WorkingPaper 99

PIDE WORKING PAPERS
Market Imperfections and Dividend

Policy Decisions of Manufacturing
Sector of Pakistan
2014:99
Darakhshan Younis
Attiya Yasmin Javid
PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

PIDE Working Papers
2014: 99
Market Imperfections and Dividend

Policy Decisions of Manufacturing
Sector of Pakistan
Darakhshan Younis
Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad
and
Attiya Yasmin Javid

Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad
PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

ISLAMABAD
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise—without prior permission of the Publications Division, Pakistan Institute of Development
Economics, P. O. Box 1091, Islamabad 44000.
© Pakistan Institute of Development

Economics, 2014.
Pakistan Institute of Development Economics

Islamabad, Pakistan
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.pide.org.pk
Fax: +92-51-9248065
Designed, composed, and finished at the Publications Division, PIDE.

CONTENTS
Page
Abstract v
1. Introduction 1
2. Literature Review 3
3. Methodology and Data 11
3.1. Model Specification 11
3.2. Econometric Modelling 15
3.3. Data and Sample Selection 15
4. Empirical Results 16
4.1. Summary Statistics of Data 16
4.2. Empirical Results of Regression Analysis 16
4.3. Industrial Effect 26
5. Conclusion 27
Appendix 29
References 31
List of Tables
Table 1. Results of Lintner Model 17

Table 2. Results of Dividend Stability 18
Table 3. Results of Signalling Model 19
Table 4. Results for Agency Cost Theory 20
Table 4(a). Results of Combined Model of Agency Cost Theory 21
Table 5. Results for Transaction Cost and Residual Theory 22
Page
Table 5(a). Results of Overall Transaction and Residual Theory 23
Table 6. Results of Life Cycle Theory of Dividends 24
Table 6(a). Overall Model for Life Cycle Theory of Dividends 24
Table 6(b). Results of Life Cycle and Free Cash Flow Hypothesis 25
Table 7. Results of Lintner Model with Industrial Effect 26
(iv)
ABSTRACT
Dividend policy is an important issue of corporate finance and the present
study examines the effect of market imperfections such as asymmetric
information, agency costs and transaction cost of issuing external on corporate
dividend policy for 138 firms selected from all major manufacturing sectors of
Karachi Stock Exchange over the period 2003 to 2011. The results show that
dividend yield depends on the last year’s dividend yield and current year
earnings that supports the Lintner (1956) model suggesting that management
follow smooth dividends and are reluctant to change dividend policy. The results
confirm that dividends signal the firm value (returns) and firm performance
(returns on assets, market to book value and earnings). The positive and
significant relation of free cash flow and collateral capacity with dividend
indicate that dividends help to reduce agency cost problems and these findings
support agency cost theory. The results confirm that dividends are used as a tool
to reduce transaction cost of issuing external finance and that firm size and sales
growth are more effective instruments to reduce transaction costs. Large and
more profitable firms pay more dividends. Firm age, market to book value and
price to earnings ratio are used to capture firm maturity the results show the firm
life cycle theory of dividend is not valid. The irrelevance of life cycle theory
further confirms signalling theory of dividend more relevant in explaining
dividend decisions in case of Pakistan. Free cash flow and return on asset are
significant and support free cash flow hypothesis. The results support dividends
are used as signalling devise for outside investors that firm is running on
profitable lines and reduce the agency cost and transaction costs but signalling
theory is the most dominant This evidence is in confirmation with empirical
findings of other emerging markets.
JEL Classification: G0, G3, G32, G35
Keywords: Dividend Policy, Signalling Theory, Agency Theory,
Transaction Theory, Smooth Dividend, Manufacturing Firms
1. INTRODUCTION
Dividend policy has been considered an important but undecided issue by
financial economists for over a half century. “The harder we look at the picture,
the more it seems like a puzzle, with pieces that don’t fit together” [Black
(1976)]. This discussion goes back to the seminal work of Miller and Modigliani
(1961) who held the view that dividend policy was irrelevant in deciding the
share value under perfect capital market condition. The “Bird-in-the-hand”
theory advanced by Lintner (1962) and Gordon (1963) on the other hand
suggests that increase in dividend payout raises firm value. Some investors
consider dividends more profitable than an uncertain future capital gain. Some
other theories suggest that corporate dividend policy has an impact on firm value
because different tax systems that prevail in the market [Litzenberger and
Ramaswamy (1979); Poterba and Summers (1984); Ang, et al. (1991); Barclay
(1987)]. Latter Pettit (1977) and Scholz (1992) find that “Clientele Effects” also
respond to dividend policy decisions because investors are divided into different
clienteles according to their preferences and they choose a company where their
investment objectives are in line with their dividend decisions. Bhattacharya
(1979; Miller and Rock (1985) and Bali (2003) suggest that dividends signal the
market about the firm’s performance. This is called the “Signalling theory”
which states that dividend helps to reduce information asymmetries between the
manager and the shareholder. Another theory, namely the “Agency” theory,
states that dividend is a source that helps to mitigate the cost arising from
conflict of interest between the manager and the shareholder.
Dividends also monitor the firm’s management activities [Rozeff (1982);
Easterbrook (1984); Jensen (1986)] maintain that dividend paying ability
reduces extra funds available to management and through which it resolves the
over-investment problem.
The finance managers have to deal with two main operational decisions—
investment and finance. The finance manager may also deal with a third
decision which arises when the firm starts making profit. The finance managers
have to decide what portion of earnings should be distributed to shareholders as
dividend or should it be reinvested into business. Managers have also to
consider that their dividend policy also affects the share price [Bishop, et al.
(2000)]. Generally, shareholders receive dividends when a company generates
2
profit. Hence dividends are not regarded as expense but as sharing of profits
with shareholders. The Board of Directors and the management decide the
dividend policy. Even though enormous research has been done on dividend
policy yet little is known about how companies make dividend policies. Market
imperfections are a factor which can be categorised into at least three
divisions—agency costs, irregular information and transaction cost—whose role
in influencing the dividend decisions of manufacturing firms must be
investigated.
However, in case of Pakistan very few studies have been done on the
issue and those that have been done mainly focus on the effect of corporate
dividend policy on share price, the determinants of this policy and the impact of
corporate governance on it [Nishat and Irfan (2003); Mehar (2005); Naeem and
Nasr (2007); Ahmed and Javid (2009); Nazir, et al. (2010); Akbar and Baig
(2010) and Asghar and Suleman (2011)]. These studies pay no attention to the
effect of different market imperfections on dividend decisions of the firms.
The present study tries to fill this gap by analysing the role of different
market imperfections in explaining corporate dividend policy of manufacturing
industries listed on the Karachi Stock Exchange. It tests the relevance of the
Lintner (1956) model in explaining the dividend policies and checks whether
firms in the manufacturing sector follow a smooth and stable dividend policy or
not. It also investigates how dividends help in reducing agency and transaction
costs of the firms and how the policy reduces information asymmetry by
signalling corporate operating characteristics of these firms. This study also tests
the life cycle hypothesis to know whether mature, profitable, low growth firms
pay more dividends or not.
The present study contributes to the existing literature by examining how
market imperfections affect dividend decisions in Pakistan which is an important
emerging market. This study tests the significance of dividend theories such as
signalling, agency, transaction and residual, life cycle and stability on
manufacturing sector firms listed on KSE. The questions relating to dividend
policy are important for emerging markets for many reasons. Firstly, the
stability and growth of firms can be signalled by its dividend paying capacity.
Investors use dividends as indicator for the firm’s long-term consistency in
earnings. Secondly, as the residual dividend theory states, a firm decides to pay
dividend when it has less possibilities of profitable investment. Further, many
researchers believe that a firm’s dividend decision is related to investment
decision and that the firm’s stock price is also influenced by it.
The study is organised as follows: Section two provides a review of
theoretical and empirical literature on the dividends policy in developed and
developing markets. Section three explains the methodological framework,
variable description and data collection sources. The empirical results are
discussed in section four and section five concludes the study.
3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Since the seminal work of Modigliani and Miller (1965), postulating that
dividends are irrelevant under perfect market conditions, researchers investigated
the firms’ dividend decisions under imperfect market conditions. This lead to
the development of different theories of dividend distribution and a large body
of empirical literature emerged to test these theories. This section is divided into
two sub-sections; Section 2.1 reviews the theoretical literature and Section 2.2
reviews relevant empirical literature in this area.
2.1.1. Miller and Modigliani’s Dividend Irrelevance Theory

Although many researchers worked on dividend policy decisions but
these studies were not based on the theory of firm value evaluation [Miller and
Modigliani (1961)]. Miller and Modigliani (MM) in 1961 were the first to
explain this issue and they verified the irrelevance theory.
MM 1958, 1961 and 1963 have discussed the issue of optimal capital
structure in their papers. They have described three cases of dividends
irrelevant to the firm’s value. First, when the firm has enough cash and decides
to pay dividend which reduces its cash balance and equity account. It shows that
financial assets and liabilities may change, not the net operating assets which
are constants. Hence the company value remains constant. The second
proposition arises when a firm finances the payout to shareholders by issuing
new shares. MM states that the firm’s financial value is increased by the sale of
new shares but the firm’s decision to pay dividend decreases this value. Whereas
when new issued shares are sold at market price these two effects cancel each
other out and the value of the firm remains the same. In the third case the firm
decides not to share its profits with the shareholder but the shareholders need
dividends. They change the corporate dividend policy by selling part of their
shares to another investor and thus meet their cash needs and create homemade
dividends which weaken their hold on the company. The company’s value
remains constant but only in case if shares are sold at fair market rates.
2.1.2. Gordon and Lintner Theory

