Understanding Cost Management: What Can We Learn from the Evidence on 'Sticky Costs'?

TLDR

Anderson, Banker and Janakiraman (2003) find that the absolute change in SG&A cost associated with decreased sales activity is systematically less than that associated with increased sales activity (so-called “sticky” costs). We review theory, empirical tests, and data employed in the sticky cost literature and argue that sticky cost behavior is not sufficient to discriminate between managerial and mechanical theories of cost management. We analyze the empirical specification and data of prior studies to evaluate whether adjustment costs that influence cost‑management decisions are associated with sticky cost behavior. Our analysis shows that observed cost behavior can be explained by cost management alone, yet the literature suffers from theoretical and empirical shortcomings that limit its ability to distinguish between managerial and mechanical cost‑management approaches.

Abstract

Anderson, Banker and Janakiraman [2003] find that the absolute change in SG&A cost associated with decreased sales activity is systematically less than that associated with increased sales activity (so-called "sticky" costs). They interpret this as evidence of overt cost management. We review theory, empirical tests, and data employed in the sticky cost literature and argue that sticky cost behavior is not sufficient to discriminate between managerial and mechanical theories of cost management. We conclude that, using the empirical specification and data of prior studies, any observed cost behavior is consistent with cost management and focus instead on whether adjustment costs that are hypothesized to influence cost management decisions are associated with sticky cost behavior. We identify problems with an incomplete theory about adjustment costs (and assumed asymmetries) as well as problems in how plausible theories relate to the empirical test and aggregate financial accounting data used in these studies.