Search results

This chapter analyzes how firms conduct their dividend policy around the world. In principles, firms are free to pay or not to pay dividends and choose dividend levels. However, in some countries, the government requires firms to pay dividends annually in order to protect minority shareholders. Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Greece, and Venezuela are five countries of mandatory dividend payments. In addition, using the Compustat database, we investigate how nonfinancial firms pay dividends over the period 2001–2020. The percentage of payers tends to decrease across four time periods including 2001–2005, 2006–2010, 2011–2015, and 2016–2020. Newly listed firms are less likely to distribute dividends than old firms. “Payers,” “Always payers,” and “Former payers” have positive earnings while “Nonpayers” and “Never payers” experience negative earnings. “Never payers” have the highest level of cash while “Always payers” and “Former payers” have the smallest cash reserves. Moreover, Asia-Pacific has the largest proportion of payers but it tends to decrease. America has the lowest proportion of dividend payers, but it tends to increase. Firms in developing countries are more likely to pay dividends. Both the proportion of payers and the average payout ratio of civil law countries are much higher than those of common law countries. The United States has the lowest percentage of paying firms and dividend payouts. Furthermore, construction and wholesale trade industries have the highest proportions of payers and payout ratios. Mineral and services industries are less likely to pay dividends. Tax rates for dividends and capital gains are diverse across countries.

The primary goal of this paper is to investigate the relationship between stock market liquidity and firm dividend policy within a market implementing the tax imputation system. The main aim is to understand how the tax imputation system influences the relationship between firm dividend policy and stock market liquidity within a cross-sectional framework.

This paper investigates the relationship between stock market liquidity and the dividend payout policy under the full tax imputation system in the Australian market. This study uses the Generalized Least Squares regressions with firm- and year-fixed effects.

In contrast to the negative relationship between the liquidity of common shares and the firms' dividends documented in countries with the double tax system, the study reveals that in Australia, the dividend payout ratios are positively associated with liquidity after controlling for various explanatory variables with both the contemporaneous and lagged time periods. Such a finding is robust to the use of alternative liquidity proxies and to the sub-period tests and remains during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

The insights derived from this study have significant implications for various stakeholders within the economy. The findings provide regulators with valuable insights to conduct a more holistic assessment of how the tax system impacts the economy, especially concerning the dividend choices of firms. Within the context of a full tax imputation system, investors can make investment decisions without factoring in the taxation impact. Simultaneously, firms can be relieved of concerns about losing investors who prioritize liquidity, particularly when a high dividend payout might not align optimally with their financial strategy.

This study contributes to the literature by extending the literature on the tax clientele effects on dividend policy, providing evidence that the tax imputation system can moderate the impact of liquidity on dividend policy. This study examines the impact of the dividend tax imputation system on the substitution effect between dividends and liquidity.

This study aims to investigate the effects of peers on corporate payout policies in one of the largest emerging markets – India. It also examines the motives for mimicking payout decisions.

The sample is composed of 3,024 non-financial and non-government firms listed on the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) for the period 1995 to 2020. To encounter the endogeneity problem, the instrumental variable technique based on peer firms' idiosyncratic risk is used to estimate the effects of peers on firms' payout policy. To define peer reference groups, the authors use the basic industry classification of the firms.

The results indicate a significant positive impact of peers on firms' dividend policies in India. A firm with all dividend-paying peers is more likely to declare dividends than the one with no dividend-paying peers. Further, peer effects are found to be more pronounced amongst larger and older firms, thus supporting the rivalry theory of mimicking.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, the present study is the first of its kind that attempts to understand peer effects on payout decisions in an emerging market India, that offers a unique institutional setting. Moreover, the authors extend the existing literature by investigating the peer effects on a firm's payout policies considering various firm-level characteristics, such as growth opportunity, cash holding, financial constraint and profitability, which previous studies have not taken into consideration. These results provide additional insights into the heterogeneity and motives behind peer effects.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between dividend policy and the life cycle of firms in India. In addition, this study intends to examine the variation in dividend behaviour over the life cycle of a firm. The study anticipates that a firm's dividend behaviour varies over its life cycle.