Gordon and Lintner had given their view even before MM in favour of
dividend policy in perfect capital market conditions. Gordon (1959) states that
even in perfect capital markets ambiguity about a future situation is enough to
affect the share price, known as “the bird in hand theory”. Gordon considers
dividends as important in the matter of stock value. In his famous growth model
he subordinates it to the discounted flow of future dividends. The model is as
follows:
P 0 = D1 / K – Ge
4
where dividends grow at a constant rate in perpetuity, P0 is stock value, D1 is the

expected dividend per share in the next year, K is the required return and G the
growth rate. Firms receive dividend along with capital gains from shares and can
be separated when they are received. Hence dividends are considered favourably
to returns from shares and provide protection from possible future losses.
Dividends can only be lost when the firm reinvests them poorly. But when
shareholders receive them they should be considered as safe gains. Many
researchers strongly criticise the Gordon and Lintner model. Economists mainly
focus on the mathematical and theoretical models and criticise the bird in hand
theory [Brennan (1971) and Bhattacharya (1979)].
2.1.3. Tax Preference Theory

The tax preference theory states that historically dividends have been
taxed at a level higher than capital gains. Non-dividend paying stocks are
preferable under the tax preference theory. Kalay (1984) concludes that these
are preferable for investors in high income tax brackets whereas investors in
lower brackets will more likely invest in high dividend payout stocks. Investors
can make homemade dividends if they require regular income. Hence today
capital gains are taxed equally in almost all countries. Gains from dividends are
taxed in the same years whereas investors who keep their shares will be taxed in
the year in which they sell them. This is more desirable as taxable money can be
reinvested to generate extra profits.
2.1.4. Agency Cost Theory

In corporate management agency problem has been one of the earliest.
The problem has its basis in the division of ownership and management
requiring each agent to make a decision that is beneficial for the firm and not
for him alone. Easterbrook (1984) states that when a firm pays dividend, it
reduces the cash available for the company to invest, increasing the need for
external finance. Under specific efficient monitoring firms avoid unprofitable
investment decisions. Fama and Jensen (1983a, 1983b) have explained the
agency problem among bondholders and shareholders and they stress that
agency problems can be reduced by appropriate agreements dealing with
property rights.
2.1.5. Behaviour Theory

Schiller (1984) has suggested that financial analysts and scholars tend to
ignore the investors’ character and their social practices. This is understandable
as this aspect would be hard to express statistically, though adding these
behavioural determinants in modelling somehow would certainly help form the
corporate dividend policy and assist in solving many corporate issues. The
substance of the behavioural theory has been given by Thaler and Shefria (1981)
5
and further advanced by Shefrin and Statman (1984). They emphasise that
investors regard home dividend as less favourable than dividend paying stocks
because of what is termed as self control dilemma. Small retail investors require
stable cash flows whereas corporate and institutional investors may not need
that. The behavioural theory comes in when in the market individual investors
are more powerful.
2.1.6. Free Cash Flow Theory

The free cash flow hypothesis provides the link between the agency
theory and the signalling theory. Free cash flow is primarily the amount of cash
that would be left after all positive net present value projects have been taken
care of. Therefore the firm’s decision about the dividend policy settles the
amount of funds available for future investment and consumption in other
projects. Owners hire managers to run the company with the goal to maximise
the wealth of the shareholders but the managers may use the funds inefficiently.
Jensen (1986) explains this over-investment theory and relates it to the agency
theory. There are two different situations: the first is that managers do not pay
dividends and do not always invest in positive NPV projects; the second is that
managers pay dividends and reduce the amount of free cash flow and reduce
over-investment problems.
2.1.7. Signalling Theory

The signalling theory has its basis in the information irregularities among
managers and shareholders. Many researchers have explained the variables that
may have signalling characteristics. Among them are Miller and Modigliani
(1961), Bhattacharya (1979), Hakanson (1982), John and Williams (1985) and
Miller and Rock (1985) who have explained the signalling theory models. All
financial articles about dividend payouts can be divided into two categories. The
first view suggests that dividends carry relevant information; the other view
covers dividends that do not provide any signalling effects. The signalling
theory states that managers have better knowledge about the value of the firm’s
assets than the shareholders. It is the managers who inform the shareholders
about the financial situation of the company through the dividends policy.
Therefore some financial economists think that shareholders can get abnormal
returns when dividends are announced.
2.1.8. Dividend Stability Theory

Bringham and Houstan (2004) hold that a stable dividend policy is
essential for firm value. Revenues, favourable financing circumstances and cash
flows change with time. The shareholders’ concern is mainly about stability of
dividend policy since they depend on dividends to meet their costs. In addition,
if the firm reduces the dividend and provides funds for capital investment, this
6
could send a wrong signal to the investors. They might construe it as an

indication of the firm’s low profit expectations in the future which will hit the
stock price. Therefore the firm can increase its stock price to keep the balance
between its internal use and shareholders’ requirements.
2.1.9. Life Cycle Theory of Dividends

The life cycle theory of dividends states that young corporations have
more investment opportunities than firms which cannot meet all operating
expenses with cash available internally. Furthermore, it is also difficult for
young firms to generate cash from extra sources. Such firms therefore maintain
cash by not distributing dividends to shareholders. With time the firm passes
through growth stages and reaches to the maturity stage in its life cycle. At that
juncture, the firm faces low investment opportunities, its growth and
profitability lines become smooth, systemic risks decrease and the firm is able to
generate more cash internally. As a result the firm starts to pay dividend to
shareholders to distribute its earnings. Mature firms distribute part of their
earnings among the shareholders to an extent at which the stockholders’ and the
managers’ interests converge. The life cycle theory of dividend anticipates that
the company will start to pay dividends when its growth rate and earnings are
expected to fall in future. It is contradictory to the signalling theory of
dividends.
2.2. Review of Empirical Literature

The decision whether to pay dividend or retain dividend earnings has
been the main topic of research by economists for the last five decades.
2.2.1. Empirical Evidence on Lintner Model

Lintner’s (1956) work is considered as the most authentic study to date.
Lintner (1956) states that US firms’ financial managers believe that shareholders
are authorised to receive a reasonable share of the firm’s earnings in the form of
dividend. Firms set their target payout ratio in such a way that the companies
can continue their capital investment and can realise their targeted growth in the
long run. Lintner’s (1956) findings are confirmed by a number of other studies
for developed markets. The results of Brittian (1964, 1966) and Fama and
Babiak (1968) are consistent with his findings. They improve the Lintner model
by using more extensive experimental approach and conclude that firms follow a
stable dividend policy. Fama (1974) has used a large sample and once again
finds the same results about dividend policy stability for USA. The available
literature on dividend policy is mainly focused on developed countries but there
are a few studies on developing countries also. Isa (1992) has conducted a
survey study and concluded that firms follow stable dividend policy in Malaysia.
The Lintner model is further tested by Kester and Isa (1996), Annuar and
7
Shamser (1993) and Gupta and Lok (1995) and they also find similar results.
Pandey and Bhat (1994)check the validity of the Lintner model in India and they
find that Indian firms favour its findings. Ariff and Johnson (1994), Adaoglu
(2000) test the Lintner model for firms listed on Turkish stock exchange. Glen,
et al. (1995) have carried out a study of dividend policy in seven developing
countries: Chile, Jamaica, India, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey and the Philippines.
The study concludes that firms in developing markets set a targeted dividend
payout ratio and try to maintain this payout ratio ignoring short term changes in
earnings. Anyhow, when firms have a target payout ratio they usually give less
importance to changes in dividends overtime and as a result dividend’s
smoothing with time becomes less relevant. Consequently it is found that
dividend policies of emerging markets are more volatile than developed
countries.
2.2.2. Empirical Evidence on Agency Theory

Many empirical studies support the view that dividend helps to reduce
agency costs. Crutchley and Hansen (1989) and Mohammad, et al. (1995), Brav,
et al. (2003) and Easterbrook (1984) have stated that financial rules like paying
dividends help to reduce agency problems. Rozeff (1982) develops a cost
minimisation model which supports the agency theory. The model combines the
transaction costs that may be controlled by reducing the payout ratio with the
agency costs that may be controlled by increasing the payout ratio. The model
states that the optimal payout ratio is at level when the sum of agency and
transaction costs is minimised. The model uses two proxies for agency cost:
insider ownership and ownership dispersion. Lloyd, et al. (1985) have added
firm size in Rozeff’s model and find that large firms pay large amount of
dividends to reduce agency cost. Jensen’s (1992) also favours their point of view
that large firms have more disperse ownership which increases agency cost and
so large firms should pay more payouts to reduce agency problems. Another
variable squared measure for insider ownership is added by Schooley and
Barney (1994) who argue that there is a non-monotonic relationship between
dividend and insider ownership.
Mohammad, et al. (1995) have modified the cost minimisation model by
including institutional holdings and find that institutional ownership is
significant and positive. Holder, et al. (1998) have extended the cost
minimisation model by adding free cash flow as an additional agency variable.
Ang, et al. (2000) have used the measure of agency cost which is the difference
between the value of the 100 percent owner-managed firm and less than 100
percent owner-managed firm. Both studies support the Jensen and Meckling
(1976) agency theory. Manos (2002) has modified the cost minimisation model
by using four proxies for agency cost theory: foreign ownership, institutional
ownership, insider ownership and ownership dispersion which shows that there
8
is greater need for outside monitoring to reduce the free rider problem.
Deshmukh Sanjay (2005) has found negative and insignificant relationship
between insider ownership and dividend yield. Harada and Nguyen (2006) and
Khan (2006) have concluded that firms with high ownership concentration pay
lower dividends. Mancinelli and Ozkan (2006) show that when ownership
concentration is high, managers are reluctant to distribute dividends to
shareholders.
Mollah, et al. (2007) show that agency cost variables had less explanatory
power in ownership concentrated firms before the financial crisis of 2008 period
and had no support after the crisis period. Obema, et al. (2008) find that only
institutional ownership has a significant relationship with dividend policy
because they vote for higher payout ratios to increase managerial control by
external capital markets. Kouki and Guizani (2009) show that institutional
ownership is negatively and ownership of the five largest shareholders is
positively related to dividend payments that supports the view that multiple
large shareholders have a positive role in dividend policy. Chen and Dhiensiri
(2009) have examined the signalling, agency, residual and stability theories of
dividend, and strongly favour the agency cost theory.
Afza (2010) shows that in Pakistan, corporate governance is not
performing well so managers have the opportunity to hold cash in their hands
and not pay dividends to shareholders. Sharif, et al. (2010)have concluded that
the payout ratio has significant positive relation with ownership concentration
and institutional shareholding in the case of Tehran stock exchange. Afza and
Mirza (2010) have shown that for Pakistani listed firms individual ownership,
managerial ownership and cash flow sensitivity are negatively related to cash
dividends. Harada and Nguyen (2011) find dividend policy is used as a
substitute for shareholder control and concentrated ownership is negatively
related to dividend payout.
2.2.3. Empirical Evidence on Transaction cost and Residual Theory

