Search results

The purpose of this paper is to solve the problem of overestimation of industry profits due to the presence of cross‐shareholding (CS) links among firms that is inherent to the profit formulations in existing literature.

In proposing a new profits specification, we explicitly distinguish between firms' profits (retained earnings) and their external shareholders' returns. Matrix algebra is used to take into full account both direct and indirect financial interests of firms in each other.

Compared to no the CS case, with CS firms' industry‐wide retained earnings increase, while aggregate external shareholders' returns decrease unless dividend ratios are all unity. It is shown that qualitatively there is no difference in the outcomes of all profit specifications, whereas there is a quantitative difference.

The pattern of CS is taken as exogenous, which looks at the problem from an antitrust perspective. Endogenizing the structure of CS is left for future research.

Firms have incentives to engage in CS links, since they can only benefit from it. In empirical research (e.g. analyzing market performance) dividend payments have to be taken into account if there are extensive CS links present in the industry under study.

This paper extends the existing profit formulations by including both income inflows and outflows of firms due to CS links. Furthermore, the significance of considering dividend payments for empirical research is discussed.

We tested for evidence of stock price bubbles in the Malaysian stock market from 1978 to 2004. Four different tests were used namely excess volatility tests, unit root/co-integration tests, duration dependence tests, and the intrinsic bubbles model. All four tests indicate that during the sample period, there was evidence of stock price bubbles. All tests results conform to the theoretical literature on asset price bubbles except for the results on the intrinsic bubbles model, which concludes that Malaysian investors under react to information on dividends. We find this result hardly surprising as anecdotal evidence does indicate that Malaysian investors place more importance on capital gains as compared to dividends. Although we do not go into a debate on whether authorities should be prick the bubble to stem its negative effects, we argue that transparent information dissemination will ensure that the stock market becomes more efficient in pricing stocks.

This paper uses the capital asset pricing model to show that, in realistic circumstances, double taxation and differential tax rates on personal and capital-gains income affect corporate stock values and financial policies in non-neutral ways. This non-neutrality holds whenever inflation is uncertain and tax-avoidance activity is neither costless nor riskless. The model also allows us to explore how a series of frequently proposed changes in the interplay of corporate and personal taxes would affect corporate dividend payouts and debt usage. Our analysis clarifies that conscientious efforts to integrate corporate and personal tax rates must make supporting changes in the size and character of capital-gains tax preferences built into the tax code.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the dividend policy of firms from a macroeconomic perspective. In order to do so inflation and real growth are also considered.

The paper examines the relationship between dividends, corporate earnings, real growth and inflation in the USA by applying cointegration techniques. In this framework, impulse response analysis is used to test the two most popular theories of dividend determination.

The data indicate three cointegration relations among the four‐time series. Impulse response analysis then shows some interesting dynamics. Dividend smoothing seems to be a relevant phenomenon. Furthermore, inflation has a positive effect on dividends.

The most important finding of this paper is the indication of a positive relationship between inflation and dividend payments. This can be interpreted in two different ways: managers may try to follow a dividend policy, which is perceived to be optimal, believing that there is a desirable level of real dividend income to be paid to their investors. On the other hand, inflation may simply increase the nominal value of corporate earnings and therefore the dividends paid. Independently from the interpretation of the results, inflation should definitely be considered analysing dividend policy.

Managers should also examine the inflationary environment formulating an adequate dividend policy for their firm.

The paper provides an as of yet widely ignored link between the micro‐ and macroeconomic sphere examining one of the most important problems of financial economics. Neglecting the effects of inflation on dividends may, among others, be one reason for the mixed empirical findings testing theories of dividend determination.

Investors often have much of their portfolios invested in equities that are exposed to interest rate risk. Hedging underlying exposures are not easy; whereas fixed income investors have duration to immunize bond portfolios from small fluctuations in interest rates. US equity duration estimates from dividend discount models result in long durations – often in excess of 50 years. Based on the UK data, we develop an alternative approach to generate equity duration as a by-product of asset pricing. Our analysis suggests that the equity premium puzzle may comprise an important element in reconciling this approach to equity duration, with traditional DDM alternatives.

Our chapter raises serious questions about the long-term efficiency of stock prices in relation to the realized returns of the underlying corporate real assets. In our large-scale calculations that cover horizons of 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 years, returns on corporate real assets suffer a long-term decline, and have been below the yields of 10-year Treasury bonds since 1973. Real assets that received more external financing from capital markets and institutions actually report even lower realized long-term returns. The decline in realized returns cannot be attributed to declining risks as the volatilities of realized returns have been increasing over time. These surprising results may stimulate fresh debate on the roles and long-term performance of capital markets and institutions.

During the height of the financial/credit crisis of 2008, the US Internal Revenue Service issued temporary guidance that permits REITs (real estate investment trusts) to retain cash and pay “effective stock dividends” through 2009 to meet their income distribution requirement. The purpose of this study is to investigate the policy implications of this guidance on shareholders' wealth and the intra‐industry effects for non‐event, rival REITs when event REITs announced elective stock dividends.

This study identified the announcements of the Revenue Procedures 2008‐68 and 2009‐15 and subsequent six equity REITs announcing the distribution of effective stock dividends in the first quarter of 2009. To assess their implications, this study adopted the event study methodology and multivariate regressions to examine the REIT price reactions and their distribution to the Revenue Procedure announcements and to the elective stock dividend announcements, respectively.

The Revenue Procedure announcements have positive wealth effects on the entire REIT market and REITs with higher leverage enjoy larger abnormal returns. During firm stock dividend announcement windows, non‐event, rival REITs have higher positive price reactions when the event firm and the non‐event firm are not alike and their returns have a low correlation coefficient, when the event firm has a large negative abnormal price reaction, and when the event firm pays cash/stock dividends in the mixture of 40 percent:60 percent, instead of 10 percent:90percent.

The results will help REIT investors to make better decisions. This study produces important implications for investors to pick REITs which are likely to experience higher returns at periods of turmoil when announcements about dividend policy changes are expected.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study looking into intra‐industry effects of REIT dividend announcements and the policy implications of the elective REIT stock dividends permitted by the US Internal Revenue Service. The results of this study show that the informational signals associated with these announcement events are rich and have intra‐industry implications on REIT share prices.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether corporate dividend policy changed during the financial crisis.

For this study, a life‐cycle model is used to predict the probability that a firm pays a dividend. The data sample for this research follows that of Fama and French and of DeAngelo et al., for the time period of 2006‐2009. The panel logistic regression analysis considers the firm cluster effects and the autoregressive correlation of the firm clusters.

This study shows evidence that the probability that a firm paid a dividend declined in 2008 and 2009, even after taking the firm's financial condition into account. Furthermore, the analysis also shows that dividend policy did shift during the financial crisis.

The results of this study show that dividend policy did shift during the financial crisis. The research provides evidence that firms placed additional emphasis on financial viability after the financial crisis.