IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v17y2024i5p205-d1394244.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficiency in Operations of NASDAQ Listed Technology Companies from 2011 to 2023

Author

Listed:
  • Suneel Maheshwari

    (Department of Accounting and Information Systems, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA 15705, USA)

  • Deepak Raghava Naik

    (Department of Management Studies, M S Ramaiah Institute of Technology, Bengaluru 560054, India)

Abstract

The performance of technology companies listed on NASDAQ significantly impacts larger economic trends. Investors need specific information to navigate market volatility and make informed decisions in an increasingly complex marketplace. Furthermore, amidst the ongoing digital revolution, legislators and regulatory agencies must comprehend the operational dynamics of technology companies to develop frameworks that support innovation while maintaining market stability. Our study assesses the impact on the overall operational efficiency of NASDAQ-listed firms from 2011 to 2023, resulting from the interdependence of critical variables such as selling, general, and administrative expenses (SGA), cost of goods and services sold (COGS), and investments in research and development (R&D). Johansen’s cointegration methodology and pairwise Granger causality tests were employed to unveil long-term relationships, equilibrium adjustments, and causal relationships among the considered variables. The results provide critical insights into the strategic management of operational variables by the listed companies. The economic significance of the results obtained underscores the paramount importance of efficiently managing the cost of goods and services sold to achieve superior operating performance among these leading technology firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Suneel Maheshwari & Deepak Raghava Naik, 2024. "Efficiency in Operations of NASDAQ Listed Technology Companies from 2011 to 2023," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:17:y:2024:i:5:p:205-:d:1394244
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/17/5/205/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/17/5/205/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Andreea Stoian, 2008. "Analyzing Causality Between Romania’S Public Budget Expenditures And Revenues," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania / Editura Economica, vol. 11(11(528)(s), pages 60-64, November.
    3. Lev, B & Zarowin, P, 1999. "The boundaries of financial reporting and how to extend them," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 353-385.
    4. Doukas, John & Rahman, Abdul, 1987. "Unit Roots Tests: Evidence from the Foreign Exchange Futures Market," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 101-108, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Anup Srivastava, 2023. "Trivialization of the bottom line and losing relevance of losses," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 1190-1208, September.
    2. Thomas Guenther & Anja Riehl & Richard Rößler, 2014. "Cost stickiness: state of the art of research and implications," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 301-318, February.
    3. Anna Maria Biscotti & Eugenio D’Amico, 2019. "Does Equity Market Differently Perceive IC Management and Disclosure Behaviours?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(2), pages 756-775, June.
    4. Nagar, Neerav & Sen, Kaustav, 2016. "Earnings management in India: Managers’ fixation on operating profits," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Lam, Kevin C.K. & Sami, Heibatollah & Zhou, Haiyan, 2013. "Changes in the value relevance of accounting information over time: Evidence from the emerging market of China," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 123-135.
    6. Waleed Khalid & Kashif Ur Rehman & Muhammad Kashif, 2019. "The Impact of Merger and Acquisition Firms on Stock Market Bubble," Global Regional Review, Humanity Only, vol. 4(1), pages 335-342, March.
    7. Thomas A. Gilliam, 2021. "Detecting Real Activities Manipulation: Beyond Performance Matching," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 57(4), pages 619-653, December.
    8. Lorena Mitrione & George Tanewski & Jacqueline Birt, 2014. "The relevance to firm valuation of research and development expenditure in the Australian health-care industry," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 39(3), pages 425-452, August.
    9. Paugam, Luc, 2011. "Valorisation et reporting du goodwill : enjeux théoriques et empiriques," Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine, Paris Dauphine University, number 123456789/8007 edited by Casta, Jean-François.
    10. Mark Aleksanyan & Khondkar Karim, 2013. "Searching for value relevance of book value and earnings: a case of premium versus discount firms," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 489-511, October.
    11. Banker, Rajiv D. & Byzalov, Dmitri & Chen, Lei (Tony), 2013. "Employment protection legislation, adjustment costs and cross-country differences in cost behavior," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 111-127.
    12. Chen-Lung Chin & Picheng Lee & Gary Kleinman & Pei-Yu Chen, 2006. "IPO anomalies and innovation capital," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 67-91, August.
    13. Peek, E., 2011. "The Value of Accounting," ERIM Inaugural Address Series Research in Management EIA-2011-048-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam..
    14. Efstathios G. Parcharidis & Nikos C. Varsakelis, 2010. "R&D and Tobin's q in an emerging financial market: the case of the Athens Stock Exchange," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 353-361.
    15. Sangil Kim & Jungmin Yoo, 2017. "Does R&D Expenditure with Heavy Related Party Transactions Harm Firm Value?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-15, July.
    16. Claudia Arena & Simona Catuogno & Nicola Moscariello, 2021. "The unusual debate on non-GAAP reporting in the current standard practice. The lens of corporate governance," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(3), pages 655-684, September.
    17. Cyrus MUTUKU, 2015. "Assessing Fiscal Policy Cyclicality and Sustainability: A Fiscal Reaction Function for Kenya," Journal of Economics Library, KSP Journals, vol. 2(3), pages 173-191, September.
    18. Dinh, Tami & Schultze, Wolfgang, 2022. "Accounting for R&D on the income statement? Evidence on non-discretionary vs. discretionary R&D capitalization under IFRS in Germany," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    19. Wulung Li & Ramachandran Natarajan & Yan Zhao & Kenneth Zheng, 2021. "The effect of management control mechanisms through risk-taking incentives on asymmetric cost behavior," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 219-243, January.
    20. Atoche, Teresa duarte & Pérez lópez, José ángel & Camúñez ruiz, Jose antonio, 2012. "La relevancia de los gastos de I+D. Estudio empírico en el sector del automóvil," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 257-286.

    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:gam:jjrfmx:v:17:y:2024:i:5:p:205-:d:1394244. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.