Empirical research on the agency theory provides varying results which
divert attention to another theory which is called the Transaction Cost theory.
Williamson (1988, 1996) states that corporate finance and corporate governance
questions can be answered with the help of transaction cost economics. Rozzeff
presents a cost minimisation model and has used three proxies for transaction
cost in the model: risk, firm’s historic and predicted rates. A firm that faces high
growth and high risk uses external finance to fulfil its investment needs and for
payment of its debt obligations. External financing increases its cost of
transaction.
Eddy and Seifert (1988), Jensen, et al. (1992), Redding (1997), Fama and
French (2001) and Higgins (1981) and Aivazian, et al. (2003) find that large
firms have easier access to capital markets and can easily generate external
9
funds. So the relationship between dividend yield and size is positive in large
firms. Sawiciki (2005) has examined that large firms face the problem of
ownership dispersion and are unable to monitor the firms’ inside and outside
activities which reduces management efficiency. As a solution of this problem
firms can pay large amounts of dividend to shareholders and finance their
investment activities through external finance which leads to increase the control
of the creditors over large firms. Grullon, et al. (2002) have discussed the
maturity hypothesis which states that capital expenditure declines as firms
become more mature because their growth and investment opportunities are
reduced. The over-investment problem can be eased because firms face less risk
and pay more dividends. Chen and Dhiensiri (2009) have used four proxy
variables for testing transaction and residual theory—size, beta, growth rate of
revenues and their results—that to some extent favour the transaction and
residual theory. Elston (1996) states that dividends and investments both need
funds from retained earnings and compete with each other. High growth and
investment possibilities are negatively related to dividends. It is also consistent
with the free cash flow hypothesis [Jensen (1986)] and Lang and Litzenberger
(1989). Kanwal and Sujata (2008) show a negative relation between growth
possibilities and dividend which is related to the pecking order theory.
Rozeff (1982), Jensen, et al. (1992), Alli, et al. (1993), Mohammed, et al.
(2006) find that dividends and investment opportunities are negatively related.
Fama and French uphold the view that dividends are influenced by investment
opportunities. Firm decision of paying dividend is independent of investment
policy [Grill, et al. (1983)]. When growth increases, firm needs more external
finance which in turn increases its sales and cash inflows [Higgins (1981)].
Rozeff (1982), Lloyd, et al. (1985), Collins, et al. (1996), and recently Amidu
and Abor (2006) find that historical sales growth and dividend payout are
significantly and negatively related.
2.2.4. Empirical Evidence on Signalling Theory

There are two main ideas about signalling theory. First, company
managers have easy approach to accurate information than investors; second, if
managers and investors receive the same level of information, they do not
analyse in the same way [Vernimmen, Quiry, Dallocchio, Le Fur and Salvi
(2005)]. Watts (1973) has investigated the effect of dividends on stock prices
and future earnings to check whether dividends convey any information to
investors or not. He finds that dividends are not a trustworthy source of
accurately forecasting future earnings and concluded: “…in general, the
information content of dividends can only be trivial.”
The results of Benartzi, Michaely, and Thaler (1997) support the
signalling hypothesis that if managers decided to pay dividends and distributed
them with regularity, the firm did not face any decline in its future earnings. But
10
it is also not necessary that the firm faces large increases in earnings. Evidence
has shown that firms that announce to pay dividends are less likely to face a fall
in their earnings.
Bhattacharya (1979) states that firms pay dividends only when they hope
a good cash position in the future which is based on their decision to invest in
profitable projects. On the strength of quality projects managers can signal
investors by announcing high dividends. Asquith and Mullins (1983) and Healy
and Palepu (1988) have shown that stock price and decision of paying dividend
are positively related. Similarly, the signalling theory has examined that
financial markets do not take any decrease or dividend cut as a good sign for
firm value [Benartzi, Michaely, and Thaler (1997), Healy and Palepu (1988),
Michaely, Thaler, and Womack (1995)]. Managements are reluctant to pay
dividends if they feel that in the long term the firm would not be able to pay
constant dividends because there is a perception that the market punishes firms
that fail to pay dividends more than reward those that pay.
Miller and Rock (1985) conclude that dividends are a signal of good news
and their findings are consistent with Bhattacharya’s reasoning. Raei, et al.
(2012) have concluded that dividends provide information about return and
earnings, therefore the signalling theory plays an important role in determining
the return and earnings of the firm. A positive relation between dividend and
return is shown by Park (2010) and Lettaua and Ludvigson (2005). Chen, et al.
(2005) conclude that dividend and performance are weakly related. Harada and
Nguyen (2005) have stated that dividend signals on performance and return.
Weak relation between dividend and earnings is shown by Brave, et al. (2005).
De Angelo, et al. (2000) and Fukuda (2000) have divided information about
earnings. Powell and Baker, et al. (2000) and Healy and Palepu (1998) have
stated that dividends affect earnings positively.
2.2.5. Empirical Evidence on Life Cycle Theory of Dividends

The free cash flow hypothesis is contrary to growth hypothesis. It states
that corporations with less growth and investment opportunities face the
problem of over-investment. Therefore such firms prefer to pay more dividends.
During the life of the company, growth opportunities change with time. Grullon,
et al. (2002) state that firm maturity and growth opportunities are negatively
related. The price earning ratio is considered to be a good proxy for firm’s
growth opportunities. It also provides market judgment about the firm’s future
cash flows. Market to book value and the price earning ratio can provide reliable
results only under stable market conditions. Al-Malkawi (2007) has showed that
old firms have low investment opportunities and consequently lead to low
growth rates. Farinas and Moreno (2000) and Huergo and Jaumandreu (2002)
have used companies’ age to capture its life cycle phase. Very few researchers
investigate the direct relationship between the firm’s age and dividend policy.
11
Mostly researchers have used the proxy of the firm’s age to capture growth and
investment opportunities. Afza and Mirza (2011) have found non-linear
relationship between age and dividend payouts of corporations. De Angelo and
Stulz (2006) have tested the life cycle theory of dividend by using the proxy of
retained earnings to total assets. It is stated that firms with high retained earnings
to total asset ratio are more mature with more profits and so pay more dividends.
Their results support the life cycle theory of dividends and show positive
significant relationship between dividend and retained earnings to total assets.
3. METHODOLOGY AND DATA
3.1. Model Specification
3.1.1. Lintner Partial Adjustment Model

John Lintner in 1956 analysed important determinants of dividend
payout. His is a fundamental model that discusses important determinants of
corporate dividend decisions. Lintner has surveyed corporate Chief Executive
Officers and Chief Financial Officers. He has found that shareholders prefer
smoothened dividend income and managers believe that stable dividends reduce
investors’ negative reactions. He has concluded that earnings are the most
significant determinants of any change in dividends and reported that majority
of managers develop long term payout ratio targets and use periodical partial
adjustments to reach target levels. In his interview of 28 management teams he
has announced target payout ratio of 50 percent. The Lintner model helps to
explain 85 percent of dividend changes in his sample of companies.
Lintner’s survey is summarised by Dorsman, et al. (1999) in four
“stylised facts”. First, that firm has long term target dividend payout ratios;
second, managers give more importance to dividend changes than to absolute
levels; third, managers tend to smooth dividends so that a temporary change in
earnings does not affect dividend payments over the short term and finally,
managers are reluctant to cut dividends. To explain the change in dividends each
year, Lintner developed a model. The assumption of this model is that managers
will try to pay an amount of dividend that is a most favourable percentage of the
profit made, given by the Equation (1):
D*it = α i Εit … … … … … … (1)
Where Dit* is the target level dividend for fund i year t, αi is the optimal amount
of dividend as a percentage of the profit for fund i. Eit is the profit company i
made in year t. The value of α lies between 0 and 1 since companies usually
won’t pay more dividends than their profits. When the profit changes the actual
amount of dividend paid differs from the optimal amount that follows out of (1).
To compensate for this difference the company will gradually adjust the
12
dividends, as seen in the next Equation (2) called the Lintner full adjustment
model:
− =
∗ − … … … … (2)
Where, c is Velocity at which a company adjusts the dividend that lies between
0 and 1.
− = +
∗ − + … … … (3)
Where D*it is the desired dividend payment during period ‘t’, Dit is actual dividend
payment during period ‘t’, αi is Target payout ratio, Eit is earnings of firm during
period ‘t’, ai is a constant related to dividend growth, Ci is partial adjustment factor,
uit is error term. Positive value of constant ‘a’ shows that firms avoid dividend cuts
and try to increase dividend paying ability at a steady rate.
This model can further be simplified in the form of a multiple regression
equation
− = +
∗ − + … … … (4)
− = +
− + … … (5)
= +
+ 1 −
+ … … … (6)
The Lintner model provides three important conclusions: (1) Stable

dividends with steady increase whenever possible, (2) Set a suitable target
payout ratio, (3) If possible, avert dividend cuts. Volatility of net income,
managers’ attitude towards future possibilities and importance given to stable
dividend rates are factors that affect the reaction coefficient ‘c’. Corporations
with stable net income are more likely to select a high reaction coefficient and
instantly respond to variations in net income. Firms with large changes in their
net income choose their reaction coefficient on the basis of the value they attach
to stable dividend rates and their willingness to maintain this rate. Corporations
interested in dividend stability have to choose low reaction coefficients.
3.1.2. Lintner Model and Dividend Stability Theory

