analysis of selling general and administrative cost stickiness on net sales at different economic condition

(1)

ANALYSIS OF SELLING, GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COST STICKINESS ON NET SALES AT DIFFERENT ECONOMIC CONDITION (Empirical Study of Manufacturing Company Listed in the Indonesia Stock Exchange)

Astri Novianti & Primanita Setyono I. INTRODUCTION

According to Cashin & Polimeni (1998, p.19), cost is defined as the benefits given

up to acquire goods or services. It means that cost is spent out by company in order to this

company gets benefits in the future. Related to volume, there are three kinds of cost

varied with changes in the volume of production; fixed cost, variable cost, and

semi-variable cost. Three of these costs have different behavior depending on the change of

input or output. In traditional theory of cost behavior, cost is divided into fixed and

variable cost in which cost responses mechanically to activity volume. Mechanical means

that cost adjust without management intervention (based on production schedule).

However, there aremany arguments regard to this characterization of cost behavior which

is inconsistent with the way that managers manage cost (Cooper & Kaplan, 1998 cited in

Anderson & Lanen, 2007), such as the action of managers in deliberately adjusting

resources as response to changes in volume. This matter effects on costs which increase

more when volume rises than they decrease when volume is fallen by an equivalent

amount. It is called as sticky cost. From the definition, it is shown that sticky cost is an

asymmetric reaction to activity change.

The degree of asymmetric cost behavior varies as result of deliberate decisions by

managers associated with adjustment cost (Anderson, Chen, & Young, 2005). For

example in Windyastuti & Biyanto (2005) research; In their research, they found that the

degree of cost stickiness increase with asset intensity but not with employee intensity. In

(2)

cost proxy and net sales as the relevant driver proxy. There are some considerations using

SG&A as cost proxy, as follows: 1) in previous research, it is shown that sticky is found

in operation cost than other cost categories (Anderson, et al, 2005), 2) according to

Hansen & Mowen (2000, p. 46), in manufacture organization, the rate of this cost can be

significant (± 25% of sales) and by controlling them, manufacture can lean in bigger

amount rather than other production costs. While, the rate of SG&A cost of net sales in

this sample is ± 12.3%. Inasmuch as SG&A cost is the subjected of managerial discretion,

this costs tend to have an asymmetric cost behavior. Hence, it is important for us to know

how managers manage this cost because the ratio of selling, general and administrative

costs to sales are closely monitored by investors and analysts (Palepu, Healy & Bernard,

2000 cited in Anderson, et al, 2006). Other considerations of manager in taking decisions,

such as the economic condition of country at that time. As we know that, in 1997,

Indonesia went through an economic crisis implicating in all sectors. The crisis effects on

the decreasing of economic growth rate in Indonesia for 13.06% in 1998. The economic

activity getting the highest negative growth is activity relying on import component

(Pancawati, Pramuka & Jaryono, 2004). Manufacture is one of this groups (-12%

growth). From this number, we can see that because of negative growth, most of

manufactures got declining in revenue. The worst condition that probably can be

happened is the inability of company to pay the expenses. The most important thing is

how to sustain and normalize the condition in company itself. Surely, what managers do

in economic crisis will be different in health condition. It will give make difference in the

(3)

research (Windyastuti, et al, 2005), it is proven that the degree of selling, general and

administrative cost stickiness in growing economic condition is greater.

This research is to measure the stickiness of selling, general and administrative

cost on net sales and the degree of stickiness cost of Indonesia’s manufacturing industries

associated with adjustment cost (asset and employee intensity) before, during, after

economic crisis.

II. LITERATURE & HYPOTESIS The Stickiness of Selling, General and Administrative Cost

Selling costs include cost of promoting, selling, and distributing products and

services, can be divided into fixed, variable, and semi-variable costs. Actually, these costs

move based on their behavior (costs respond mechanically to activity volume). However,

in Noreen & Soderstrom research (Anderson, et al, 2004), it is shown that selling, general

and administrative costs vary with sales volume but do not change proportionately with

changes in sales revenue (asymmetric cost behavior). These costs increase more when

volume rises than the decrease when volume fallen by an equivalent amount. It is called

as sticky cost by Anderson, Banker, & Janakiraman (Medeiros & Costa, 2004).

The stickiness of cost happened because of the management intervention in

deliberate decisions. It is said that cost stickiness is consistent with a model in which

managers deliberately adjust resources as response to changes. This opinion is supported

by the evidence research that is done by previous researches, such as Medeiros et al.

