Search results

As a financial policy, dividend policy significantly affects firm value. This chapter analyzes how stock prices react to dividend decisions. First, a dividend payment is an extraction of value; therefore, stock price theoretically drops by the dividend amount on the ex-dividend day. In practice, the price drop and the dividend magnitude are not equal because of tax clientele, short-term trading, and market microstructure. Investors are indifferent in trading stocks before and after stocks go ex-dividend if they obtain equal marginal benefits from the two trading times. The difference in tax rates on dividends and capital gains leads to the gap between the price drop and the dividend amount. Moreover, if transaction costs are considerable, investors have high incentives to short-sell stocks until they cannot obtain more profits. The final outcome of this short-term trading is the difference between the price drop and the dividend amount. Furthermore, market microstructure factors such as limit orders, bid-ask spread, and price discreteness also create this gap. Second, dividend announcements convey valuable information to outsiders. When firms announce increases (decreases) in dividends, their stock prices tend to increase (decrease). Third, dividend policy is negatively related to stock price volatility. This negative relationship is explained by duration effect, rate of return effect, arbitrage realization effect, and information effect. Empirical evidence for this relationship is found in many countries. Finally, dividend smoothing is also considered as a signal about firms' future earnings. Consequently, firms with stable dividends have higher market value. In other words, dividend stability has a positive effect on stock prices.

The purpose of this research note is to investigate the drivers and market reaction to firms’ decision to release general COVID-19-related announcements and to withdraw earnings forecasts and dividends during the COVID-19 pandemic in the continuous disclosure environment of Australia.

The authors first tracked the market reaction of all firms in the Australian Securities Exchange All Ordinaries, Top 300, Top 200 and Top 100 indices during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic between 1 January and 21 September 2020. The authors then focus the investigation on the incidence of firms deciding to withdraw earnings forecasts and dividends and how the market responded to these incidences during that period.

The market reacted negatively during the March/April 2020 period but then bounced back to the pre-March 2020 level. The market reaction is mainly driven by three industries, including consumer discretionary, health care and utilities. Firms in industry sectors such as consumer discretionary, materials, health care and information technology contribute to the highest percentage of COVID-19 announcements. It is interesting to document that firms issuing COVID-19 announcements and withdrawing earnings forecasts and dividends tend to be larger firms with stronger financial performance and higher financial leverage. Regarding the stock market reaction, while the market generally reacted positively to COVID-19-related announcements, the decision to withdraw earnings forecasts and dividends is significantly regarded as bad news.

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique natural event to examine firms’ disclosure behaviour in the continuous disclosure environment of Australia during this period of extreme uncertainty. The incidences of earnings forecasts and dividend withdrawals are mainly driven by larger, better performing and higher leverage firms in the consumer discretionary, health care, materials and information technology industry sectors. The market generally reacted favourably to COVID-19-related announcements, despite a significant stock price drop during the March/April 2020 period. The findings provide important regulatory and practical implications.

This chapter presents both main arguments of dividend policy theories and their empirical evidence. According to Miller and Modigliani (1961), dividend decisions are not relevant to firm value in a perfect capital market. Nevertheless, there are several market frictions in the real world (e.g., information asymmetry, agency problems, transaction costs, firm maturity, catering incentives and taxes). Therefore, academics use them to develop theories which help them explain corporate dividend decisions. Particularly, signaling theory considers dividend payments as a signal about firms' future prospects since outside investors face information disadvantage. “Bird-in-hand” theory argues that investors prefer dividends to capital gains since the former have lower risk than the latter. Agency theory is developed from the conflict of interest between corporate managers and shareholders. Corporate managers have high incentives to restrict dividend payments. Furthermore, transaction cost theory and pecking order theory posit that firms prefer internal to external funds. This drives firms to hold more cash and pay less dividends. Life cycle theory explains dividend policy by firm maturity. Mature firms have fewer investment opportunities, and thus, they tend to pay more dividends. Catering theory states that dividend decisions are based on investors' demand. Firms pay more dividends since investors prefer dividends and assign higher value to dividend payers. Tax clientele theory argues that firms that have corporate dividend policy rely on the comparative income tax rates for dividends and capital gains. Under the tax discriminations against dividends, firms tend to restrict their dividends in order to increase their stock prices.

This paper aims to examine the determinants of the dividend distribution policy in a banking setting.

