The Effects of Agency Problems and Dividend Policy on the Asymmetric Behaviour of Selling, General and Administrative Expenses: Does Ownership Structure Matter?
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article investigates the effects of agency problems and dividend policy on the asymmetric behaviour of Selling, General, and Administrative (SG&A) expenses, with an emphasis on Korean business ownership structures. Employing a robust dataset of 4,279 observations from the Korean Composite Stock Price Index from 2011 to 2021, our empirical investigation combined multiple regression models such as OLS, fixed effects, random effects and the Generalised Method of Moments (GMM) to contain endogeneity problems. The research objectives include the examination of the relationship between SG&A cost asymmetry and agency problems, the impact of dividend policy on SG&A costs, and the intervening function of Korean business ownership structures, particularly Chaebols. Unexpectedly, the results reveal that higher free cash flow is linked to lower SG&A cost asymmetry, suggesting that agency concerns can be mitigated in such corporations. Improved asset utilisation increases cost asymmetry, whereas larger operating expenses reduce asymmetry. Furthermore, higher cash dividends and payout ratios are associated with reduced SG&A cost asymmetry, which contradicts the premise that dividend constraints correlate with a higher degree of cost asymmetry. According to ownership structure analysis, Chaebols' concentrated ownership results in stronger control over cash flow, eliminating cost asymmetry more efficiently than in non-Chaebol firms. These findings add to the literature on agency theory, cost behaviour, and corporate governance, providing managers and shareholders with beneficial insights. To promote business sustainability, improved handling of agency concerns and cost efficiency, this study recommends tailored corporate governance policies that takes ownership structures into account.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Ahmed, A. S., & Duellman, S. (2007). Accounting conservatism and board of director characteristics: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 43(2–3), 411–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2007.01.005
Agrawal, A., & Knoeber, C. R. (1996). Firm performance and mechanisms to control agency problems between managers and shareholders. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 31, 377–397. https://doi.org/10.2307/2331397
Anderson, M. C., Banker, R. D., & Janakiraman, S. N. (2003). Are selling, general, and administrative costs ‘sticky’? Journal of Accounting Research, 41(1), 47–63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3542244
Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297968
Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-D
Balakrishnan, R., Labro, E., & Soderstrom, N. S. (2014). Cost structure and sticky costs. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 91–116. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-50831
BHSN. (2020). Criteria for determining chaebols in Korea. Retrieved 8 May 2024 from https://bhsn.co.kr/en/standard-of-judgement-of-korean-chaebols/
Boone, A., Field, L. C., Karpoff, J. M., & Raheja, C. G. (2007). The determinants of corporate board size and composition: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 85(1), 66–101. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.605762
Bugeja, M., Lu, M., & Shan, Y. (2015). Cost stickiness in Australia: Characteristics and determinants. Australian Accounting Review, 25(3), 248–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12066
Calleja, K., Steliaros, M., & Thomas, D. C. (2006). A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons. Management Accounting Research, 17(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2006.02.001
Chen, C. X., Lu, H., & Sougiannis, T. (2012). The agency problem, corporate governance, and the asymmetrical behavior of selling, general, and administrative costs. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(1), 252–282.
Cheng, S., Jiang, W., & Zeng, Y. (2018). Does access to capital affect cost stickiness? Evidence from China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Economics, 25(1–2), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/16081625.2016.1253483
Chung, C. Y., Hur, S.-K., & Liu, C. (2019). Institutional investors and cost stickiness: Theory and evidence. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 47, 336–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2018.05.002
DeAngelo, H., DeAngelo, L., & Stulz, R. M. (2006). Dividend policy and the earned/contributed capital mix: A test of the life-cycle theory. Journal of Financial Economics, 81(2), 227–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2005.07.005
De Villiers, C., Hay, D., & Zhang, Z. (2014). Audit fee stickiness. Managerial Auditing Journal, 29(1), 2–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-08-2013-0915
Easterbrook, F. H. (1984). Two agency-cost explanations of dividends. The American Economic Review, 74(4), 650–659.
Fahlenbrach, R. (2009). Founder-CEOs, investment decisions, and stock market performance. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 44, 439–466.
Fairchild, R., Guney, Y., & Thanatawee, Y. (2014). Corporate dividend policy in Thailand: Theory and evidence. International Review of Financial Analysis, 31(1), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2013.10.006
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1992). The cross-section of expected stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427–465. https://doi.org/10.2307/2329112
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law & Economics, 26(2), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1086/467037
Habib, A., & Huang, H. J. (2019). Cost stickiness in the New Zealand charity sector. The International Journal of Accounting, 54(03), 1950012. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1094406019500124.
