회계법인의 원가하방경직성 결정요인 = Determinants of Cost Stickiness in Accounting Firms

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study employs financial data of Korean accounting firms for the sample period from 1997 to 2012 and analyzes the behavior of accounting firms' operating expense and its determinants. Empirical analysis of pooled data for accounting firms reports that operating expense exhibits stickiness with respect to operating revenue which is assumed to a single cost driver. Further analysis reveals that the degree of stickiness for operating expense is lower in revenue-declining periods that were preceded by revenue-declining period, while operating expense is stickier at firms that require relatively more employees to support their operating revenue. Futhermore, classifying accounting firms into three groups: Big N affiliated incumbent firms (BIG), incumbent firms that are not affiliated with Big N (OLD), and newly established firms since 1997 (NEW), I empirically observe stickiness for operating expense only in NEW, not in BIG or OLD. Breaking down operating expense further into labor-related expense and other expenses, I find that labor-related expense shows strong stickiness, while other expenses do not. This result suggest that stickiness of operating expense is driven mainly by labor-related expense, not by other expenses.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 1997년부터 2012년까지 16년간의 우리나라 회계법인 재무자료를 이용하여, 회계법인의 영업비용의 행태분석과 그 결정요인을 분석하였다. 회계법인 전체를 대상으로 실증 분석한 결과, 단일의 원가동인으로 사용된 영업수익에 대해 영업비용은 하방경직성을 보이는 것으로 나타났다. 이와 관련하여 하방경직성 결정요인에 대한 추가분석 결과, 2년 연속 영업수익의 감소는 영업비용의 하방경직성을 감소시키는 것으로 나타난 반면, 종업원집중도는 영업비용의 하방경직성을 증가시키는 것을 발견하였다. 또한 각 회계법인별로 영업비용의 하방경직성을 검증한 결과 신설회계법인의 영업비용은 하방경직성을 보였지만, 나머지 회계법인들에 있어서는 영업비용의 하방경직성은 존재하지 않은 것으로 나타났다. 영업비용을 인건비와 기타비용으로 나누어 분석한 결과, 인건비는 하방경직성을 보이지만 기타비용은 하방경직성을 보이지 않았다. 이는 영업비용의 하방경직성이 인건비에 의해 야기되고 있음을 시사한다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 R. D. Banker, "The Moderating Effect of Prior Sales Changes on Asymmetric Cost Behavior" 26 (26): 221-242, 2014

2 C. X. Chen, "The Agency Problem, Corporate Governance, and the Asymmetrical Behavior of Selling, General, and Administrative Costs" 29 (29): 252-282, 2012

3 E. Noreen, "The Accuracy of Proportional Cost Models: Evidence from Hospital Service Departments" 2 : 89-114, 1997

4 R. D. Banker, "Sticky Cost Behavior: Theory and Evidence" Temple University 2010

5 R. W. Cooper, "On the Nature of Capital Adjustment Costs" 73 : 611-633, 2006

6 R. D. Banker, "Employment Protection Legislation, Adjustment Costs and Cross-country Differences in Cost Behavior" 55 (55): 111-127, 2013

7 B. Dierynck, "Do Managerial Incentives Drive Cost Behavior? Evidence about the Role of the Zero Earnings Benchmark for Labor Cost Behavior in Belgian Private Firms" 87 (87): 1219-1246, 2012

8 L. Kama, "Do Earnings Targets and Managerial Incentives Affect Sticky Costs?" 51 (51): 201-224, 2013

9 R. Balakrishnan, "Cost Stickiness and Core Competency: A Note" 25 (25): 993-1006, 2008

10 D. Weiss, "Cost Behavior and Analysts’ Earnings Forecasts" 85 (85): 1441-1474, 2010

11 R. D. Banker, "Asymmetric Cost Behavior" 26 (26): 43-79, 2014

12 M. C. Anderson, "Are Selling, General, and Administrative Costs “Sticky”?" 41 (41): 47-63, 2003

13 S.-Y. Lee, "An Exploratory Study of Accounting Firm Cost Behavior" 2 (2): 407-411, 2016