Using a sample of 48 Islamic banks and 94 conventional banks from 15 Islamic countries over a period spanning from 2012 to 2019, we document the effect of board gender diversity, executive director profile and governance mechanisms on dividend payment decisions. We also analyze the moderating effect of Islamic banks on the relationship between gender diversity and dividend policy.

We find new evidence on the role of women directors in determining dividend distribution policy and confirm the risk aversion hypothesis, hence contributing to the ongoing debate on gender diversity literature. Our results show that the moderating role of Islamic banks is effective only for small banks.

Our findings have practical implications for shareholders, managers and financial analysts as they suggest rationalizing dividend distribution strategies.

Our study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on dividend policy, gender diversity and Islamic banks.

This article aims to systematically review the literature published in recognized journals focused on cognitive heuristic-driven biases and their effect on investment management activities and market efficiency. It also includes some of the research work on the origins and foundations of behavioral finance, and how this has grown substantially to become an established and particular subject of study in its own right. The study also aims to provide future direction to the researchers working in this field.

For doing research synthesis, a systematic literature review (SLR) approach was applied considering research studies published within the time period, i.e. 1970–2021. This study attempted to accomplish a critical review of 176 studies out of 256 studies identified, which were published in reputable journals to synthesize the existing literature in the behavioral finance domain-related explicitly to cognitive heuristic-driven biases and their effect on investment management activities and market efficiency as well as on the origins and foundations of behavioral finance.

This review reveals that investors often use cognitive heuristics to reduce the risk of losses in uncertain situations, but that leads to errors in judgment; as a result, investors make irrational decisions, which may cause the market to overreact or underreact – in both situations, the market becomes inefficient. Overall, the literature demonstrates that there is currently no consensus on the usefulness of cognitive heuristics in the context of investment management activities and market efficiency. Therefore, a lack of consensus about this topic suggests that further studies may bring relevant contributions to the literature. Based on the gaps analysis, three major categories of gaps, namely theoretical and methodological gaps, and contextual gaps, are found, where research is needed.

The skillful understanding and knowledge of the cognitive heuristic-driven biases will help the investors, financial institutions and policymakers to overcome the adverse effect of these behavioral biases in the stock market. This article provides a detailed explanation of cognitive heuristic-driven biases and their influence on investment management activities and market efficiency, which could be very useful for finance practitioners, such as an investor who plays at the stock exchange, a portfolio manager, a financial strategist/advisor in an investment firm, a financial planner, an investment banker, a trader/broker at the stock exchange or a financial analyst. But most importantly, the term also includes all those persons who manage corporate entities and are responsible for making their financial management strategies.

Currently, no recent study exists, which reviews and evaluates the empirical research on cognitive heuristic-driven biases displayed by investors. The current study is original in discussing the role of cognitive heuristic-driven biases in investment management activities and market efficiency as well as the history and foundations of behavioral finance by means of research synthesis. This paper is useful to researchers, academicians, policymakers and those working in the area of behavioral finance in understanding the role that cognitive heuristic plays in investment management activities and market efficiency.

This study aims to investigate the mediating role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the link between board independence, board diversity and dividend payouts underpinning the agency theory perspective. As boards are ultimately responsible for decision-making, it includes CSR, dividend payouts and other strategic decisions.

Board independence and board diversity (female director, female independent director) are used as explanatory variables, CSR scores as a mediator and dividend payout explained variables. The relevant data were collected from 159 listed firms of the Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) from 2013 to 2019, consisting of 1,113 year-firm observations. For empirical estimation, the study used the Tobit regression analysis and Sobel test to check the significance of the mediation to confirm the hypothesis.

The results confirm that independence and diversity on the board are positively related to dividend payouts. Further, CSR partially mediates the link between independence and diversity on board-dividend payouts, which confirms the argument that firms with involvement in CSR practices are also associated with dividend payouts.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is novel to address whether CSR mediates the link of the board’s independence and diversity and dividend payouts in Pakistan’s setting. The results of this study have restricted generalizability due to the specific nature of the sample characteristics; future researchers can extend the research scope.

Theoretically practically, the results imply that CSR spending also enhances the distribution to firms' shareholders, thus becoming attractive to investors. This study enriches the literature on board attributes-dividend policy nexus, which strengthens through CSR practices and is relevant to practice in line with sustainable development in an emerging context.