A steady and certain dividend policy is considered to be an important
element of company policies. Reduction in dividend is identical to news that the
company is in financial trouble. Directors and managers choose their dividend
payout polices very carefully, dividends are lowered only if they have no other
solution and they will increase dividends only if they believe they can maintain
this payout ratio. The market quickly responds when a firm declares larger than
expected dividend or unpredictably declares a dividend cut. To test the stability
in dividend policy the above model can be modified as:
= + + … … … (7)
13
Where DPSit is dividend per share during period t, EPSit is earning per share
during period t, α, β1 and β2 is the regression coefficient of dividend per share
during period t–1 i.e. (1–c) and c is the adjustment factor. This implies αi is
target payout ratio which is β1/(1–β2). The actual changes in dividends
correspond to expected changes if α has zero value and Ci is 1. On the contrary
when Ci is 0 no change in dividend policy can be observed towards expected
levels. Corporations adjust their dividend policies gradually with changes in the
level of earnings which shows that the speed of adjustment coefficient lies
between 0 and 1. Furthermore, the positive value of constant α shows the
management avoids dividend cuts.
3.1.3. Signalling Theory

For assessing the significance of the signalling theory following Raei, et
al. (2012), three models are tested using three proxies of signalling one by one
and taking size of the firm and leverage as the control variables. The following
model explains the relationship between dividend and return:
= + β + β ! + β" #$
+β% & + ' … … … … … (8)
The three proxies used for signalling (SIGNAL) by the firms are: returns,
performance and earnings. The variables used are annual returns during the year t;
for performance: ROA (return on asset) for year t, MB (market to book value of
equity) for period t; for earnings: NI (net income) for period t; Div for total amount
of dividends for year t; for SIZE: natural logarithm of total assets for year t.
3.1.4. Agency Cost Theory

Dividends are used as a device for reducing agency costs [Rozeff (1982)].
Therefore firms prefer to distribute cash resources to shareholders. In this study
three proxies are used for the agency theory—free cash flow (FCF), insider
ownership (MSO) and collateral capacity (Lnfix). These are also used by Chen
and Dhiensiri (2009). Two control variables, sales growth (SG) and return on
asset (ROA) are used for estimation. The firm size is also used by Llyod, et al.
(1985), Holder, et al. (1998) and both have showed positive relation with
dividend. Rozeff (1982), Depaul (2005) and Al-Malkawi (2007) have also used
insider ownership and have found negative relation with dividends. In the third
case collateral capacity is used as a proxy of agency cost following Bardley, et
al. (1984), Mollah, et al. (2000) and Alli, et al. (1993) and they conclude that
firms with more fixed assets are more likely to pay more dividends. Increase in
fixed asset positively affects the dividend policy according to Chen and
Dhiensiri (2009). The following model tests the agency cost theory:
= + ()*+, + + " $- + % & +. (9)
14
Finally all three proxy variables are used collectively in one mode with
the control variables.
3.1.5. Transaction and Residual Cost Theory

The transaction cost theory also favours the firm decision of paying
dividends. The transaction cost associated with cashing in the dividend is low
for small investors as compared to transaction cost linked with selling a part of
the share [Allen and Michaely (2002)]. Low transaction cost of equity or debt
financing encourages firms to pay more dividends. The firm’s beta, size and
growth are used as a proxy variable suggested by Chen and Dhiensiri (2009) for
testing transaction and residual theory with two control variables, profit on net
income and earning per share.
Riskier firms pay low dividend and therefore have low dividend yields.
The firms with high financial and operating leverage will choose lower dividend
payout policy [Rozeff (1982)]. Firm size is added by Lloyet, et al. (1985) in
Rozeff’s model (1982). Higgins (1981) and Aivazianet, et al. (2003) state large
firms have easy access to capital markets and can efficiently produce external
funds, so they pay more dividends. Naceure, et al. (2006), Belans, et al. (2007)
and Jenog (2008) show positive relation with growth and dividend yield. Rozeff
(1982), Lloydet, et al. (1985), Collins, et al. (1996) show negative relation
between growth and dividend payouts. Following is the model estimated to test
transaction cost theory:
= + /0*1+23* + + " + % & + ' (9)
Finally, all three proxy variables used in the above equations are
estimated collectively in this model. Where net income (NI) to estimated
transaction cost, and earning per share(EPS) are used as a control variables.
Lagged dividend yield (DYt–1) helps to remove serial auto correlation.
3.1.6. Life Cycle Theory of Dividends

The life cycle and free cash flow hypothesis are tested by Thanatawee
(2011) and Afza and Mirza (2011) who have used these models: First, the
present study separately estimates all three proxy variables of firm age (AGE),
market to book value (MB) and price earning ratio (P/E). These are used to
capture life cycle phase of firms. Net income (NI) and leverage (LEV) are used
as control variables.
= + 4
&
+ + " #$
+% & + ' … … … … … (10)
Life cycle and free cash flow hypotheses are together estimated with the
help of following model for robustness check.
15
= + 4
4 + $- + " 56 + % / + 8 ))0()
+ 9 & + ' 4.1.6)
3.2. Econometric Modelling

As this study uses the information for 138 firms over the period of 2003
to 2011 to test the dividend theories, panel data estimation technique is suitable
for this purpose. Empirical researches on dividend behaviour possibly encounter
two sources of discrepancies, missing variables and endogeneity biases. The
generalised method of moment GMM estimator which deals with changes of
dividend policy and helps to correct the problem of omitted variables and
endogeneity biases.
When panel data is used, one faces the question whether the individual
effect is taken as common, fixed or random factor. To compare the common
effect and fixed effect models the F test is used. For that purpose two models are
estimated separately: the common effect model in which the constant terms are
all equal and the fixed effect model in which the intercepts are different. Then
the F test is applied to check the null hypothesis that there is no difference in
common effect model and fixed effect model.
The generalised method of the moment model suggested by Arellano
and Bond(1991)and modified by Blunder and Bond (1998) is used as the
estimation technique. Correia da Silva, et al. (2004) and Georgen, et al.
(2005) have also used this method to examine dividends’ behaviour. GMM
estimators are consistent under two conditions. First, the instruments
should be valid and second, the error terms should not be serially
correlated. Arellano and Bond (1991) have suggested two tests to deal with
this issue. The first test is a Sargen test of over identifying restrictions. It
checks the overall validity of the instrumental variables by examining the
sample analog of the moments conditions. Its null hypothesis is that
instruments are valid. The second test checks whether the error terms are
serially correlated.
3.3. Data and Sample Selection

The present study tests the significance of different dividend theories in
case of Pakistani Manufacturing firms listed on KSE. The data employed is
derived from Balance Sheet Analysis of KSE listed firms published by State
Bank of Pakistan and Business Recorder. The time period is from 2003 to 2011.
The data includes top sectors of the manufacturing industry like Textile, Sugar,
Food and Beverages, Automobiles, Paper and Board, Oil and Gas etc. The
variables used in this study are briefly discussed in the Table reported in the
Appendix.
16
4. EMPIRICAL RESULTS
The empirical significance of different dividend theories is tested in this
study by using data of 138 manufacturing firms listed at KSE from the period
2003-2011.The empirical result discussion starts with summary statistics of the
data. After that regression results are presented.
4.1. Summary Statistics of Data

Table A2 in Appendix shows descriptive statistics of the dependent
variables with all of the independent variables from 2003-2011. Analysis shows
that on average dividend yield is 3 percent, the mean value of earning per share
is 10.56. Leverage shows average value of 171.87 which concludes that firm
value debts in handling financial and economic affairs of its assets. The mean
value of net earnings is 555.935 which is positively skewed. The sales growth
has average of 8 percent. The size is measured by the log of total assets and the
log of market capitalisation and their mean values are 7.78 and 3.47
respectively, which show that sample firms mostly invest more in their assets.
The average value of return on asset ROA is 7.59 and it is negatively skewed.
Beta shows average value of 0.282 and it lies between –1.3523 to 1.6697 and is
also negatively skewed. The collateral assets have the mean value of 0.704. Free
cash flow shows a mean value of 13.7 percent and insider ownership 18.63. Free
cash flow and insider ownership both are positively skewed. The age and price
earning ratio show average value of 29.87 and 6.76 respectively.
The correlation matrix presents the relationship between dependent variable
dividend yield and all other explanatory variables. The results are reported in
Appendix Table A3 (a, b). Table A3 (a) shows the association between dependent
variable dividend yield (DY) and Lintner model, stability model and signalling
theory variables. Whereas Table A3 (b) shows the relationship between dependent
variable (DY) and agency cost and transaction cost theory variables. Table A3 (a)
shows positive relationship between dividend yield (DY) and net earnings (NI).
Dividend per share (DPS) and earning per share (EPS) are also positively related
with dividend yield. Signalling theory’s explanatory variables, i.e., return
(RETURN), return on asset (ROA) and market to book value (MB) show positive
association with dividend yield. Table A3 (b) shows the relationship of agency cost
and transaction cost theory variables with dividend yield. Results show collateral
capacity (Lnfix), free cash flow (FCF), sales growth (SG) and size (SIZEA) are
positively related with dividend yield, whereas insider ownership (MSO), beta
(BETA) and leverage (LEV) are negatively associated with dividend yield.
4.2. Empirical Results of Regression Analysis