(2004) in Brazilian firms, Anderson et al. (2005) in Southwest Airlines, Windyastuti et al.

(4)

decreased, managers must decide whether to maintain resources and bear the costs to

maintain that resources or reduce unutilized resources and incur the adjustment costs. If

managers believe that better condition will happen in the near future (temporary decline

revenue), they will choose to maintain resources and delay adjustment cost.

The degree of cost stickiness associated with adjustment cost

It is stated in the previous that sticky cost is consistent with the way that managers

manage cost (managerial mode). Managers deliberately adjust resources in response to

changes in volume. Hence, the degree of cost stickiness is sensitive to the variables that

proxy for adjustment cost (such as employee intensity, asset intensity).

The degree of cost stickiness associated with employee intensity

It is common for companies to face a fluctuated demand, moreover in this

globalization era with tight competition. Thus, it is important to the company to have

good resource (employees) in order to win this competition. There are several ways that a

company has done in having good employees, such as doing recruitment, training, giving

award for a good performance, etc. When a company’s sales decrease, it is difficult for

company to fire the employee to do adjustment cost (moreover, company that owns the

high employee intensity) because company believes the better demand in the near future

and firing will be costly.

The degree of cost stickiness associated with asset intensity

Beside employee intensity, asset intensity also gives impact on selling, general,

and administrative cost stickiness. When net sales decreased, management will reduce the

number of purchased resources or even stop the purchased. It is easy to reduce or even

(5)

different for company that uses own resource (company’s assets). Selling the assets will

give lose for company because the company has to pay selling costs and loses firm

specific investment.

The impact of economic condition with the degree of cost stickiness

The economic condition of country in a certain time can give an influence in all

activities. It also influences the degree of cost stickiness. It is like what Anderson et al.

(2003, cited in Anderson, et al, 2005) said that the degree of stickiness is sensitive to

expect permanence of activity change (such as, macro-economic growth, previous

period’s activity). This opinion is also supported by Windyastuti et al. (2005) research.

Hypothesis Formulation

Hypothesis can be formulated, as follows:

H1a : The selling, general and administrative cost stickiness happened before economic crisis

H1b : The selling, general and administrative cost stickiness is avoided during economic crisis.

H1c : The selling, general and administrative cost stickiness happened after economic crisis

H2a : The degree of cost stickiness increased with the employee intensity of manufacture before

economic crisis period.

H2b : The degree of cost stickiness did not increase with the employee intensity of manufacture during

H2c : The degree of cost stickiness increased with the employee intensity of manufacture after

H3a : The degree of cost stickiness increased with the asset intensity of manufacture before economic

(6)

H3b : The degree of cost stickiness did not increase with the asset intensity of manufacture during

H3c : The degree of cost stickiness increased with the asset intensity of manufacture after economic

crisis period.

III. RESEARCH METHOD Population and Sample

The population of this research is manufacture listed in Indonesia Stock

Exchange. Sample is chosen by purposive sampling method. Sample selection of this

research are based on criteria as follows:

1. The chosen samples are manufacture companies listed in the Indonesia Stock

Exchange from 1993 until 2004.

2. Manufacture companies that are stated selling, general and administrative cost,

and net sales from 1993 – 2004 continually.

3. Manufacture companies that are stated employee, and total assets from 1994 –

2004 continually.

4. The nominal of selling, general and administrative cost is smaller than net sales.

Then, manufacture which has bigger SG&A cost than net sales is not used as the

sample.

5. The final step is to trim the top and bottom 0.5% for each variable (in order to

delete the extreme data or outlier).

Data was taken from Indonesian Capital Market Directory (1993 – 2004). Based

on the above criteria, there are 69 companies (cross section) chosen each year. The total is

(7)

Variable Operation

Variables used in this research are:

1. The ratio of current to previous selling, general and administrative cost.

2. Ratio of current to previous net sales 3. Indicator variable

In order to test the stickiness, it is added the indicator variable (dummy decline) in

this research (following the previous research). In as much as this matter, it is

added the indicator variable to regression equation that takes value “1” when

activity falls and “0” when activity do not falls.

4. Employee intensity

Employee i,t

NSi,t-1

5. Asset intensity

Total Assets i,t

NSi,t-1

Method of Analysis

It is using the panel data log-linear regression to test stickiness (by using Eviews

Software Version 4). It is like the previous research, panel data is used because research

data include some companies in certain time. Panel data is useful to increase the degree

of freedom and to decrease the collinearity between independent variable (Hsiao, 1995

cited in Windyastuti, et al, 2005). As the number of cross section is more than time series

(69 cross-section with 9 years), it is estimated to use Generalized Least Squares with Employee Intensity =

(8)

cross-sectional weighting, to better account for the heteroscedasticity in the model.

