Search results

Empirical studies have found that cost-based pricing remains dominant in pricing practice and suggest that practice conflicts with marketing theory, which recommends value-based prices. However, empirical studies have yet to examine whether cost-plus formulas represent the pricing approach or essence.

This study aims to address the factors that explain price setting whereby the cost-plus formula is not just the pricing approach but also the pricing essence. This examination is grounded in a survey conducted on 380 Brazilian industrial companies.

The results show that, for price-makers, the cost-based pricing essence is positively associated with four factors (two obstacles to deploying value-based pricing, company size and differentiation), but it is negatively related to one factor (premium pricing strategy). For price-takers, the cost-based pricing essence is positively associated with four factors (two obstacles to deploying value-based pricing, coercive isomorphism and use of full costs), but it is negatively related to five factors (one obstacle to deploying value-based pricing, company size, competitors’ ability to copy, normative isomorphism and experience).

The key contribution of this paper is demonstrating that cost-plus formulas do not go against the incorporation of competitors and value information. This study reveals that it is possible to set prices based on either value or competitors’ prices while simultaneously preserving the simplicity of the cost-plus formulas. Via the margin, firms may connect costs to information about competition and value. The authors also demonstrate the drawbacks of not segregating companies into price-makers and price-takers and an excessive focus on the pricing approach at the expense of pricing essence.

While the gap between economic theory and companies’ practice, regarding to the pricing setting, has been extensively explored and explained, the new gap between the marketing normative view and companies’ practice needs further clarification. In this way, the paper aims to investigate whether marketing researchers’ claim that the use of cost-based price approach prevails over the use of value-based price approach is pertinent.

The paper is guided by the following research question: “Does price-setting based on cost plus margin go against the value-based price approach?” The answer to this question is grounded in reflections on results of previous research studies and in a case study conducted in an industrial company. Because of the qualitative focus of the present study, hypotheses are not established, but rather the following proposition: certain companies use the mechanics of cost plus margin in the sale price-setting process, but it does not necessarily mean that these companies set prices based on cost.

The arguments, propositions and the case study findings provide the logical sequence and the support required to conclude that price-setting based on cost plus margin does not always conflict with the value-based price approach. As a result, it may be claimed that the general proposition established is theoretically valid, i.e. using a price formula that contains the elements cost and margin does not necessarily mean that the company sets prices based on cost.

The key contribution of this paper is demonstrating that in certain business environments, such as, B2B, using the price formation mechanics based on cost plus margin is the way found by companies to enable the approach adopted. The approach may be cost-based or value-based price. This is the first study that explicitly reveals how B2B companies may set prices based on value while simultaneously preserving the simplicity of cost plus margin formulas. Researchers have significant misconceptions about these formulas: in previous studies, they classified all price-making companies as those adopting the cost-based price approach simply because they used formulas containing the element cost.

This paper aims to analyze and discuss the implications of the August 2010 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacating and remanding to the SEC its December 2008 order approving a proposed fee filed by NYSE Arca, LLC for its depth‐of‐book product ArcaBook. It also seeks to consider the effect on the court's decision of the Dodd‐Frank Act amendments to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.

The paper analyzes the evolution of the SEC's policy regarding SRO market data fees including the 1999 Concept Release on Market Information, the Advisory Committee on Market Information, the effects of decimalization and the 2005 adoption of Regulation NMS. It focuses on market data fee policy in connection with the Commission's decade‐long project to increase the role of competition in the US securities markets, culminating in the 2006 NYSE Arca fee filing, the SEC's 2008 order approving those fees and the NetCoalition decision.

The court's decision that a cost analysis is not irrelevant to the SEC's review of proposed SRO fee filings brings clarity and finality to a long‐standing dispute within the Commission and the securities industry and identifies a procedure for reaching an economically sound determination of “fair and reasonable” fees for SRO market data.

A cost‐based analysis of SRO market data fee filings is likely to result in a significant decline in market data revenues for those exchanges that charge fees for their data. For the Commission, cost‐based analysis is likely to require a significant reallocation of its regulatory staff and resources.

The paper presents a useful analysis for securities regulatory lawyers and financial analysts and investors following the stock exchange and financial information industries.