In this section the results on panel data estimation are discussed using
GMM estimation technique that deals with endogenity problem, and lag
explanatory variables are used as instruments. The probability value of
17
probability J-statistic shows the instruments are valid in all the models. The
common effect model, fixed effect model and random effect model are
estimated. The F* test supports the fixed effect model compared to common
effect model and among fixed effect and random effect models the Haussman
test’s p value indicates that the random effect model better describes the data.
4.2.1. Lintner Model

The estimation results of Lintner’s partial adjustment model are reported
in Table 1. The random effect model better describes the relationship as shown
by Hausman test. The results of random effect model show that net income and
lagged dividend are positive and highly significant indicating that firms follow a
smooth dividend policy. Another useful statistic is the target payout ratio (β/1-α)
in the partial adjustment model; the random effect model shows the target
payout ratio which is 53 percent with speed of adjustment at 43 percent. Lintner
(1956) has suggested 50 percent target payout ratio and 30 percent speed of
adjustment.
Table 1
Results of Lintner Model
Regressors CEM FEM REM
NI 0.23*(2.44) 0.08(0.48) 0.23*(2.54)
Dt-1 0.57*(19.8) 0.30*(9.01) 0.57*(20.63)
Constant 0.012*(8.26) 0.02*11.64) 0.012*(8.58)
Adjusted R-squared 30.7% 35.92% 30.7%
Sargantest (p-value) 0.4 0.97 0.4
Hausman Test 0.60
Durbin Watson(p-value) 2.1 2.0 2.1
The speed of adjustment (1-ai ) 43% 70% 43%
The target payout ratio (β/(1-ai)) 53% 11.42% 53%
Firms 138 138 138
Observations 966 966 966
Note: The values in the parenthesis are t-values. The * indicates significance at 1 percent,
** significance at 5 percent and *** indicates significance at 10 percent.
4.2.2. Fama and Babiak Version for Testing Dividend Stability

The dividend stability estimation results are given in Table 2, where
following Fama and Babiak (1968) dividend per share is used as dependent
variable and earning per share of current period and lagged term dividend per
share as explanatory variables. As Hausman test suggests the Random effect
model is better in explaining the model and results indicate that earning per
share and lagged dividend per share are positively related with dividend per
18
share and highly significant. The target payout ratio at 25 percent is lower than
Lintner’s suggested target payout ratio of 50 percent and the speed of adjustment
is 32 percent. The high speed of adjustment coupled with low target payout ratio
shows absence of dividend stability.
Table 2
Results of Dividend Stability
EPS 0.08*(13.07) 0.07*(10.38) 0.08*(14.77)
DPSt-1 0.68*(31.26) 0.27*(8.90) 0.68*(35.35)
Constant 0.30*(2.07) 1.98*(12.11) 0.30*(2.35)
Hausman test(p-value) 0.49
The speed of adjustment (1-ai ) 32% 73% 32%
The target payout ratio (β/(1-ai)) 25% 9% 25%
Firms 996 996 996
Note: The values in the parenthesis are t-values. The * indicates significance at 1 percent, **
significance at 5 percent and *** indicates significance at 10 percent.
Empirical studies provide different speed of adjustment and the target

payout ratio. Fama and Babiak (1968) find average speed of adjustment nearly
0.37 for non-financial US firms. They have found the speed of adjustment a
little greater than Lintner (1956) findings of 30 percent whereas the value of
target payout ratio is almost near to Lintner’s (1956) 50 percent suggested value.
Behm and Zimmerman (1993) find speed of adjustment and target payout ratio
for German listed firms. They conclude that speed of adjustment varies from 13
percent to 58 percent and target payout ratio ranging between 25 percent and 58
percent. Glen, et al. (1995) find the speed of adjustment and target payout ratio
for Zimbabwe and Turkey. The speed of adjustment and target payout ratio for
Zimbabwe is 40 percent and 30 percent respectively. For Turkey it is 90 percent
and 40 percent respectively. Belanes, et al. (2007) find the speed of adjustment
and target payout ratio for Tunisian listed firms. It lies between 23.66 percent to
96.59 percent and target payout ratio varies from 14 percent to 52.96 percent.
4.2.3. Results of Signalling Theory

The present study uses four variables as proxy of signal stock returns,
return on asset, market to book value and net income. The size of the firm and
leverage is used as control variables. In panel data estimation Hausman test
suggests that random effect model best explains the relationship, therefore the
results of random effect model are presented in this section.
19
First, model results show stock returns negatively and significantly affect
dividends. Lie (2005) also finds negative market reaction to dividend declaration
because market regards fall in dividend support as earning for management, not
for investment. In second model the return on asset is used as a proxy of
performance for testing signalling theory. Results show return on asset is
positive and highly significantly related to dividend yield. This result is
consistent with findings of Power, et al. (2007) Belans, et al. (2007) and varies
from the results of Sawaminath, et al. (2002). In the third model MB (market to
book value) is also used as a proxy variable for performance testing the
signalling theory. The relationship between market to book value and dividend
yield is positive is by using random effect model but insignificant. It shows
dividends are not sensitive to market to book value. The results reject the
hypothesis that there is relationship between market to book value and dividend
policy. In the fourth model, the results of random effect model show net income
is positive and significantly affects the firm’s dividend policy. Kim and Ettredge
(1992), Priestley and Garrett (2000), Bhattacharya (2003), Wilson, et al. (2006),
Amidu and Abor (2006), Belans, et al. (2007) support the results. However, this
result is different from the findings of Bhat and Pandey (2007), Kapoor and Anil
(2008), as well as Jeong’s (2008).
Table 3
Results of Signalling Model
Regressors Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Constant –0.003(1.02) –0.008(0.229) –0.003(0.85) 0.005**(1.91)
Return –0.039**(1.98)
ROA 0.04*(5.82)
MB 0.08(0.96)
NI 0.179**(1.92)
SIZE 0.002*(4.75) 0.0016*(3.30) 0.0023*(4.47) 0.002*(3.40)
Leverage –0.008 (1.63) –0.004(0.91) –0.009***(1.8)
***
–0.004(0.90)
DYt-1 0.56*(21.73) 0.51*(19.11) 0.54*(19.02) 0.54*(18.69)
Adjusted R-squared 34.81% 35.75% 31.75% 31.42%
Hausman test(pvalue) 0.321 0.3228 0.321 0.32
Sargantest(p-value) 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.56
Durbin Watson(p value) 2.11 2.04 2.08 2.08
Firms 138 138 138 138
Observations 1104 1104 966 966
In all four models the large sized firms pay more dividends because they
have easy access to capital markets, and able to generate more funds and
therefore they distribute more dividends to shareholders. This view is supported
by Osobov (2008), Hosami (2007), Aivazian (2003), Al-Twaijry (2007), Eriotis
(2005), Ahmed and Javid (2009), Kuwari (2009), and Olantundun (2000).
20
Empirical research about relationship between leverage and dividend policy is

mixed. Leverage and dividend payout are negatively related, may be because of
debt agreements. Rozeff (1982) states that transaction cost can be reduced if
high leverage firms pay low dividends. Al-Malkawi (2007) also supports their
view and finds negative and significant relationship between leverage and
dividend payout.
4. 2.4. Results of Agency Cost Theory

To test the significance of agency cost model three proxy variables have
been used. The study tests these proxy variables separately with two control
variables in each model. Lagged dividend is used to deal with problem serial of
auto correlation.
Table 4
Results for Agency Cost Theory
Regressors REM REM REM
FCF 0.032*(2.32)
MSO 0.005(1.16)
LNFIX 0.016*(2.34)
SG 0.015*(3.25) 0.09*(2.48) 0.09*(2.31)
ROA 0.02(1.55) 0.05*(6.87) 0.05*(6.47)
*
DYt-1 0.53 (16.25) 0.5*(17.76) 0.48*(16.36)
*
Constant 0.09 (5.37) 0.09*(5.51) -0.017(0.314)
Hausman test(p-value) 0.21 0.21 0.21
Sargantest(p-value) 0.107 0.138 0.110
Firms 138 138 138
Table 4 reports only the results of random effect model as Huasman test
supports these results. First, this study has estimated free cash flow (FCF) with
two control variables which are sales growth and return on asset. The free cash
flow is positively related with dividend yield and is highly significant under the
random effect model. Free cash flow comes to firms for distribution to
shareholders as dividends. It is also used for debt payment and lowers the
chances of these funds being invested in unfeasible projects [Jensen (1986),
Amidu and Abor (2006)]. The growth return on asset and lagged dividend are
statistically significant and also positively related with dividend yield. Sales
growth is used as a proxy in signalling theory. The result indicates that high
21
growth firms are more likely to pay high dividends. Increase in sales of the
company’s products is likely to raise its profits and provide more cash for its use
and operational activities. So firms have sufficient amount of cash to distribute
to shareholders as dividend. These results are supported by findings of Naceure,
et al. (2006), Belans, et al. (2007), Jeong (2008) and deviate from the findings
of D’Souza (1999), Amidu and Abor (2006).
In the second model of agency cost theory, this study has estimated the
insider ownership (MSO) with two control variables—growth and return on
asset. The result shows that insider ownership is positively associated with
dividend yield but is insignificant in case of Pakistani markets. Non-financial
firms listed on KSE with more concentrated ownership pay more dividends.
Farina and Fronda (2005), Amidu and Abor (2006) and Mehar (2005) also find
similar results. Growth and return on assets are positively related with dividend
yield and are highly significant.
In the third model of agency cost theory this study has estimated the
natural log of fixed asset (Lnfix) with two control variables—growth and return
on asset. The collateral capacity is positively related with dividend yield and
highly significant. Firms with more fixed assets are able to pay more dividends
because it is easy for them to raise funds than from those firms that have few
fixed assets. Finally, all three proxy variables for agency cost free cash flow,
insider ownership and collateral capacity are estimated collectively and two
control variables, growth and return on asset. The results remain the same.
Lagged dividend is also positively related with dividend yield and is significant
at 1 percent significance level.
Table 4(a)
Results of Combined Model of Agency Cost Theory
FCF 0.05*(5.72) 0.054*(4.95) 0.05*(6.03)
MSO 0.00814(1.28) 0.003*(2.05) 0.00814(1.35)
*
LNFIX 0.018 (2.06) 0.06*(3.09) 0.018*(2.17)
SG 0.015*(3.04) 0.008*(2.07) 0.015*(3.20)
* *
DYt-1 0.52 (14.60) 0.30 (9.58) 0.52*(15.38)
*
Constant –0.06(0.841) –0.04 (2.57) –0.06(0.886)
Firms 136 137 136
22
4.2.5. Results of Transaction Cost and Residual Theory

