IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/advacc/v35y2016icp159-169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managerial discretion and agency cost in Indian market

Author

Listed:
  • Namitha, Chakkappanthodiyil
  • Shijin, Santhakumar

Abstract

This paper investigates empirically the impact of managerial discretion on agency cost from the perspective of SG&A cost asymmetry and examines how corporate governance moderates this relationship. The analysis shows mixed evidence in favor for cost behavior and managerial choices in the Indian market. The cost asymmetry involves not only cost stickiness but also the anti-sticky behavior of SG&A cost under certain circumstances. The main drivers for this disparity are owing to manager's resource adjustment decision, the future expectation of sales and managers' empire-building behavior. Furthermore, findings suggest that strong corporate governance alleviates empire-building behavior of managers. Additional analysis shows, the asymmetric behavior of SG&A cost in crisis period is mainly a result of managers' resource adjustment decision and future expectation of sales change. Manager's empire-building behavior does not play an explicit role in this period. Next, the findings show that managers' discretion is influenced by future value creation potential of SG&A cost. Manager's empire-building behavior is more pronounced in low-value creation sample firms compared to high-value creation sample. Thus, manager's choice for resource adjustment decision and empire-building behavior changes according to the future value creation of SG&A cost, financial conditions and corporate governance mechanisms in Indian companies. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study performed in Indian capital market where the SG&A cost asymmetry tests the managers' empire-building behavior. Overall, findings of the study indicate manager's resource adjustment decisions and empire-building behavior caused by their consideration and this results in a form of agency costs. In comparison with developed markets, Indian markets have relatively less agency problem due to managerial empire-building behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Namitha, Chakkappanthodiyil & Shijin, Santhakumar, 2016. "Managerial discretion and agency cost in Indian market," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 159-169.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:advacc:v:35:y:2016:i:c:p:159-169
    DOI: 10.1016/j.adiac.2016.06.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882611015300651
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.adiac.2016.06.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy L. Rose & Andrea Shepard, 1997. "Firm Diversification and CEO Compensation: Managerial Ability or Executive Entrenchment?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(3), pages 489-514, Autumn.
    2. Stulz, ReneM., 1990. "Managerial discretion and optimal financing policies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 3-27, July.
    3. Jensen, Michael C, 1986. "Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 323-329, May.
    4. Itay Kama & Dan Weiss, 2013. "Do Earnings Targets and Managerial Incentives Affect Sticky Costs?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 201-224, March.
    5. Jayati Sarkar & Subrata Sarkar, 2000. "Large Shareholder Activism in Corporate Governance in Developing Countries: Evidence from India," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 1(3), pages 161-194, September.
    6. Mark C. Anderson & Rajiv D. Banker & Surya N. Janakiraman, 2003. "Are Selling, General, and Administrative Costs “Sticky”?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 47-63, March.
    7. Yermack, David, 1996. "Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 185-211, February.
    8. Murphy, Kevin J., 1985. "Corporate performance and managerial remuneration : An empirical analysis," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1-3), pages 11-42, April.
    9. Sonja Fagernäs, 2006. "How do family ties, boards and regulation affect pay at the top? Evidence for Indian CEOs," Working Papers wp335, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    10. Clara Xiaoling Chen & Hai Lu & Theodore Sougiannis, 2012. "The Agency Problem, Corporate Governance, and the Asymmetrical Behavior of Selling, General, and Administrative Costs," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 252-282, March.
    11. Arijit Ghosh, 2006. "Determination of Executive Compensation in an Emerging Economy. Evidence from India," Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 66-90, May.
    12. Chakraborty, Indrani, 2010. "Capital structure in an emerging stock market: The case of India," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 295-314, September.
    13. Fama, Eugene F, 1980. "Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(2), pages 288-307, April.
    14. Singh, Manohar & Davidson III, Wallace N., 2003. "Agency costs, ownership structure and corporate governance mechanisms," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 793-816, May.
    15. Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2003. "Enjoying the Quiet Life? Corporate Governance and Managerial Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(5), pages 1043-1075, October.
    16. Kanniainen, Vesa, 2000. "Empire building by corporate managers:: the corporation as a savings instrument," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 127-142, January.
    17. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    18. Brickley, James A. & Coles, Jeffrey L. & Jarrell, Gregg, 1997. "Leadership structure: Separating the CEO and Chairman of the Board," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 189-220, June.
    19. Lucian Arye Bebchuk & Jesse M. Fried, 2003. "Executive Compensation as an Agency Problem," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(3), pages 71-92, Summer.
    20. P.K. Jain & Shveta Singh & Surendra Singh Yadav, 2013. "Financial Management Practices," India Studies in Business and Economics, Springer, edition 127, number 978-81-322-0990-4, December.
    21. Jensen, Michael C & Murphy, Kevin J, 1990. "Performance Pay and Top-Management Incentives," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(2), pages 225-264, April.