To scrutinize the validity of the proposition, the authors classify 1968 non-financial industrial firms listed at Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) into growth, mature and stagnant firms over the period 2000–20. Additionally, to check the robustness of the results, they use an array of techniques such as analysis of variance, pooled ordinary least squares, fixed effects models and random effects models.

The empirical findings suggest that dividend behaviour varies over a firm's life cycle. Specifically, stagnant firms are paying significantly higher dividends than growth firms. Mature firms are paying significantly higher dividends than growth firms. The results are consistent after controlling the effects of firm's size, profitability, leverage, operating risk, systematic risk and growth opportunities.

The findings are useful for corporate decision makers in establishing an appropriate dividend policy conditional on firms' life cycle stage and for shareholders in making investment decisions.

The relation between dividend policy and firm life cycle has not been examined before in the context of Indian stock market. Thus, this research bridges this gap in the literature.

Using various proxies for the firms' return on equity (ROE) and retention ratios (b) the authors calculate 36 sustainable growth rates, on a rolling basis, for a comprehensive set of firms over a 52-year period. The authors then assess the ability of these different sustainable growth rates to predict the actual, out-of-sample, five-year growth rates of the firms' earnings.

The authors compare the forecast to determine which method of estimating ROE and b produce the lowest mean-squared-errors and then determine the estimation method that works best for firms with different characteristics and for firms in different industries.

Overall, using the median ROE of all firms in the market and the 5-year average of the specific firm's retention ratio produces the lowest, statistically significant, forecast errors. Variations are documented based on firm characteristics, including dividend payout, level of ROE and industry.

The findings can guide practitioners in using the best earnings forecasting method.

Financial textbooks seem universally to suggest that one method of estimating the growth rate of a firm's earnings is to calculate the “sustainable growth rate” by multiplying the firm's ROE by the firm's b. At the same time, multiple methods of proxying for both ROE and b have been suggested; therefore, it is an interesting and useful empirical question, which, heretofore, has not been addressed in the literature, as to which estimation of the sustainable growth rate best approximates the actual future growth of the firm's earnings. The findings can guide practitioners in using the best earnings forecasting method.

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.

The authors measure the cost of equity to earnings yield differential for a sample of 2,035 non-financial firms. In a series of Logit and Tobit regressions, the authors examine if the cost of equity to earnings yield differential is related to dividend policy in the manner predicted by agency theory.

Agency theory says a firm's optimal dividend policy is partially determined by the relationship between the earnings yield and the cost of equity capital. When the cost of equity is higher (lower) than the earnings yield, firms are motivated to (not) pay dividends as this reduces the cost of capital and holding other things constant, increases corporate valuations. The authors test whether managers set dividend policies to maximize the value of the firm.

The study’s findings show that when the cost of equity is higher (lower) than earnings yield, firms are more (less) likely to be dividend payers and the payouts are higher (lower). The results are robust to the inclusion of share repurchases as an alternative to cash distributions. The study’s findings support the cost of equity hypothesis and are consistent with alternative dividend theories.

The study’s findings support the cost of equity hypothesis and are consistent with alternative dividend theories. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper testing the cost of equity hypothesis.

This paper examines the impact of dividend policy on stock market liquidity, and whether the dividend payouts has an asymmetric effect on stock liquidity.

A multivariate panel-data regression analysis is conducted for a sample of the largest 411 nonfinancial US firms. Three main hypothesis are tested: (1) whether dividend payouts impact affect stock liquidity, (2) whether low and high dividend payments can asymmetrically effect on stock liquidity and (3) whether the presence of the GFC has an impact the relationship between dividend payments and stock liquidity.

The study finds that dividend policy is adversely associated with stock liquidity. This supports the prediction of the liquidity-dividend hypothesis. The authors also report that stock liquidity asymmetrically responds to changes in dividend payouts, confirming the prediction of the dividend-signaling approach. More specifically, higher dividend payments decrease stock liquidity by a lower magnitude than the increase in stock liquidity resulting from lower dividend payments. Finally, the presence of the GFC weakened the relationship between dividend payments and stock liquidity.

The paper can help in performing future research by using different dataset covering the COVID-19 crisis.

The paper allows market participants to better understand the impact of dividend policy and its asymmetric effects on stock liquidity. The authors’ analyses can direct investors and regulators to adopt new supervisory devices to create an appropriate level of dividend payouts that helps to effectively support the level of stock liquidity.