Generalized Least Square does not need the assumptions because it is a variable

transformation of Ordinary Least Square in which Manurung, Manurung, & Saragih

(2005, p.121-143): it is used to solve the problem of heteroscedasticity (inconstant

variant) and to solve the problem of autocorrelation (the correlation disturbance between

one period to another period). Each model in each period is also applied the

heteroscedasticity corrected standard errors (White correction in addition to the GLS

correction of the coefficient estimates themselves).

Model

The regression model is

SG&Ai,t NS,t NSi,t SG&Ai,t-1 NS i,t-1 NSi,t-1

SG&Ai,t : Selling, General, & Administrative cost of manufacture i period t

SG&Ai,t-1:Selling, General, & Administrative cost of manufacture i period t-1

NSi,t : Net sales of manufacture i at period t

NSi,t-1 : Net sales of manufacture i at period t-1

D : Dummy variable (value“1”when decrease activity, value “0” when increase

activity)

ei,t : residual

Loglinear is used because this research uses categorical or nominal

both the independent and dependent variables (Tansey, White, Long, &

Smith, 1996).

Log = a

(9)

In order to test the degree of cost stickiness associated with adjustment cost,

model 1 is extended to include an additional variable designed to model 2:

SG&Ai,t NSi,t NSi,t

SG&Ai,t-1 NSi,t-1 NSi,t-1

NSi,t Employee i,t

NSi,t-1 NS i,t-1

NSi,t Asset i,t

NSi,t-1 NSi,t-1

where Employee/NS : employee intensity ; Asset/NS : asset intensity

Statistical Test - Hypothesis Test Hypothesis 1

Therefore, the statistical hypothesis for H1 are:

Ho1a : a2 ≥ 0 ; Ha1a : a2 < 0 ; where

Ho1a : The selling, general and administrative cost stickiness did not happen before

economic crisis

Ha1a : The selling, general and administrative cost stickiness happened before

economic crisis

Ho1b : a2 ≤ 0 ; Ha1b : a2 > 0 ; where

Ho1b : The selling, general and administrative cost stickiness happened during

economic crisis

Ha1b : The selling, general and administrative cost stickiness is avoided during

economic crisis

Ho1c : a2 ≥ 0 ; Ha1c : a2 < 0 ; where

Log = a0 + a1 log + a2 Di,t* log

+ a_{3 Di,t*}log _*log

+ a

(10)

Ho1c : The selling, general and administrative cost stickiness did not happen after

economic crisis

Ha1c : The selling, general and administrative cost stickiness happened after economic

crisis

Hypothesis 2

The higher employee intensity, the higher degree of SG&A cost stickiness.

Ho2a : a3 ≥ 0 ; Ha2a : a3 < 0 ; where

Ho2a : The degree of cost stickiness did not increase with the employee intensity of

manufacture before economic crisis period.

Ha2a : The degree of cost stickiness increased with the employee intensity of

Ho2b : a3 ≤ 0 ; Ha2b : a3 > 0 ; where

Ho2b : The degree of cost stickiness increased with the employee intensity of

manufacture during economic crisis period.

Ha2b : The degree of cost stickiness did not increase with the employee intensity of

Ho2c : a3 ≥ 0 ; Ha2c : a3 < 0 ; where

Ho2c : The degree of cost stickiness did not increase with the employee intensity of

manufacture after economic crisis period.

Ha2c : The degree of cost stickiness increased with the employee intensity of

(11)

Hypothesis 3

Ho3a : a4 ≥ 0 ; Ha3a : a4 < 0 ; where

Ho3a : The degree of cost stickiness did not increase with the asset intensity of

Ha3a : The degree of cost stickiness increased with the asset intensity of manufacture

before economic crisis period.

Ho3b : a4 ≤ 0 ; Ha3b : a4 > 0 ; where

Ho3b : The degree of cost stickiness increased with the asset intensity of manufacture

during economic crisis period.

Ha3b : The degree of cost stickiness did not increase with the asset intensity of

Ho3c : a4 ≥ 0 ; Ha3c : a4 < 0 ; where

Ho3c : The degree of cost stickiness did not increase with the asset intensity of

manufacture after economic crisis period.