CSR practices are an understudied but significant factor that links stakeholders' beliefs about firms' decision-making strategies, enhancing dividend announcements. In doing so, this study's findings contribute to the literature, regulators, shareholders and investor at various levels.

This chapter introduces dividend policy as both financial and business decisions. First, it presents the history of dividend payment, definition of dividend, and typical types of dividend. Dividends originate from liquidating payments of sailing vessels in the early 16th century and become popular with the development of corporations. In this book, a dividend is defined as a cash payment to shareholders. By payment time, there are three typical types of dividend including final dividend, interim dividend, and special dividend. Second, it presents definition, important dates, measures, and patterns of dividend policy. Dividend policy includes two decisions: the first is to pay or not to pay dividends, and the second is the dividend magnitude. Investors have to follow important dates of dividend payments in order to make their investment decisions. Important dates include declaration date, record date, ex-dividend date, and payment date. Dividend payout ratio and dividend yield are two common measures of dividend policy. Common patterns of dividend policy are no dividend policy, residual dividend policy, stable dividend policy, and irregular dividend policy. Finally, dividend policy is both financial and business-related decisions. Therefore, dividend decisions are affected by various levels of business environment such as internal, micro (industry), and macro-environment. Dividend theories are the behind mechanisms to explain the effect of each factor in the business environment on corporate dividend policy. Dividend policy, in turn, determines shareholders' wealth through its impact on stock price.

This study aims to explore the relationship between promoter share pledging and the company’s dividend payout policy in India. Furthermore, this study also analyses the moderating impact of family involvement in business on the association between share pledging and dividend payout.

A sample of 236 companies from the S&P Bombay Stock Exchange Sensitive (BSE) 500 Index (2014–2023) has been analysed through fixed-effects panel data regression. For additional testing, robustness checks include alternative measures of dividend payout and promoter share pledging, as well as alternative methodologies such as Bayesian regression. Lastly, to address potential endogeneity, instrumental variables with a two-stage least squares (IV-2SLS) methodology have been implemented.

Upholding the agency perspective, a significantly negative impact of promoter share pledging on corporate dividend payouts in India has been uncovered. Moreover, family involvement in business moderates this relationship, highlighting that the negative association between promoter share pledging and dividend payouts is more pronounced in family companies. The findings are consistent throughout the robustness testing.

The present study represents a pioneering endeavour to empirically analyse the link between promoter share pledging and dividend payouts in India. It enhances the theoretical underpinnings of the agency relationship, particularly by substantiating the existence of Type II agency conflicts between majority and minority shareholders. The findings of this research bear significant implications for investors, researchers and policymakers, particularly in light of the widespread prevalence of promoter-controlled entities in India.

Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM), driven by the downstream buyers' power, transfers sustainability responsibilities to the upstream supplier. In contrast to the heavily-focused buyers' perspective in the literature, the authors investigate how this buyer-driven SSCM influences suppliers' performance, using the measure of stock market reaction.

Grounded by the resource dependence theory (RDT), the authors empirically analyze the power effect on suppliers. Event study methodology and regression analysis are used, based on a sample of 1977 paired supplier observations from 1990 to 2016.

The result suggests that although a negative stock market reaction for suppliers in SSCM exists, the effect is less negative at a high level of buyer and supplier dependence. For the investigation of the “consolidated SSCM initiative,” where buyers acquire exogenous power by collaboratively managing SSCM with their peers, the authors uncover that the negative impact of this consolidated SSCM initiative can be mitigated by the high interdependence that generates relational norms in the dyads.

The authors focus on dyadic relationships. Future research can use the study's findings to study the SSCM diffusion to lower-tier suppliers.

This paper has good managerial implications for both suppliers and buyers. The authors propose dependence-based strategies for supplier managers to reduce uncertainty in SSCM. Moreover, buyer managers can use the study's findings to strengthen suppliers' commitment.

The novelty of examining the suppliers' perspective contributes to exploring the supply chain impact of SSCM. The authors extend RDT and show that high dependence is not necessarily detrimental to suppliers in this buyer-driven SSCM context. The interesting finding of interdependence in the context of the consolidated SSCM initiative brings new insights that relational norms constrain the leverage of power in the dyads and are beneficial to the power-disadvantageous suppliers.