The paper intends to support the business community and to make strong contributions to the economic development and the welfare of the community.

The originality comes from its new evidence as it can help in assessing the importance of dividend policy and its asymmetric impact on stock liquidity in the full sample and during the GFC. The paper is helpful in performing future analyses using a new sample period for another set of data as well as accounting for COVID-19 pandemic crisis.

This study examines the impact of board composition and ownership structure variables on dividend payout policy in Saudi Arabian firms. In particular, it aims to determine the effect of board size, independence and meeting frequency, in addition to chief executive officer (CEO) duality, and state, institutional, managerial, family, and foreign ownership on both the propensity to pay dividends and dividend per share for Saudi-listed firms over the period 2016–2019.

The paper captures dividend policy with two measures, propensity to pay dividends and dividend per share, and employs a range of regression methods (logistic, probit, ordinary least squares (OLS) and random effects regressions) along with a two-stage least squares (2SLS) model for robustness to account for heteroscedasticity, serial correlation and endogeneity issues. The data set is a large panel of 280 Saudi-listed firms over the period 2016 to 2019.

The results underline the importance of board composition and the ownership structure in explaining variations in dividend policy across Saudi firms. More specifically, there is a positive relationship between the propensity to pay dividends and board-meeting frequency, institutional ownership, firm profitability and firm age, while the degree of board independence, firm size and leverage exhibit a negative relation. Further, dividend per share is positively related to board meeting frequency, institutional ownership, foreign ownership, firm profitability and age, while it is negatively related to CEO duality, managerial ownership, and firm leverage. There is no evidence that family ownership exerts an impact on dividend payout policy in Saudi firms. The findings of this study support agency, signalling, substitute and outcome theories of dividend policy.

This study offers an important insight into the board characteristic and ownership structure drivers of dividend policy in the context of an emerging market. Moreover, the study has important implications for firms, managers, investors, policymakers, and regulators in Saudi Arabia.

This paper contributes to the existing literature by providing evidence on four board and five ownership characteristic drivers of dividend policy in Saudi Arabia as an emerging stock market, thereby improving on less comprehensive previous studies. The study recommends that investors consider board composition and ownership structure characteristics of firms as key drivers of dividend policy when making stock investment decisions to inform them about the propensity of investee firms to pay dividends and maintain a given dividend policy.

The purpose of this study is to comparatively analyze the effect of dividend policy on shareholders’ wealth in Shariah-compliant (SC) and noncompliant (NC) nonfinancial firms in Pakistan.

All the nonfinancial firms listed on the Pakistan stock exchange have been taken as a sample for 2016–2021. The Karachi Meezan index screening criteria were applied to screen SC firms. Based on the BPLM and Hausman test results, the authors used the fixed-effect and pooled OLS model for SC and NC firms, respectively. The F-test was used to compare the effect of each dividend policy variable on shareholders’ wealth for both firm types.

The findings reveal that the dividend policy does affect the shareholders’ wealth in both firm types. Dividend per share (DPS), dividend yield (DY) and earnings per share significantly affect the shareholders’ wealth in SC firms. For NC firms, the dividend payout, DPS and DY are critical. Moreover, the F-test results show that the DPS, DY and leverage effect on the shareholders’ wealth significantly differ for both firm types.

This study fills the research gap in the Pakistani context specifically as well as globally by providing important insights into the relationship between a firm’s dividend policy and shareholders’ wealth for SC and NC firms. In addition, this study comprehensively compares the results for both firm types, which is also lacking in the existing literature. Because this study is based in Pakistan, the generalizability of the results would be limited.

The findings of this study are helpful for the management of SC and NC firms in devising their dividend policies that can maximize their shareholders’ wealth. This study also provides guidance and knowledge to investors in choosing companies for their investments that can maximize their wealth.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that analyzes the relationship between dividend policy and shareholders’ wealth for SC firms in Pakistan. It is also the first study that comprehensively compares the dividend policy relationship with shareholders’ wealth for SC and NC firms. In addition, using the F-test for joint hypotheses to compare the specific effect of each dividend policy variable is a methodological contribution of the study.