University of Texas at Dallas.
15. Banker, R., R. Huang, and R. Natarajan. (2006). Does SG&A expenditure create a long-lived asset?. Working paper, Temple University, Baruch College–CUNY, and The University of Texas at Dallas.
188 فصلنامه مطالعات تجربی حسابداری مالی، سال دهم، شماره 43 ، تابستان 1431
16. Baumgarten, D., U. Bonenkamp, and C. Homburg. (2010). The Information Content of the SG&A Ratio. Journal of Management Accounting Research 22: 1-22.
17. Beneish, M. D., C.M.C. Lee, and R. L. Tarpley. (2001). Contextual Fundamental Analysis Through the Prediction of Extreme Returns. Review of Accounting Studies 6: 165–189.
18. Bernstein, L., and J. Wild. (1998). Financial Statement Analysis. New York, NY: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
19. Biddle, G., R. Bowen, and J. Wallace. (1997). Does EVA beat earnings? Evidence on associations with stock returns and firm values. Journal of Accounting and Economics 24: 301–336.
20. Calleja, K., M. Steliaros, and D. Thomas. (2006). A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons. Management Accounting Research 17 _2_: 127–140.
21. Fama, E., and J. MacBeth. (1973). Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests. The Journal of Political Economy 81 _3_: 607–636.
22. Lazere, C. (1996). Holding the line on SG&A. CFO Magazine _12_: 28–36.
23. Lev, B., and S. Thiagarajan. (1993). Fundamental information analysis. Journal of Accounting Research 31 _2_: 190–215
)