Ha3c : The degree of cost stickiness increased with the asset intensity of manufacture

after economic crisis period.

IV. RESULT Descriptive Statistics

Table 4.1. shows the number of kurtosis, and skewness to know the statistic

(12)

and log ratio of net sales (log x1?) have leptokurtis (kurtosis > 3), which are 7.98 and

5.49. While, the skewness are 0.435 and 0.224. High kurtosis means that the data is

concentrated in the middle of distribution or normal distributed. Meanwhile, the low

skewness (close to zero) means there is no extreme data in the distribution. In conclusion,

both of data is normal distributed.

Log employee intensity (log x2?) and log asset intensity (log x3?) have platikurtis

(kurtosis < 3), which are 2.79 and 2.77. These numbers show that the data are not really

concentrated in the middle of distribution. While, the skewness are -0.049 and 0.376.

Low skewness means that there is no extreme data in the distribution. Therefore, both of

data is normal distributed.

Regression Result A. Before Crisis

Coefficient Determination

As shown in table 4.2.Mode.1 for model 1, the R² value is 0,837. It means that 83.7 % of SG&A cost variability can be explained by the panel log linear regression

model that proxies in the several independent variables (the ratio of net sales, decline net

sales, employee intensity, and asset intensity) and the less 16.3% is explained by other

variables. While, for model 2, the R² value is 0.856. It means that 85.6% of SG&A cost variability can be explained by the panel log linear regression model, and the less 14.4%

is explained by other variables.

Simultaneous Regression Test ( F test)

From F test result in the table 4.2 (both of model 1 and model 2), it is shown that

(13)

independent variables consisting of the ratio of net sales, decline net sales, employee

intensity, and asset intensity significantly influence dependent variable (variability of

SG&A cost).

Regression Analysis

From the test result above we can arrange multi regression model as follow:

a. Model 1 (the analysis of degree of SG&A cost stickiness)

b. Model 2 (the analysis of degree of S&A cost stickiness associated with adjustment

cost)

NSi,t Employee i,t

NSi,t-1 NS i,t-1

NSi,t Asset i,t

NSi,t-1 NSi,t-1

Hypothesis Analysis

1. The SG&A cost stickiness happened before economic crisis(H1a)

This hypothesis is proven by seeing the regression result from model 1. Based on

the theory, the SG&A cost stickiness is happened if a1 > 0, a2 < 0. From the

regression result, it is shown that the value of a1 is 0.467 (positive and

significant). It means that if the net sales increase for one percent, the

selling, general and administrative cost will increase for 0.467 percent.

Log = 0.115 + 0.467log + 0.848 D* log + e i,t

Log = 0.108 + 0.49log -1.53 Di,t* log

-0.55 Di,t* log * log

(14)

While, a1+a2 is 1.315. It means that if the net sales decrease for one

percent, the selling, general and administrative cost will decrease for

1.315 percent. The variability of SG&A cost in increase net sales is

lesser than the variability of SG&A cost in decrease net sales (anti

sticky). This result is contradicted with the theory. Therefore, the H1a is

rejected; the selling, general and administrative cost stickiness did not happen before

economic crisis.

2. The degree of cost stickiness increased with the employee intensity of manufacture before economic crisis period (H2a)

This hypothesis is proven by seeing the regression result from model 2. This

hypothesis will be accepted if a3 < 0. From the regression result, it shows

that a3 is significantly negative (-0.55). It means that before economic

crisis period, when company decline its activity, chooses to delay

adjustment cost and bear the maintenances cost.

3. The degree of cost stickiness increased with the asset intensity of manufacture before economic crisis period (H3a)

This hypothesis is proven by seeing the regression result from model 2. This

hypothesis is proven by seeing the regression result from model 2. This hypothesis will

be accepted if a4 < 0. From the regression result, it shows that a4 is

significantly negative (-1.51). It means that before economic crisis

period, when revenue decline, it chooses to delay adjustment cost.

B. During Crisis

(15)

As shown in table 4.3 for model 1, the R² value is 0,857, it means that 85.7 % of SG&A cost variability can be explained by the panel log linear regression model that

proxied in the several independent variables (the ratio of net sales, decline net sales,

employee intensity, and asset intensity) and the less 14.3% is explained by other

Simultaneous Regression Test ( F test)

We can see the F test result in the table 4.3. (both of model 1 and model 2) that

independent variables consisting of the ratio of net sales, decline net sales, employee

intensity, and asset intensity significantly influence dependent variable (variability of

SG&A cost).

