Search results

The purpose of this article is to expose the Miller‐Modigliani 1961 Ponzi scheme that has masqueraded as a dividend irrelevance proof, and show that it constituted a Ponzi scheme at the time of publication and ever since publication. This is important especially as Miller‐Modigliani 1961 stated in the first sentence of their article that their dividend irrelevance proof was targeted at corporate officials, investors and economists seeking to undertake and appraise the functioning of capital markets.

The equations and notation used by Miller‐Modigliani 1961 to prove dividend irrelevance were carefully considered and analysed in order to establish whether proof reliably, validly and unambiguously proved dividend irrelevance. In addition, statute on both sides of the Atlantic, UK and USA, was considered in order to ascertain the legal standing of their proof.

This article shows that the Miller‐Modigliani 1961 dividend irrelevance proof constituted a recipe for a Ponzi scheme in terms of statute at the time of publication and ever since publication. Since Miller‐Modigliani 1961 made extensive reference to the works of eminent finance researchers and academics of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, as well as to their Modigliani‐Miller 1958 seminal article, and attentively present and discuss the intricacies of the arguments these researchers made to the progression of knowledge, it would be challenging to content that they were unaware or ignorant of important legislation that applied in 1961.

There is no evidence from a scrutiny of publicly available secondary sources to suggest that the Miller‐Modigliani 1961 Ponzi scheme, alias “dividend irrelevance” has previously been done or published. This is surprising because the Miller‐Modigliani 1961 dividend irrelevance proof has occupied a particularly prominent position in the finance literature and has been the subject of numerous studies and research projects.

This study will examine the impact of cash dividends on the market value of banks listed in Middle East and North African (MENA) emerging countries during the period 2000–2015.

The current study adopts residual income approach based on Ohlson's (1995) valuation model. By testing different statistical techniques, fixed effect is applied on panel data for (144) banks listed on 11 MENA stock markets over the period 2000–2015. Furthermore, additional tests are applied to confirm the primary results.

The analysis reveals that current dividend payouts and dividend yield do not provide information relevant to the establishment of market values in MENA emerging markets; thus, they have no material impact on MENA banks' market values. This lack of current dividend payment effect is consistent with Miller and Modigliani (1961) dividend irrelevance assumption: there is no evidence of either an informational or real cash inflow effect of current dividend payments. The findings of this study can be attributed to the fact that MENA banks may be forced to place more emphasis on allocating money for investment instead of paying dividends given them they are subject to liquidity requirements for investment, expansion, general operations and compliance with regulations. Only after all these financial needs are covered can the remaining surplus be distributed as cash dividends. Therefore, cash dividends represent earnings residual rather than an active decision variable that impacts a firm's market value. This is consistent with the residual dividend hypothesis, which is the crux of Miller and Modigliani (1996) irrelevance theory of dividends.

The current study is restricted to a sample of one type of financial firms, banks, because of the problem of missing data and limited information related to other financial firms for the same period. Therefore, further research could be additional types of financial firms such as insurance firms that play a vital role in MENA emerging economies.

The results of this study have some important implications for banks' dividend policymakers. Dividend policymakers in MENA emerging markets seem to follow residual dividend policy, in which they distribute dividends according to what is left over after all acceptable investment opportunities have been undertaken. This makes for inconsistent and unstable dividend policy trends, making it difficult for investors to predict future dividend decisions. Further, this practice may deliver information to shareholders about a lack of positive future investment opportunities, and this may negatively affect the share value of banks.

This study is the first of its kind – up to the author's knowledge – that examines a large cross-country sample of MENA banks (144) to cover a long time period in the recent past, and, more importantly, after the banking sector in the region has experienced major transformations during last two decades. In addition, most of the MENA region countries included in this study, namely, banks, operate in tax-free environments (there are neither taxes on dividends nor on capital gains). This feature adds complexity to the ongoing dividend debate.

The purpose of this paper is to test the validity of irrelevant theory empirically by exploring the relationship between cash dividends, profitability, leverage and investment policy with the value of banking institutions in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) markets.

The paper adopts Ohlson’s (1995) valuation model. The author estimates models by using static panel (random and fixed effects) techniques and the dynamic technique, namely, the GMM estimation. The empirical study covers a sample of 122 conventional and 37 Islamic banks listed on stock markets in 12 MENA countries over the period 1999–2018.

The empirical results show that dividend yield has no significant association with the value of conventional banks, whereas profitability, growth opportunity and leverage have a significant positive impact on the value of conventional banks. In contrast, the results for a sample of Islamic banks indicate that the dividend yield, profitability and leverage have a significant positive effect on the value of Islamic banks, whereas growth opportunity has no significant effect on the value of Islamic banks. Therefore, these results support, to a greater extent, the validity of the dividend irrelevance theory of Modigliani and Miller for conventional banks but would not be accepted for Islamic banks in the MENA region.

This study is restricted to a sample of one type of financial firms, banking firms listed in the MENA countries. In addition, the study has dealt with one type of dividend (the cash dividend).

Highlighting the difference between conventional and Islamic banks is crucial to understanding dividend policy behavior and to providing investors information to be integrated in their valuation setting to make informed corporate decisions.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, the present study is the first of its kind that it draws a comparative analysis by testing empirically the validity of the Irrelevant Theory to banks in the MENA region covering a long time period in the recent past.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a viewpoint on the 1961 scientific method and research methodology used by Miller and Modigliani to derive the conclusion that dividends are irrelevant, with reference to the UK Companies Act of 2006, specifically Sections 829‐840 that concern distributions, and Section 172 that stipulates the duties of the directors in their promotion of the success of the company.