The significance of transaction and residual theory is tested with three
proxy variables. This study has tested these proxy variables separately with two
control variables in each model. Lagged dividend is used to deal with the
problem serial of auto correlation.
Table 5
Results for Transaction Cost and Residual Theory
Beta –0.039(0.172)
SIZEA 0.017* (3.27)
SG 0.011*(3.01)
NI 0.177**(1.90) 0.12(1.28) 0.168***(1.83)
EPS 0.02*(4.73) 0.02*(4.11) 0.0002*(4.35)
DYt-1 0.54*(19.19) 0.52*(18.34) 0.53*(19.09)
Constant 0.01*(6.85) –0.01(0.468) 0.01*(6.80)
Hausman test(p-value) 0.17 0.11 0.10
Firms 138 138 138
Note: The values in the parenthesis are t-values. The * indicates significance at 1 percent, **
significance at 5 percent and *** indicates significance at 10 percent.
The Hausman test suggests that the random effect model is better,
therefore only results of random effect model are reported in Table 5. In the
first model the study has used proxy variable beta with two control variables
i.e. net income and earning per share. Beta is negatively related with
dividend yield but insignificant. Rozeff (1982) has also concluded that other
things remaining equal, expensive external financing leads to high beta.
Therefore such firms choose lower dividend payout policies. In the second
model of transaction cost and residual theory, this study has estimated size
with two control variables—net income and earning per share. Firm size is
positively related with dividend yield and significant at 1 percent level.
Higgins (1981), Aivazian, et al. (2003) and Sawiciki (2005) also find
positive relation with dividends because large firms can generate external
finance easily and secondly large firms may face the issue of ownership
dispersion. Therefore, increase in dividend payouts helps to reduce this
problem too. In the third model for transaction and residual theory this study
has estimated sales growth with the same two control variables i.e., net
income and earning per share. The sales growth is positively and
23
significantly related with dividend yield. Increase in sales of firm’s products

increases the firm’s profitability and therefore such firms pay more
dividends [Imran Kashif (2011)]. Firms with high growth rate pay more
dividends as concluded by Naceure, et al. (2006), Belans, et al. (2007) and
Jeong (2008).
Both control variables, net income and earning per share, are positively
related with dividend yield in all the three models. Net earnings as a control
variable is used by Pani (2008), Adesola and Okwong (2009), Ahmed and Javid
(2009) and Al-Kuwari (2010) in their study. Companies’ profit positively affects
the dividend paying capacity of the management. Shareholders give importance
to firm profits because this profit indicates good future prospects of the firm.
Baskin (1989), Allen and Rachim (1996), Liu and Hu (2005), Adefila, Oladipo
and Adeoti (2004), Adesola and Okwong (2009) and Chen, Huang, and Cheng
(2009) find earning per share positively affects share price and results in the
firm paying more dividends. For testing the significance of transaction and
residual theory the present study has estimated combined model with three
proxy variables—beta, size and growth and similar results are obtained as
reported in Table 5 (a).
Table 5(a)
Results of Overall Transaction and Residual Theory
Beta –0.013(0.65) 0.449(0.019) –0.013(0.667)
SIZEA 0.017*(3.47) 0.027*(2.63) 0.017*(3.55)
*
SG 0.01 (2.80) 0.0082 (2.15) 0.010*(2.87)
*
EPS 0.01*(2.99) 0.019*(2.73) 0.015*(3.06)

NI 0.114(1.25) –0.103(0.66) 0.114(1.28)
DYt-1 0.53*(20.06) 0.32*(10.57) 0.53*(20.53)
Constant –0.02(0.718) –0.04(0.49) –0.02(0.735)
Firms 138 138 138
4.2.6. Results of Life Cycle Theory of Dividends

The life cycle theory of dividend is tested with three proxy variables, net
income (NI) and leverage (LEV) as control variables in each model and lagged
dividend to deal with the problem of serial auto correlation. (Table 6).
24
Table 6
Results of Life Cycle Theory of Dividends
AGE 0.0061 (0.725)
MB 0.0012 (1.40)
P/E 0.0023 (0.38)
NI 0.228* (2.46) 0.209* (2.25) 0.225* (2.40)
LEV –0.005 (1.02) –0.005 (0.90) –0.005 (1.01)
DYt-1 0.57* (20.42) 0.56* (19.96) 0.57* (20.50)
Constant 0.011* (3.83) 0.012* (6.68) 0.013* (7.41)
Hausman test (p-value) 0.21 0.22 0.22
Firms 138 138 138
Table 6 (a)
Overall Model for Life Cycle Theory of Dividends
AGE 0.062 (0.70) –0.002 (0.16) 0.006 (0.74)
MB 0.001 (1.34) –0.006* (4.42) 0.001 (1.41)
P/E 0.0017 (0.27) –0.002 (0.38) 0.002 (0.28)
NI 0.202* (2.05) 0.114 (0.66) 0.202* (2.16)
LEV –0.0068 (1.17) –0.0017 (0.23) -0.0068 (1.23)
DYt-1 0.56*(18.78) 0.30* (8.9) 0.56* (19.72)
* *
Constant 0.012 (3.28) 0.028 (5.58) 0.012* (3.45)
Hausman test (p-value) 0.18
Firms 138 138 138
The random effect model fits the data well as shown by the Hausman
Test. The results of the random effect model are presented in Table 6(a). In the
first model this study has used firm age (AGE) as a proxy variable to capture
firm life cycle phase with two control variables, net income and Leverage.
25
Results show age is insignificant but positively related with dividend yield. Firm
maturity does not affect firm ability of paying dividend of non-financial firms
listed on Karachi stock exchange. In the second and third model, market to book
value (MB) and price earning ratio (P/E) are separately estimated with the same
two control variables. The results show market to book value (MB) and price
earning ratio (P/E) that are insignificant and do not support the firm life cycle
theory in case of Pakistani manufacturing sector. Net income and lagged
dividend both are significant positively related to dividend yield in all three
models. Now the present study will estimate all three proxy variables—firm age
(AGE), market to book value (MB) and price earning ratio (P/E) in one model
and test the significance of firm life cycle theory of dividends. As reported in
Table 6 (a) the model yields the same results.
Another model is also used to test the firm life cycle theory of dividends
and free cash flow hypothesis. The price earning ratio (P/E) and market to book
value (MB) are used to capture the investment opportunities available to the firm
and free cash flow (FCF) and return on asset (ROA) are applied to test the
hypothesis. (Table 6b).
Table 6(b)
Results of Life Cycle and Free Cash Flow Hypothesis
FCF 0.028* (2.05) 0.034* (2.38) 0.028* (2.15)
ROA 0.03* (2.15) 0.04* (2.42) 0.03* (2.25)
*
MB –0.01 (1.59) –0.06 (5.42) –0.01 (1.59)
P/E –0.02 (0.38) –0.02 (0.26) –0.023 (0.39)
LEV –0.06 (0.11) –0.04 (0.30) 0.06 (0.12)
DYt-1 0.50* (16.8) 0.30* (9.68) 0.50* (17.63)
Constant 0.011* (5.68) 0.019* (8.02) 0.011* (5.78)
Hausman test (p-value) 0.11
Firms 138 138 138
Table 6(b) shows the results of the common effect model, fixed effect model
and random effect model for comparison. The probability value of Hausman test is
(0.000) which supports the results of the random effect model. Free cash flow is
statically significant and positively related with dividend yield. Large firms have
more free cash flow and dividends are a help to reduce agency cost problems that
26
arise due to large cash flows and also support the free cash flow hypotheses. The
return on assets is used as a proxy variable for firm profitability. The results show
that a firm with high return on assets is more likely to pay more dividends. It
supports the free cash flow hypothesis which exhibits state positive relationship
between firm profitability and dividend yield. When firms are able to generate more
profits and have free cash flow in their reserves, then firms distribute some portion
of their earnings to shareholders as dividends. Although the price earning ratio and
market to book value are negatively related with dividend but insignificantly,
therefore they fail to support the firm life cycle theory of dividends.
4.3. Industrial Effect