The purpose of the study is to evaluate whether the selection of accounting method used to value inventory increases or decreases the probability of a retail firm's ability to remain in existence.

This study employs a binary logistic regression model to predict group membership and the probability of failure. The study utilizes an unbalanced sample of US publicly traded failed and functioning retail firms over a ten-year period.

The results clearly support the conclusion that there is a difference in the probability of retail firm failure with respect to the accounting method used to value inventory. Merchants using a cost-based valuation method were 2.3 times more likely to fail than firms using a price-based method. The results also affirm existing bankruptcy literature by finding that profitability, liquidity, leverage, capital investment and cash flow are factors in retail failures.

The results suggest that traditional merchants cannot simply blame e-commerce or shifts in demographics for the retail Apocalypse; good management and proper valuation of stock still matter.

This study is the first to look at firm failure in the retail sector after the great recession of 2008, in an era known as the “retail Apocalypse.” In addition, this study differs from other firm failure literature by incorporating cost- and price-based inventory valuation methods as a variable in firm failure.

This study aims to empirically investigate whether the adoption of fair‐value‐accounting decreases the relevance of banks' capital adequacy ratios (CARs) in explaining insolvency risks. Additionally, how the disclosure quality affects the superiority of fair‐value‐based CARs over cost‐based CARs is also explored.

Using data from Taiwan banks from 2004 to 2010, the following tests are conducted. First, the insolvency risk is regressed on the reported CAR, along with the related interaction with the adoption of TFAS No. 34 to test the weakened relevance of CARs during the post‐TFAS No. 34 periods. Second, the relative relevance of fair‐value‐based CARs and cost‐based CARs is assessed using Vuong's Z‐statistic. Lastly, observations are partitioned into two groups – banks of higher and lower disclosure quality – to investigate whether fair‐value‐based CARs is superior (inferior) to cost‐based CARs for banks with higher (lower) disclosure quality.

First, adopting TFAS No. 34 reduces the relevance of CARs in explaining banks' insolvency risks. Second, fair‐value‐based CARs are superior to cost‐based ones in relation to insolvency risks only for banks of higher disclosure quality.

This study is the first to fill the empirical gap by demonstrating that the ability of CARs to explain the insolvency risk is adversely influenced by the adoption of fair value accounting. In particular, the results shed some light on the move toward fair‐value accounting, and may be interpreted that adopting fair‐value reporting is not flawless, drawing attention to the potential information loss in abandoning historical‐cost‐based regimes. Moreover, because the application of fair‐value accounting in the Taiwan banking industry is fairly similar to that of international or US GAAP, these results also yield insights into other standard‐setters.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the gap between cost-based and time-based revenue recognition schemes in the accounting of ship-owning corporations, and to propose cost-based revenue recognition (as in general accounting practice) in connection with the performance obligations.

For a comparative analysis of time-based (traditional approach) and cost-based schemes, a sample of dry bulk ships is selected and voyage estimations are performed by certified professional shipbrokers (Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers) (data collection and voyage estimation by practitioner). Performance obligations are also defined by certified shipbrokers (i.e. survey and expert opinion) and certified public accountant based on common shipping business practice and accounting practice in general.

Empirical results indicate the significant gap between two alternative schemes. Cost-based revenue recognition accelerates the revenue recognition (benefit of shipowner), and it enables comparability among other industries since cost-based allocation is the common practice in accounting (matching principle, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles).

It is obviously impossible to observe all kinds of freight market transactions for all different kinds of vessel particulars. The sample size does not undervalue the current study since the central idea of this paper is not the verification of the cost-based recognition in all possible transactions.

The proposed approach debiases the existing recognition practice as well as improving the speed of revenue recognition. In the existing practice, time-based recognition is still based on voyage estimations (time estimation). Voyage estimations conventionally answer two questions: “What is the cost of the voyage?” and “What is the duration of the voyage?” Therefore, the proposed approach does not require any additional work done. Common practice also clarifies the cost-based schedule for revenue recognition.

This paper addresses the unconventional accounting practice and its incomparability problem for the first time. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is also the first study on accounting economics of the shipping business. This paper proposes a practical solution to the debate raised by Financial Accounting Standards Board 2014-09 regulation on accounting standards by utilizing a staging approach and cost-based revenue allocation.