    22. Bebchuk, Lucian A. & Fried, Jesse M., 2003. "Executive Compensation as an Agency Problem," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt81q3136r, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    23. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
    24. Ramji Balakrishnan & Thomas S. Gruca, 2008. "Cost Stickiness and Core Competency: A Note," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(4), pages 993-1006, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Naoum, Vasilios-Christos & Ntounis, Dimitrios & Papanastasopoulos, Georgios & Vlismas, Orestes, 2023. "Asymmetric cost behavior: Theory, meta-analysis, and implications," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    2. Komang Ayu Krisnadewi & Noorlailie Soewarno, 2021. "Optimism and profit-based incentives in cost stickiness: an experimental study," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 7-31, March.
    3. Zhu, JianJun (John) & Tse, Caleb H. & Li, Xu, 2019. "Unfolding China’s state-owned corporate empires and mitigating agency hazards: Effects of foreign investments and innovativeness," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 191-212.
    4. Samya Tahir & Mian Sajid Nazir & Muhammad Ali Jibran Qamar & M. Martin Boyer, 2022. "Ineffective implementation of corporate governance? A call for greater transparency to reduce agency cost," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(5), pages 1528-1547, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhu, JianJun (John) & Tse, Caleb H. & Li, Xu, 2019. "Unfolding China’s state-owned corporate empires and mitigating agency hazards: Effects of foreign investments and innovativeness," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 191-212.
    2. Szilagyi, P.G., 2007. "Corporate governance and the agency costs of debt and outside equity," Other publications TiSEM 9520d40a-224f-43a8-9bf9-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Sualihu, Mohammed Aminu & Rankin, Michaela & Haman, Janto, 2021. "The role of equity compensation in reducing inefficient investment in labor," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    4. Xiaotao (Kelvin) Liu & Xiaoxia Liu & Colin D. Reid, 2019. "Stakeholder Orientations and Cost Management," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 486-512, March.
    5. Naeem Tabassum & Satwinder Singh, 2020. "Corporate Governance and Organisational Performance," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-030-48527-6, January.
    6. Ole‐Kristian Hope & Wayne B. Thomas, 2008. "Managerial Empire Building and Firm Disclosure," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 591-626, June.
    7. Chongwoo Choe & Gloria Tian & Xiangkang Yin, 2008. "Managerial Power, Stock-Based Compensation, And Firm Performance: Theory And Evidence," Monash Economics Working Papers 21/08, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    8. Renneboog, L.D.R. & Trojanowski, G., 2002. "The Managerial Labor Market and the Governance Role of Shareholder Control Structures in the UK," Discussion Paper 2002-68, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    9. Tai‐Hsi Wu & Mei‐Chen Lin & Pei‐Ju Lucy Ting & Jyun Yan Huang, 2024. "Do academic directors matter? Evidence from Taiwan equity market," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 4-29, March.
    10. Bum†Jin Park, 2017. "Auditors’ Economic Incentives and the Sensitivity of Managerial Pay to Accounting Performance," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 27(4), pages 382-399, December.
    11. Li, Tongxia & Lu, Chun & Chen, Zhihua, 2023. "The unintended consequence of collateral-based financing: Evidence from corporate cost behavior," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1).
    12. Mahmoud Agha, 2013. "Leverage, executive incentives and corporate governance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 53(1), pages 1-30, March.
    13. Sardar Ahmad & Saeed Akbar & Devendra Kodwani & Anwar Halari & Syed Zubair Shah, 2023. "Compliance or non‐compliance during financial crisis: Does it matter?," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(3), pages 2348-2366, July.
    14. Christian Engelen, 2015. "The effects of managerial discretion on moral hazard related behaviour: German evidence on agency costs," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 19(4), pages 927-960, November.
    15. Mamdouh Abdulaziz Saleh Al-Faryan, 2021. "The effect of board composition and managerial pay on Saudi firm performance," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 693-758, August.
    16. Gibson Hosea Munisi & Roy Mersland, 2016. "Ownership, Board Compensation and Company Performance in Sub-Saharan African Countries," Journal of Emerging Market Finance, Institute for Financial Management and Research, vol. 15(2), pages 191-224, August.
    17. Yaniv Grinstein & Stefano Rossi, 2016. "Good Monitoring, Bad Monitoring," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 20(5), pages 1719-1768.
    18. Kathy Fogel & Liping Ma & Randall Morck, 2021. "Powerful independent directors," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 50(4), pages 935-983, December.
    19. Loureiro, Gilberto & Makhija, Anil K. & Zhang, Dan, 2011. "Why Do Some CEOs Work for a One-Dollary Salary?," Working Paper Series 2011-7, Ohio State University, Charles A. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics.
    20. Ratnam Vijayakumaran, 2019. "Agency Costs, Ownership, and Internal Governance Mechanisms: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 9(1), pages 133-154, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agency cost; Sticky cost and Anti stickiness; Empire-building; Corporate governance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G3 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance
    • M40 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - General
    • G31 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Capital Budgeting; Fixed Investment and Inventory Studies
    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:advacc:v:35:y:2016:i:c:p:159-169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/advances-in-accounting/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.