Now we examine the dividend pattern of different manufacturing industries of
Pakistan. Industry specific effect of dividend policy is estimated by adding industry
dummies into the basic Lintner (1956) partial adjusted model. Keeping sugar industry
as the base industry we evaluate the pattern of dividends of other industries. The
dummies for automobiles, cable, engineering, cement, chemical and pharmaceutical,
food, miscellaneous, oil and refinery, paper and board and textile are included. The
results indicate that lagged dividend is significantly and positively related with the
current year’s dividend yield. Therefore lagged dividend plays an important role in
determining dividend policy of all industries. In the random effect model, chemical and
pharmaceutical, oil and refinery, paper and board and textile are significant at 1 percent
level of significance which indicates that these industries perform differently than the
sugar industry in paying dividends. Furthermore industry dummies with negative
coefficients pay fewer dividends than the sugar industry. (Table 7).
Table7
Results of Lintner Model with Industrial Effect
Regressors CEM REM
NI –0.112(0.321) –0.122(0.498)
DYt-1 0.50* (7.69) 0.40* (9.562)
DAUTO 0.005(0.04) –0.346(1.743)
DCABELENG 0.044(0.673) 0.0273(0.246)
DCEM –0.0007(0.010) –0.1906(1.529)
DCHEM 0.124(1.45) 0.244* (2.092)
DFOOD 0.118*** (1.817) 0.1715(1.523)
DMISCL –0.006(0.138) –0.108(1.514)
DOILREF 0.06(0.764) 0.300* (2.748)
DPAPER 0.134(1.30) 0.387* (2.563)
DTEXTILE 0.063(1.016) 0.1979* (2.32)
Constant –0.042(0.886) –0.079(1.101)
Sargantest(p-value) 0.06 0.26
Durbin Watson(p-value) 2.0 2.1
Firms 138 138
Observations 966 966
27
5. CONCLUSION
Dividend policy is a controversial issue in corporate finance. There are
numerous theories about dividend but this study focuses on some important
theories like the signalling, agency transaction and residual, life cycle and
stability theories and how they affect the corporate dividend policy of Pakistan’s
manufacturing sector firms listed on the Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE) for the
period 2003 to 2012. This study considers market imperfections such as
asymmetric information, agency and transaction costs of issuing external finance
and how these capital market deficiencies affect the dividend policy of
corporations. The panel data estimation technique suggested by Blunder and
Bond (1995) is used to deal with endogeneity. The random effect model is
supported by Hausman Test.
In the first part of the study the Lintner (1956) model is estimated using
three techniques for non-financial firms.. The results show that dividend yield
has a positive relationship with last year’s dividend yield and current year
earnings. It is concluded that manufacturing sector firms consider last year’s
dividend payout as an important factor. Further, earnings are also positively
related with dividend yield which indicates that more profitable firms are able to
pay more dividends without disturbing their financial obligations.
Using the Fama and Babiak (1968) model we find that the variation in the
speed of adjustment ranges from 32 percent to 73 percent, which is very high.
We conclude that non-financial firms follow a smooth dividend policy. This
speed of adjustment is higher than many developing countries. The target payout
ratio is found ranging from 9 percent to 25 percent which is very low as
compared to Lintner (1956). The high speed of adjustment coupled with low
target payout ratio shows the absence of stability in dividend policies of
Pakistani firms.
The evidence for signalling theory approach is established on the
hypothesis that individual investors outside the firm have less information than
the managers about the firm’s prospective circumstances and they have the
rationale to signal that information to the shareholders. This study has examined
the signalling theory by using three important variables: returns, performance
and earnings. The results show that returns are negatively and significantly
related with dividend yield. Two other proxies, returns on assets and market to
book value show that the former is significantly positively related and the latter
positively related with dividend yield but it is not significant in case of Pakistani
firms. Earnings are also significantly positively related with dividend yield. It
shows that dividends signal information by two operating characteristics of
firms, i.e. earnings and performance. Therefore the signalling theory is
supported by these variables in case of Pakistan’s manufacturing sector.
The present study also investigates the agency theory using insider
ownership, free cash flow and collateral capacity to test whether dividends help
28
to reduce agency costs. It is concluded that chances of dividend would be higher

if firm had large concentrated ownership. Free cash flow and collateral capacity
are more useful tools to minimise agency costs. The positive relationship
between collateral capacity and dividend yield shows that firms with more fixed
assets pay more dividends. These results confirm that agency costs are reduced
by paying divided.
This study has used beta, size and growth of the firm to evaluate whether
dividends reduce transaction costs. The results show negative but insignificant
relationship between beta and dividend yield. It is hypothesised that firms with
high operating and financial leverage will choose to pay low dividends. Firm
size and sales growth are more effective instruments to reduce transaction costs.
The results support the transaction cost theory. Firm size is important in
establishing dividend payout ratio of corporations. Large firms face low issuing
cost for external finance because of economies of scale.
In case of life cycle theory it is found that firm maturity doesn’t have any
impact on dividend policy in case of Pakistani non-financial firms. Free cash
flow and return on assets are used to test free cash flow hypothesis and results
support this hypothesis indicating that when firms have more free cash flow
managers choose to pay more dividends.
The conflicting results of the life cycle theory further confirm the
signalling theory which is also relevant in the above analysis.
To sum up, the results indicate that managements of non-financial
firms follow smooth but not stable dividend policy and are reluctant to
change their dividend policy. The Fama and Babiak (1968) model shows the
speed of adjustment ranges from 32 percent–73 percent and the target payout
ratio varies from 9 percent–25 percent. This shows dividends signal outside
investors that the firm is running on profitable lines and generating sufficient
cash flow. This result agrees with earlier findings of Bhattacharya (1979),
Miller and Rock (1985), Healy and Palepu (1988) Michaely, Thaler, and
Womack (1995), Benartzi, Michaely, and Thaler (1997), De Angelo, et al.
(2000), Fukuda (2000), Baker and Powel (2000), Harda and Nguyen (2005),
Raei, Moradi, and Eskandar (2012). That dividends reduce agency cost is
supported by earlier findings of Grossman and Hart (1980), Rozeff (1982),
Easterbrook (1984), and Jensen (1986), Crutchley and Hansen (1989),
Moh’d, Perry, and Rimbey (1995), Holder, Langrehr and Hexter (1998)
Brav, et al. (2003), Harada and Nguyen (2006), Naceur, et al. (2006), Chen
and Dhiensiri (2009), Harjito (2009). The following studies support the view
that dividends help to reduce transaction cost associated with issuance of
external finance: Higgins (1981), Rozzeff (1982), Lloyd, et
al.(1985),Williamson (1988, 1996), Eddy and Seifert (1988), Jensen, et al.
(1992), Redding (1997), Fama and French (2001), Grullon, et al. (2002), and
Aivazian, et al. (2003), Mohammed (2007), Imran Kashif (2011).
29
APPENDIX
Table A: Variables Description

Variables Theories Definitions Expected Sign
EPS Stability theory EPS=Net Income/No of +
outstanding shares
DPS DPS=Total amount of +
dividend/No of outstanding
shares
RETURN Signalling RETURN=(P1–P0)/P0 –
theory
ROA ROA=Net Income/Total +
assets
MB MB=Market price/Book +
value
NI NI=Profit before tax-Tax +
LEVERAGE LEVERAGE=Total –
debt/Total equity
MSO Agency theory MSO=No of shares held by +
managers/No of outstanding
shares
COL COL=Natural logarithm of +
fixed assets
FCF FCF=Free cash flow/Total +
assets
BETA Transaction & BETA=Covariance of stock –
Residual theory return with market
return/Variance of market
return
SG SG=Natural logarithm of +
firm sales
SIZEA SIZEA=Natural logarithm +
of firm total assets
AGE Life cycle AGE=listing date-2012 +
theory
P/E P/E ratio=Market +
Price/Earning per share
MB MB=Market price/Book +
value
30
Table A2: Descriptive Statistics