From the test result above we can arrange multi regression model as follows:

cost)

NSi,t Employee i,t

NSi,t-1 NS i,t-1

NSi,t Asset i,t

Log = 0.003₊0.77log - 0.36

D* log + e i,t

Log = 0.0007 + 0.78log -0.52 Di,t* log

-0.018 Di,t* log * log

(16)

NSi,t-1 NSi,t-1

Hypothesis Analysis

1. The SG&A cost stickiness is avoided during economic crisis (H1b)

This hypothesis will be accepted if a1 > 0, a2 > 0. From the regression

result it is shown that the value of a1 is 0.77 (positive and significant).

It means that if the net sales increase for one percent, the selling,

general and administrative cost will increase for 0.77 percent. While,

a1+a2 is 0.41. It means that if the net sales decrease for one percent,

the selling, general and administrative cost will decrease for 0.41

percent. The variability of SG&A cost in increase net sales is higher

than the variability of SG&A cost in decrease net sales (sticky). This

result is contradicted with the theory. Therefore, the H1b is rejected; the

SG&A cost stickiness happened during economic crisis.

2. The degree of cost stickiness did not increase with the employee intensity of manufacture during economic crisis period (H2b)

This hypothesis will be accepted if a3 > 0. From the regression result, it

is shown that a3 is insignificantly negative (-0.018). The negative value

means that stickiness cost is happened but do not have big influence

to this stickiness cost. It is contradicted with the theory in which it is

stated that stickiness is not happened during economic crisis period. It

means that H2b is rejected; the degree of cost stickiness increased with the

(17)

3. The degree of cost stickiness did not increase with the asset intensity of manufacture during economic crisis period (H3b)

This hypothesis will be accepted if a4 > 0. From the regression result, it

is shown that a4 is significantly positive (0.165). It means that during

economic crisis period, company that has high asset intensity will

choose to sell some company’s assets because company needs to

solve the problem. Company needs to get cash in order to pay

liabilities and develop the business. Therefore, the higher asset

intensity, the lesser stickiness cost.

3. After Crisis

Coefficient Determination

As shown in the table 4.4 for model 1, the R² value is 0,675. It means that 67.5 % of SG&A cost variability can be explained by the panel log linear regression model that

proxied in the several independent variables (the ratio of net sales, decline net sales,

employee intensity, and asset intensity) and the less 32.5% is explained by other

Simultaneous Regression Test ( F test)

From F test result in the table 4.4 (both of model 1 and model 2). As shown table

above, it can be explained that the p-value of both model 1 and model 2 are 0,000 in the

(18)

net sales, employee intensity, and asset intensity significantly influence dependent

variable (variability of SG&A cost).

From the test result above we can arrange multi regression model as follow:

cost)

NSi,t Employee i,t

NSi,t-1 NS i,t-1

NSi,t Asset i,t

NSi,t-1 NSi,t-1

Hypothesis Analysis

1.The SG&A cost stickiness happened after economic crisis(H1c)

This hypothesis will be accepted if a1 > 0, a2 < 0. From the regression

result it is shown that the value of a1 is 0.29 (positive and significant).

It means that if the net sales increase for one percent, the selling,

general and administrative cost will increase for 0.29 percent. While,

a1+a2 is 0.88. It means that if the net sales decrease for one percent,

the selling, general and administrative cost will decrease for 0.88

Log = 0.096₊0.29log + 0.59

D* log + e i,t

Log = 0.096 + 0.289log +0.42 Di,t* log

-0.02 Di,t* log * log

(19)

percent. The variability of SG&A cost in increase net sales is lesser

than the variability of SG&A cost in decrease net sales (sticky). This

result is contradicted with the theory. Therefore, the H1b is rejected;

the SG&A cost stickiness did not happen after economic crisis.

There is a better condition happened after crisis. Most companies have tried to

make better condition. Therefore, here, the focus of company is back to get more benefit

by controlling the costs. Management tries to push the operation cost in order to generate

more profit. Because of this condition, the decrease of cost when net sales decrease is

more than the increase cost when net sales increase.

2. The degree of cost stickiness increased with the employee intensity of manufacture after economic crisis period (H2c)

From the regression result, it is shown that a3 is insignificantly

negative (-0.02). The negative value means that stickiness cost

happened. Actually, the nature of cost behavior is appropriate with the

theory in which the higher employee intensity, the higher stickiness

cost. Nevertheless, from the insignificance, it means that management

has done the adjustment cost of SG&A resource but still retain some

employees (only in little number and not really influence the degree of

stickiness cost).