Hall, C. M. (2016). Does ownership structure affect labor decisions? The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1671–1696. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51384
Hart, O. (1995). Corporate governance: Some theory and implications. The Economic Journal, 105(430), 678–689. https://doi.org/10.2307/2235027
Höglund, H., & Sundvik, D. (2019). Do auditors constrain intertemporal income shifting in private companies? Accounting and Business Research, 49(3), 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2018.1490166
Hwang, L.-S., Kim, H, Park, K., & Park, R. S. (2013). Corporate governance and payout policy: Evidence from Korean Business Groups. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 24, 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2013.04.006
Ibrahim, A. (2018). Board characteristics and asymmetric cost behavior: Evidence from Egypt. Accounting Research Journal, 31(2), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-11-2015-0148
Ibrahim, A. E. A., Ali, H., & Aboelkheir, H. (2022). Cost stickiness: A systematic literature review of 27 years of research and a future research agenda. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 46, 100439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2021.100439
Ibrahim, A., & Ezat, A. (2017). Sticky cost behavior: Evidence from Egypt. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 7(1), 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-06-2014-0027
Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–329. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.99580
Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. The Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Kim, K.-Y., & Lee, Y.-H. (2024). The moderating effect of corporate governance on the relationship between ownership concentration and firm value. Computerized Accounting Research, 22(1), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.32956/kaoca.2024.22.1.91
Kim, W. C., Kim, W. J., & Park, K. S. (2021). A survey of research on the corporate governance of Korean firms. European Corporate Governance Institute – Finance Working Paper No. 804/2021. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3982236
Lang, L., & Litzenberger, R. H. (1989). Dividend announcements: Cash flow signalling vs. free cash flow hypothesis? Journal of Financial Economics, 24(1), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(89)90077-9.
Lang, L. H. P., Stulz, R. M., & Walkling, R. A. (1991). A test of the free cash flow hypothesis: The case of bidder returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 29(2), 315–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(91)90005-5
Lee, Y., & Tulcanaza-Prieto, A. B. (2024). The effect of corporate governance on the degree of agency cost in the Korean market. Risks, 12(4), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks12040059
Leftwich, R. W., Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1981). Voluntary corporate disclosure: The case of interim reporting. Journal of Accounting Research, 19, 50–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/2490984
Li, W., Natarajan, R., Zhao, Y., & Zheng, K. (2021). The effect of management control mechanisms through risk-taking incentives on asymmetric cost behavior. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 56(1), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-020-00891-z.
Liu, L., Wang, J., & Cao, R. (2022). Does cost stickiness affect the cash dividend policy: Empirical evidence from China. Journal of Finance and Accounting, 10(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfa.20221001.15
Nguyen, A. H., Doan, D. T., & Nguyen, L. H. (2020). Corporate governance and agency cost: Empirical evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(5), 103. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13050103
Njoku, O. E., & Lee, Y. (2024). Revisiting the effect of dividend policy on firm performance and value: Empirical evidence from the Korean market. International Journal of Financial Studies, 12, 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs12010022
Noreen, E., & Soderstrom, N. (1994). Are overhead costs strictly proportional to activity? Evidence from hospital departments. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 17(1), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(94)90012-4
Noreen, E., & Soderstrom, N. (1997). The accuracy of proportional cost models: Evidence from hospital service departments. Review of Accounting Studies, 2(1), 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018325711417
Prabowo, R., Hooghiemstra, R., & Van Veen-Dirks, P. (2018). State ownership, sociopolitical factors, and labor cost stickiness. European Accounting Review, 27(4), 771796. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2017.1329659
Singh, M., & Davidson, W. (2003). Agency costs, ownership structure and corporate governance –mechanisms. Journal of Banking & Finance, 27, 793–816.
Stulz, R. M. (1990). Managerial discretion and optimal financing policies. Journal of Financial Economics, 26(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(90)90011-N
Tulcanaza Prieto, A. B., Koo, J.-H., & Lee, Y. (2019). Does cost stickiness affect capital structure? Evidence from Korea. Management Accounting Research, 19(2), 27–57. https://doi.org/10.31507/KJMAR.2019.8.19.2.27
Via, N., & Perego, P. (2014). Sticky cost behaviour: Evidence from small and medium sized companies. Accounting and Finance, 54(3), 753–778. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12020.
Weiss, D. (2010). Cost behavior and analysts’ earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review, 85(4), 1441–1471. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.4.1441
Wu, T. C., Young, C.-S., Yu, C.-C., & Hsu, H.-T. (2020). Are governmental expenditures also sticky? Evidence from the operating expenditures of public schools. Applied Economics, 52(16), 1763–1776. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2019.1678731
Xue, S., & Hong, Y. (2016). Earnings management, corporate governance and expense stickiness. China Journal of Accounting Research, 9(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjar.2015.02.001
Zingales, L. (2002). Corporate governance. In Newman, P. (ed.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law (pp. 497–503). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-74173-1_96