JEFMS Journal

ABSTRACT:

This study aims to analyze sticky cost behavior of agricultural sector industry in Indonesia and the effect of capital intensity, current ratio, profitability, employee intensity, tax, and leverage on sticky cost in agricultural sector industry. There are seven agricultural sector industries used as the sample. The data used in this study was obtained from yearly financial reports of agricultural sector industries from 2015 to 2019. The analysis technique used in this study is panel data regression. The Current ratio, Profitability and Leverage has a positive and significant effect towards the sticky cost, whereas Capital intensity, Employee intensity, and Tax have no significant effect towards the sticky cost.

KEYWORDS:

cost behavior, sticky cost, capital intensity, current ratio, profitability, employee intensity, tax, leverage

REFERENCES:

1) Anderson, Mark. C, Banker, and Janakiraman. 2003. “Are Selling, General an Administrative Costs Sticky?”. Journal of Accounting Research. Vol. 41, No. 1, March 2003.

2) Argilés, JM, & García-Blandón, J. (2009). Cost stickiness revisited: empirical application for farms. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting/Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 38(144), 579-605.

3) Balakrishnan, R., & Gruca, TS (2008). Cost stickiness and core competency: A note. Contemporary Accounting Research, Forthcoming.

4) Calleja, K., Steliaros, M., & Thomas, DC (2006). A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons. Management Accounting Research, 17(2), 127-140.

5) Canon, JN., 2011. Determinants of sticky Costs. An Analysis of Cost Behavior Using United States Air Transportation Industry Data, The Accounting Review: September 2014, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp. 1645-1672

6) Hidayatullah, IJ, Utami, W., & Herliansyah, YUDHI (2011). Analysis of sticky cost behavior and its effect on profit prediction using the cost variability and cost stickiness (CVCS) model for issuers on the IDX for the manufacturing industry. National Accounting Symposium.

7) Jazuli, Muhammad Asrin, Azhar Maksum, and Endang Sulistya. 2020. Analysis of Factors Affecting Cost Stickiness in Manufacturing Companies Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange 2014-2018 Period. Journal of Socio-Humanities Science, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2020.

8) Kartikasari, R., Suzan, L., & Muslih, M. (2018). Sticky cost behavior on labor costs and operating expenses in sales activities. Journal of Contemporary Accounting Research, 10(1), 1-7.

9) Cashmere. 2014. Analysis of Financial Performance, Seventh Printing. Jakarta, PT. King Grafindo Persada.

10) Malcom, RE (1991). Overhead Control Implications of Activity Costing. Accounting Horizons (December), 69-78.

11) Mulyani, S., Darminto, and MG Endang. 2013. Effect of Company Characteristics, ConnectionsPolitics, and Tax Reformation on Tax Avoidance (Study on Manufacturing Companies Listed on the Stock Exchange in 2008-2012). Tax Journal 2 (1).

12) Nugroho, PI, & Endarwati, W. 2013. “Do the Cost Stickiness in the Selling, General, and Administrative Costs Occur in Manifacturing Companies in Indonesia?” National Accounting Symposium 16 (pp. 2705-2721). Manado: Indonesian Accounting Association, Educator Accountant Compartment.

13) Nelmida & Siregar, SOH (April, 2016). The Effect of Changes in Sales, Capital Intensity Ratio, Debt To Asset Ratio, and Current Ratio on Cost StickinessCompanies on the Indonesia Stock Exchange . Journal of Economics, Management and Banking., Vol2 No. 1: 1-10.

14) Porporato, M., & Werbin, EM (2011, August). Active cost management in banks: evidence of sticky costs in Argentina, Brazil and Canada. AAA.

15) Sanusi. 2011. Descriptive Statistics Are Statistics Used By Researchers. PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta

16) Saleem, Q. &. (2011). Impacts of Liquidity Ratios on Profitability: Case of Oil and Gas Companies in Pakistan. Interdiscplinary Journal of Research in Business,, 95-98.

17) Sartono, A. (2010). Financial Management Theory and Applications, Fourth Edition. Yogyakarta: BPFE.

18) Sidabutar, DH (2018). Effect of Size, Free Cash Flow, Discretionary Expense Ratio, ROA, Tobin's Q, Leverage Ratio, on Sticky Cost Behavior in Manufacturing Companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the 2013-2015 Period. Indonesian Journal of Accounting, Finance & Taxation. 6 (01), 13-26. Sugiyono. 2018. Management Research Methods. Bandung: Alphabeta.

19) Parmadi, P. (2011). A DESCRIPTION OF INDONESIAN DOMESTIC TAX REVENUE FOR THE PERIOD OF 1990–2007. Journal of Economics Paradigm, (April).

20) Pichetkun, N., and Panmanee. 2012. The Determinants of Sticky Cost Behavior A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Doctoral Dissertation. Rajamangala University of Technology. Thai thanyaburi.

21) Sidabutar, Dumaris, Khairunnisa Harahap, and Akmal Huda Nasution. 2018. Effect of Size, Free Cash Flow, Discretionary Expense Ratio, ROA, Tobins Q, Leverage Ratio, on Sticky Cost Behavior in Manufacturing Companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2013-2015. Indonesian Journal of Accounting, Finance and Taxation, Vol. 6, No. 01.

22) Venieris, G., Naoum, VC, & Vlismas, O. (2015). Organization capital and sticky behavior ofselling, general and administrative expenses. Management Accounting Research, 26, 54-82.

23) Walsh, Ciaran. 2012. Key Management Ratio, Fourth Edition. Jakarta: Erlangga Group Publisher.

24) Weiss, D. 2010. Cost Behavior and Analysts Earnings Forecast. The Accounting Review, Vol. 85, No. 4.

25) Winarno, Wing Wahyu. 2015. Econometric and Statistical Analysis with Eviews, 4th ed. Yogyakarta: Upp Stim Ykpn.

26) Windyastuti, BF 2005. Cost behavior analysis: Sticky Cost Behavior, Marketing, Administration and General Costs on Net Sales (Empirical Study of Companies listed on the JSX). VIII National Accounting Symposium, Solo.

27) www.economy.business.com (August, 2020).