This paper aims to investigate the extent to which relation-specific investments undertaken by the distributor favor the presence of various governance structures (formal contract and relational governance). Furthermore, it examines whether dependence moderates the effect of relationship-specific investments on these governance structures.

Survey data were gathered from 224 wholesalers from the food and beverage industry. Hypotheses were tested through regression analysis.

This study illustrates that property-based relationship-specific investments have a greater positive impact on the use of formal contracts than knowledge-based relationship-specific investments. Furthermore, knowledge-based relationship-specific investments have a greater positive impact on relational governance than property-based relationship-specific investments. The results also suggest that it is necessary to consider the moderating effect of cost-based dependence and benefit-based dependence. Finally, mixed governance structures (e.g. formal contracts combined with relational governance) have a positive impact on satisfaction and intention to maintain and extend the relationship.

The findings allow manufacturers to concentrate their efforts on mixed governance structures facilitating relationship-specific investments and benefit-based dependence from distributors to develop a competitive advantage.

Several investigations have obtained a relationship between investments in specific assets, governance structures and performance. Nevertheless, they have not identified different types of investments in specific assets. This study proposes that there are two types of relationship-specific investments: based on property and based on knowledge. Additionally, a two-dimensional model of dependence (cost-based and benefit-based) allows capturing the different theoretical spheres of this concept.

This study examines the mediation effects of time-based competitiveness, cost-based competitiveness and customer performance between logistics outsourcing and financial performance.

The study relied on a questionnaire as the primary data collection instrument and further employed partial least squares structural equation modelling technique to test all formulated hypotheses.

The results demonstrate that logistics outsourcing has a significant positive impact on time-based competitiveness, cost-based competitiveness, customer performance and financial performance. Time-based competitiveness and cost-based competitiveness were both found to have a significant positive impact on financial performance; however, customer performance had no significant impact on financial performance. The mediation analysis further indicates that while both time-based competitiveness and cost-based competitiveness play mediation effects between logistics outsourcing and financial performance, customer performance plays no mediation effect between logistics outsourcing and financial performance.

The sampled firms for this study came from a single emerging country; hence, the results cannot be generalized or imported to reflect the results that may be obtained from other emerging geographical settings.

The results provide sufficient evidence for managers to turn their attention to logistics outsourcing, as a transformative business initiative, to gain time-based and cost-based competitiveness so as to improve financial performance.

The study provides significant insight and makes an additional contribution to literature in the area of logistics outsourcing, especially by collecting data from an emerging country. Modelling time-based competitiveness, cost-based competitiveness and customer performance as mediating variables between logistics outsourcing and financial performance make this work relatively different from other studies.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a new approach in which cost‐based process weights are used to determine a unique weighted‐defects per million opportunity (DPMO) and its corresponding overall sigma level in order to classify an organization as either “world‐class,” “industry average” or “non‐competitive.”

In order to achieve this objective, the proposed approach uses both internal and external performances of the products and processes in terms of costs involved to determine cost‐based process weights. These weights are then incorporated into the respective DPMOs for computing weighted‐DPMOs. Finally, a unique weighted‐DPMO and its corresponding sigma level are found.

The proposed method is a new one and it involves various costs for determining process weights. The findings reveal that the weight‐based overall sigma level is more realistic than the one that is calculated without weights. Further, the results of this study could provide interesting feedback to six‐sigma practitioners, as they are particular about DPMOs and return on investments in project implementations.

The results of this paper are based on the weights of respective processes and their products that are calculated using various cost aspects. Determining such weights by means of any other process and product factors incorporating the effects of various marketing activities, if any, could extend its generality and fulfil the gap.

The proposed method is simple to implement and the required data can be collected without any additional commitments. Also, it is more generic so that it can be adapted by organizations of any nature. This paper recommends change in the practice from simply using the DPMOs with equal importance to using the weight‐based DPMOs for evaluating overall sigma level (performance) of an organization.

The proposed approach would have a high value among six‐sigma quality practitioners and researchers as it provides a new and more realistic measure for overall performance of an organization during the evaluation process.