The relevant sections of the UK Companies Act of 2006 concerning distributions and the duty of directors to promote the success of the company were studied. It was followed by a detailed analysis of the article by Miller and Modigliani, in particular the purpose, assumptions, the 30 equations that comprise their model, and their interpretive logic in drawing conclusions from their equations.

In effect, Miller and Modigliani exclude dividends as a determinant of share value, side‐step the purpose of their research, do not state assumptions upon which their analysis and interpretations are reliant, and disregard the conceptual difference between income and capital. On the basis of their interpretive logic not only is the dividend decision irrelevant but so too is the financing decision and important aspects of company law. Nonetheless, the erroneous doctrinal view that is presented by Miller and Modigliani continues to have obstinately resolute adherents, as evidenced by its uncritical presentation in authoritative textbooks on financial management.

This paper's view is that the continued uncritical presentation of Miller and Modigliani cannot be justified as an approach consistent with sound research methodology.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relation between managerial entrenchment and dividend policy for a large number of US industrial firms and examine the relative importance of three competing explanations behind the empirical association between managerial entrenchment and dividend policy, namely, the entrenchment irrelevance hypothesis, the dividend signaling hypothesis, and the optimal entrenchment hypothesis.

Utilizing all firms in the Investor Responsibility Research Center database, Compustat and center for research in security prices (CRSP), this paper investigates firm's propensity to pay dividends based on various logit and Tobit regressions as a function of managerial entrenchment measured by Gompers et al. G index after controlling for known determinants of firms' dividend decisions during the period from 1990 to 2003.

Results show that firms with entrenched managers are more likely to pay dividends. Their high propensity to pay persists over time. A large cash reserve can be used to deter hostile takeovers. Paying dividends reduces cash holdings, leaving the firm more vulnerable to hostile takeovers. In equilibrium, value‐maximizing firms with weak investment opportunities provide managers against takeovers to induce them to distribute cash rather than build a warchest against unwanted takeovers.

The main finding confirms the belief that firms choose a combination of anti‐takeover provisions and dividend policy to maximize shareholder value, evidence in favor of the optimal entrenchment hypothesis.

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 empirically examines whether dividends are value‐relevant in Japan by employing Ohlson’s (1995) accounting‐based equity valuation technique. The substantial U.S.‐based literature on dividends has confirmed the signalling role of dividends in mitigating information asymmetry between managers and investors, and is consistent with an environment characterized by dispersion of ownership. However, the most important corporate governance characteristic that distinguishes Japan from the U.S. is the predominance of inter‐corporate, interlocking ownership in Japan, which reduces information asymmetry and is therefore likely to diminish the role of dividends in mitigating such asymmetries. Pooled regression results provide evidence consistent with this hypothesis. However, even in such an environment, dividends are value relevant for firms that incur losses whilst paying dividends, and also for firms with permanent earnings.

Ever since the work of John Lintner (1956), followed by the work of Miller and Modigliani (1961), dividend policy remains a controversial issue. Some of the questions that remain unanswered include: Does dividend policy affect value? What are the factors that determine dividend policy? Is dividend policy determined dependently or independently? A comprehensive survey project on dividend policy in Kuwait was conducted and two papers were produced. The first paper focused on the relationship of dividend policy to investment and financing policies, see Al‐ Deehani and Al‐Loughani (2002). This paper is a part of that project. It presents empirical effort to the area of dividend policy determinants in Kuwait as an emerging market. Based upon a result of a questionnaire survey, the paper will highlight (1) top management’s perception of value‐relevant and value‐irrelevant determinants of dividend policy, and (2) determine whether managers in different industries share similar views about these determinants. The paper is organized in the following manner: first the determinants of dividend policy are discussed through a review of the relevant literature. This is followed by the research methods stating the issues of concern to this study. The remainder of the paper discusses the results through the analysis of managers’ perceptions of determinants and a cross‐sectional analysis. The paper ends with a summary and the conclusions drawn from the study.

The purpose of this paper is to survey the accounting concepts of valuation and the direction of accounting research in terms of development of valuation models. It also simulates some of the models. Moreover, the Dividend Discount Model, a financial model, is the foundation of a number of accounting based models and is discussed.

The objectives are achieved by surveying the literature for accounting models and empirical evidence for the model. The methodology also incorporates simulating the models under different conditions to find out the valuation predicted.

It was found out that the accounting models predict that accrual principles play a role in increasing the discrepancy between the book value and the market value of equity. Some of the recent valuation models, like the Feltham–Ohlson linear information model, incorporate accrual principles like conservatism. Though the empirical evidences are mixed for these models, it provides a theoretical framework to incorporate accrual principles in the accounting valuation models.

This paper provides practitioners with a snapshot of different models and their limitations.

This paper provides a comprehensive picture of the state of accounting valuation models and provides input for further development of these models.

This study aims to find the relationship of stock market returns and selected financial market variables (market capitalization, earnings per share, price-earnings multiples, dividend yield and trading volume) of Malaysia grounded by the arbitrage pricing theories.

This study empirically examines the effects of selected financial market variables on stock market returns using 64 companies listed in Malaysia's stock market with data spanning from 2005 to 2018. A systematic empirical study based on the Generalized Method of Moments following Arellano and Bond (1991) has been taken to estimate the effect.

The regression result of the financial market variables and stock market return shows that, except for trading volume, all selected financial market variables play significant roles in the stock market returns. Furthermore, market capitalization, earnings per share, price-earnings ratio, dividend yield and trading volume have a positive impact on stock market returns.

The outcome of this study can contribute by helping domestic and global investors devise strategies to minimize their risks. Also, policy administrators can use the outcomes of this study to inform the micro- and macro-level policy formulation.

This study will contribute to filling the gap in knowledge concerning the new release of factors affecting the stock market returns of Malaysia.