(20)

From the regression result, it is shown that a4 is significantly

positive (0.157). It means that after economic crisis period, company

that has high asset intensity will choose to sell some company’s

assets. It means that H3c is rejected; the degree of cost stickiness did not

increase with the asset intensity of manufacture after economic crisis period.

V. CONCLUSION & SUGESTION

There is a different degree of stickiness of selling, general and administrative on

net sales in different economic condition. Before economic crisis, the variability of

selling, general and administrative cost when net sales increase is lower than the

variability of selling, general and administrative cost when net sales decrease, which

mean stickiness does not happened. During economic crisis, the stickiness happened

(hypothesis 1b is rejected). While, after economic crisis, the stickiness does not happened

(hypothesis 1b is rejected). The variability of selling, general, and administrative cost

after crisis is lower than before economic crisis.

The different degree of selling, general and administrative cost stickiness on net

sales that is associated with employee intensity also happened in different economic

condition. In each economic condition (before, during, and after economic crisis), when

net sales decrease, the higher employee intensity, the higher degree of cost stickiness.

Nevertheless, the degree of cost stickiness in before economic crisis is higher than the

other periods.

The different degree of selling, general and administrative cost stickiness on net

sales associated with asset intensity is also happened in different economic condition.

(21)

(hypothesis 3a is accepted). While, during and after economic crisis, the higher asset

intensity, the lesser cost stickiness. It happened since the management tries to solve the

problem in that period. Nevertheless, there is a decreasing value after economic crisis.

Overall, researcher can conclude that the stickiness of selling, general and

administrative cost on net sales is found in Indonesia’s manufacturing companies.

Different economic condition influencing the degree of cost stickiness and it influenced

the way management make decisions.

For further research, will be better if concerning specific sample (categorize

firms based on their growth; low, middle, and high)., identify the degree of selling,

general and administrative cost stickiness specifically, such as research and development,

marketing, advertising and add other such as competition.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, M., Banker, R., Huang, R., Janakiraman, S., 2004, Discretionary Selling, General and Administrative Costs, Retrieved October 11, 2007

----, 2006, Cost Behavior and Fundamental Analysis of SG&A Costs, Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://astro.temple.edu/~banker/Accounting/abhj20060320a.pdf

Anderson, SW., Chen, CX., Young, SM., 2005, Sticky Costs as Competitive Response: Evidence on Strategic Cost Management at Southwest Airlines, Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://aaahq.org/MAS/mas2006/display.cfm?

Filename=Manuscript32.pdf&MIMEType=application%2Fpdf

Anderson, SW., Lanen, WN., 2007, Understanding Cost Management: What Can We Learn from the Evidence on “Sticky Costs?”, Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=975135

Case Center Departemen Manajemen FE UI 2006, Cases in Management Indonesian’s Real Companies, Salemba Empat, Jakarta

Cashin, JA., Polimeni, RS., 1998, Cost Accounting, McGraw Hill

(22)

Hansen, DR., Mowen, MM., 2000, Cost Management: Accounting and Control, 2nd_edn,

Salemba Empat, Jakarta

Indonesian Capital Market Directory 1993 Institute For Economic and Finance Research (ECFIN).

---- 1994 Institute For Economic and Finance Research (ECFIN).

Manurung, JJ., Manurung, AH., Saragih, FD. 2005, Ekonometrika Teori dan Aplikasi, Elex Media Komputindo, Jakarta

Medeiros, OR., Costa, SP. 2004, Cost Stickiness in Brazilian Firms, Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=632365

Pancawati, J., Pramuka, BA., Jaryono 2004, Analisis Variabel yang Mempengaruhi Earning per Share pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Tercatat di Bursa Efek Jakarta (Perbandingan Sebelum dan Selama Krisis), SMART, vol.1, no.1, hal.45-46

Siregar, NB. 2003, Perilaku Biaya (Behaviour Cost) Sebagai Dasar Perencanaan Biaya, Pembuatan Keputusan dan Pengendalian Manajemen, Retrieved October 13, 2007

(23)

Tansey, R., White, M., Long RG., Smith, M. 1996, A comparison of loglinear modeling and logistic regression in management research, Journal of Management, Retrieved October 14, 2007, from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4256/is_n2_v22/ai_18452992

Tunggal, AW. 1995, Manajemen Biaya (Cost Management), Harvarindo