Evidence of sticky costs in banks of Argentina, Brazil and Canada

Sticky cost behavior: evidence from Egypt

“…Further, the sum of both B1 and B2 values is 0.39, indicating that when demand decreases by 1%, TC decreases by 0.39%, which provides evidence on cost stickiness of TC. Moreover, the extent of TC stickiness in the current study is 0.44%, but that found by Subramaniam and Weidenmier (2003) is 0.08% and by Porporato and Werbin (2012) are 0.22%, 0.82%, and 0.94% for the study's three samples.…”

“…The mean value of TC as a percentage of sales revenues is 67.57% (median = 74.05%, standard deviation = 24.92%) as compared to 88.2% reported by Subramaniam and Weidenmier (2003). Porporato and Werbin (2012) reported mean values of 79.01%, 69.05%, and 87.42%, for Argentina, Brazil, and Canada, respectively.…”

Effects of economic growth in the behavior of sticky costs of companies belonging to BRICS countries

“…The literature provides empirical evidence that the costs do not always react in a linear way, as suggested by the theory of traditional costs, and the seminal study by Anderson et al, (2003), which showed the sticky cost behavior, known as sticky costs. Such research made emerge new empirical evidence, under which proved the existence of asymmetry in costs, as the findings from studies by Subramaniam and Weidenmier (2003), Calleja et al, (2006), He et al, (2010) Porporato and Werbin (2012), Borgert and , Balakrishnan et al, (2014), Ibrahim (2015) and Pamplona et al, (2016).…”

“…Furthermore, it has asymmetric elasticity against revenue variations mentioned by Medeiros et al, (2005), which causes increase in the cost of greater intensity than the increased revenue. Porporato and Werbin (2012) characterize the behavior given by the sticky costs approach, considering the theoretical aspects based on management accounting, as "sticky" costs, referring directly to asymmetric costs that occur due to changes in the level of activity. Thus, from the relation between activities and costs, the literature distinguishes two types of costs being fixed costs and variable costs.…”

“…They point out that macroeconomic characteristics, such as GDP growth, can affect the asymmetric behavior of costs (Anderson et al, 2003;Yükçü & Özkaya, 2011;Balakrishnan et al, 2014;Banker, Byzalov & Plehn-Dujowich, 2014, Ibrahim, 2015. Balakrishnan, Labro and Soderstrom (2011), Yükçü and Özkaya (2011), Porporato and Werbin (2012), Banker, Byzalov and Plehn-Dujowich (2014) and Ibrahim (2015) show that favorable GDP growth conditions create positive expectations In managers and, recession conditions generate negative expectations in managers. So when managers are optimistic, they tend to keep resources down even with reductions in production volume, and with it come Sticky Costs.…”