Mean Maximum Minimum STD Skewness Kurtosis
DY 0.030448 0.27 0 0.044052 2.147406 8.973003
BETA 0.2821 1.669737 –1.3523 0.50276 –0.11948 3.834465
COL 0.7047 2.726619 0 0.388847 0.591241 4.424634
DPS 3.758003 36.00429 0 6.971497 2.649673 9.951565
EPS 10.56279 127.9 –98.4 21.90926 1.553322 9.077722
FCF 0.137015 0.958849 –0.57028 0.182464 0.639857 5.643938
GS 0.084987 1 –1.59202 0.286969 –1.63761 9.66679
LEV 171.8789 1394 –788 207.9705 0.953757 9.719735
MB 1.169835 7.370981 –3.96846 1.322048 0.956238 5.722128
MSO 18.63883 98.24 0 23.20577 1.224346 3.71271
NI 559.1557 7903.100 –3901.70 1390.946 2.337996 11.0367
RETURN 0.047662 2.993789 –3.06347 0.572726 –0.04089 6.087551
ROA 7.597641 68.8 –50.4 15.46688 –0.09964 6.088513
SIZEA 7.778394 12.50957 –1.24419 2.299795 –1.36267 6.189006
SIZEM 3.470216 7.709017 –1.07881 1.597671 –0.45921 2.952505
AGE 29.87540 60 6 13.78619 0.463008 2.145902
P/E 6.767300 113.3333 –102.500 18.87655 0.229085 13.37563
Table A3(a)
Correlation Matrix for Lintner Model, Stability Model
and Signalling Theory
DY NI EPS DPS RETURN ROA MB
DY 1
NI 0.1504 1
EPS 0.2553 0.1818 1
DPS 0.4942 0.2550 0.6271 1
RETURN 0.0772 0.0256 0.1640 0.0986 1
ROA 0.3859 0.2766 0.5706 0.5189 0.2024 1
MB 0.1822 0.1894 0.2431 0.3147 0.2254 0.4185 1
Table 3A(b)
Correlation Matrix for Agency and Transaction Cost Theory
DY LNFIX MSO FCF BETA GS SIZEA LEV
DY 1
LNFIX 0.178 1
MSO –0.021 –0.043 1
FCF 0.3958 0.181 –0.111 1
BETA –0.010 0.077 –0.025 0.040 1
GS 0.114 0.041 –0.008 0.128 –0.009 1
SIZEA 0.216 0.873 –0.090 0.215 0.079 0.066 1
LEV –0.082 0.072 0.083 –0.158 –0.025 0.016 0.094 1
31
REFERENCES
Abor, J. and M. Amidu (2006) Determinants of Dividend Payout Ratio in
Ghana. Journal of Risk Finance 7:2,136–145.
Adaoglu, Chait (2000) Instability in the Dividend Policy of the Instanbul Stock
Exchange Corporations: Evidence from an Emerging Market. Emerging
Market Review 1:3, 252–270.
Adefila, J. J., J. A. Oladipo, and J. O. Adeoti (2004) The Effect of Dividend
Policy on the Market Price of Shares in Nigeria: Case Study of Fifteen
Quoted Companies. International Journal of Accounting 2:1.
Adesola, W. A. and A. E. Okwong (2009) An Empirical Study of Dividend
Policy of Quoted Companies in Nigeria. Global Journal of Social Sciences
8:1, 85–101.
Afza, T. and H. H. Mirza (2010) Ownership Structure and Cash Flows as
Determinants of Corporate. International Business Research 3:3, 210–221.
Ahmed, H. and A. Javid (2009) Dynamics and Determinants of Dividend Policy
in Pakistan (Evidence from Karachi Stock Exchange Non-Financial Firms).
International Journal of Finance and Economics 25, 148–171.
Aivazian , V., L. Booth, and S. Cleary (2003) Do Emerging Market Firms
Follow Different Dividend Policies from U.S. Firms. The Journal of
Financial Research 26, 371–3 87.
Akbar, M. and H. H. Baig (2010) Reaction of Stock Prices to Dividend
Announcements and Market Efficiency in Pakistan. The Lahore Journal of
Economics 15:1, 103–125.
Al-Kuwari, D. (2009) Determinants of the Dividend Policy in Emerging Stock
Exchanges: The Case of GCC Countries. Global Economy and Finance
Journal 2:2, 38–63.
Al-Kuwari, D. (2010) To Pay or Not to Pay: Using Emerging Panel Data to
Identify Factors Influencing Corporate Dividend Payout Decisions.
International Research Journal of Finance and Economics 42, 19–36.
Allen, D. E. and V. S. Rachim (1996) Dividend Policy and Stock Price
Volatility: Australian Evidence. Applied Financial Economics 6:2, 175–188.
Allen, D. E. and V. S. Rachim (1996) Dividend Policy and Stock Price
Volatility: Australian Evidence. Applied Financial Economics6:2, 175–188.
Allen, F. and R. Michaely (2002) Payout Policy. Centre for Financial
Institutions. (Working Papers, 01-21).
Allen, F. and R. Michaely (2003) Payout Policy. In G. M. Constantinides, M.
Harris, and R. M. Stulz (eds.) Handbook of the Economics of Finance.
Amsterdam: Elsevier. 337–429.
Alli, K. L., A. Q. Khan, and G. G. Ramirez (1993) Determinants of Corporate
Dividend Policy: A Factorial Analysis. The Financial Review 28:4, 523–547.
Alli, K., A. Khan, and G. Ramirez (1993) Determinants of Corporate Dividend
Policy: A Factorial Analysis. The Financial Review 28, 523–547.
32
Al-Malkawi, H. N. (2007) Determinant of Corporate Dividend Policy in Jordan.

Journal of Economic and Administrative Since 23, 44–71.
Al-Malkawi, Rafferty, M. and R. Pillai (2010) Dividend Policy: A Review of
Theories and Empirical Evidence. International Bulletin of Business
Administration.
Amidu, Mohammed (2007) How Does Dividend Policy Affect Performance of
the Firm on Ghana Stock Exchange? Investment Management and Financial
Innovations 4:2.
Ang, J. S., D. W. Blackwell, and W. L. Megginson (1991) The Effect of Taxes
on the Relative Valuation of Dividends and Capital Gains: Evidence from
Dual-Class British Investment Trusts. The Journal of Finance 46:1, 383–
399.
Ang, J. S., R. A. Cole, and J. W. Lin (2000) Agency Costs and Ownership
Structure. The Journal of Finance 1, 81–105.
Arellano, M. and S. Bond (1991) Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data:
Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations. Review
of Economic Studies 58, 277–97.
Ariff, M. and L. W Johnson (1994) Securities Markets and Stock Pricing:
Evidence from a Developing Market in Asia, Singapore, Sydney and
London. Journal of Social Science and Humanities 1:2, 171–177.
Asghar, M., S. Z. Shah, K. Hamid, and M. T. Suleman (2011) Impact of
Dividend Policy on Stock Price Risk: Empirical Evidence from Equity
Market of Pakistan. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1795963.
Asquith, P. and D. W. Mullins, Jr. (1986) Signalling with Dividends, Stock
Repurchases, and Equity Issues. The Financial Management, Autumn, 27–
44.
Asquith, Paul and David Mullins (1983) The Impact of Initiating Dividends on
Shareholders’ Wealth. Journal of Finance 56, 77–96.
Ather and Iqbal (n.d.) Dividend Policy and Stock Prices—A Case of KSE-100
Index Companies.
Baker, H. K., E. T. Veit, and G. E. Powell (2001) Factors Influencing Dividend
Policy Decisions of Nasdaq Firms. Finance Review 36:3, 19–37.
Baker, Kent H., Saadi S. Dutta, and D. Gandhi (2007)The Perception of
Dividend by Canadian Managers: New Evidence. International Journal of
Managerial Finance 3.
Baker, Malcolm and Wurgler Jeffrey (2004) A Catering Theory of Dividends.
Journal of Finance 59, 1125–1165.
Bali, R. (2003) An Empirical Analysis of Stock Returns around Dividend
Changes. Applied Economics 35, 51–61.
Barclay, M. J. (1987) Dividends, Taxes, and Common Stock Prices: The Ex-
Dividend Day Behaviour of Common Stock Prices before the Income Tax.
Journal of Financial Economics 19:1, 31–44.
33
Baskin, J. (1989) Dividend Policy and the Volatility of Common Stock. Journal
of Portfolio Management 3:15, 19–25.
Benartzi, S., R. Michaely, and R. Thaler (1997) Do Changes in Dividends Signal
Future or the Past? Journal of Finance 52, 1007–1034.
Bhattacharya, S. (1979) Imperfect Information, Dividend Policy and “the Bird in
the Hand” Fallacy. The Bell Journal of Economics 10:1, 259–270.
Bhattacharyya, N. (2003) Good Managers Work More and Pay Less
Dividends—A Model of Dividend Policy. Available at: http//papers.ssrn.
com/author = 115728.
Bishop, Steven R., R. Crapp Harvey, W. Faff Robert, and J. Twite Garry (2000)
Corporate Finance. Sydney: Prentice Hall Inc.
Black, F. (1976) The Dividend Puzzle. Journal of Portfolio Management 2, 5–
8.
Bradley, M., G. Jarell, and E. H. Kim (1984) On the Existence of an Optimal
Capital Structure: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Finance 39, 857–78.
Brav, A. A., J. Graham, C. Harvey, and R. Michaely(2003) Payout Policy in the
21st Century. Duke University.(Working Paper).
Brealey, R. A. and S. C. Myers (2003). Principles of Corporate Finance. 7th
Edition. New York: McGraw Hill.
Brennan, M. (1971) A Note on Dividend Irrelevance and the Gordon Valuation
Model. The Journal of Finance 26:5, 1115 –1121.
Brigham, E. F. and J. Houston (2004) Fundamentals of Financial Management.
Australia: Thompson South-Western.
Brittain, J. A. (1964) The Tax Structure and Corporate Dividend Policy.
American Economic Review 54:3, 272–287.
Brittain, J. A. (1966) Corporate Dividend Policy. Washington, DC: The
Brookings Institution.
Chen, C. R. and T. L. Steiner (1999) Managerial Ownership and Agency
Conflicts: A Non-linear Simultaneous Equation Analysis of Managerial
Ownership, Risk Taking, Debt Policy, and Dividend Policy. The Financial
Review 34, 119–136.
Chen, D.H., H. H. L. Huang, and T. Cheng (2009) The Announcement Effect of
Cash Dividend Changes on Share Prices: An Empirical Analysis of China.
The Chinese Economy 42:1, 62–85.
Chen, J. and N. Dhiensiri (2009) Determinants of Dividend Policy: The
Evidence from New Zealand. International Research Journal of Finance and
Economics 34, 18–28.
Chernykh, L. (2005) Ultimate Ownership and Corporate Performance in Russia.
Drexel University. (Doctoral Dissertation).
Collins, M. C., A. K. Saxena, and J. W. Wansley (1996) The Role of Insiders
and Dividend Policy: A Comparison of Regulated and Unregulated Firms.
Jorunal of Finance Strategic.
34
Correia da Silva, L., and M. Goergen, and L. Renneboog (2004) Dividend Policy
and Corporate Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
D Suza, J. (1999) Agency Cost, Market Risk, Investment Opportunities and
Dividend Policy. Journal of Manager Financials 25.
DeAngelo, H. and L. DeAngelo (1990) Dividend Policy and Financial Distress:
An Empirical Investigation of Troubled NYSE Firms. The Journal of
Finance 45:5, 1415–1431.
DeAngelo, H., L. DeAngelo, and D. J. Skinner (1996) Reversal of Fortune
Dividend Signalling and the Disappearance of Sustained Earning Growth,
Journal of Financial Economics 40, 341–371.
DeAngelo, H., L. DeAngelo, and D. Skinner (2000) Special Dividends and the
Evolution of Dividend Signalling. Journal of Finance and Economic57, 309–
354.
Demsetz, H. and B. Villalonga (2001) Ownership Structure and Corporate
Performance. Journal of Corporate Finance 7:3, 209–233.
Demsetz, H. and K. Lehn (1985)The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes
and Consequences. Journal of Political Economy 93:6, 1155–1177.
Deshmukh, Sanjay (2005) The Effect of Asymmetric Information on Dividend
Policy. Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics 44:1/2, 107–127.
Dewenter, K. L. and V. A. Warther (1998) Dividends Asymmetric Information
and Agency Conflicts: Evidence from a Comparison of the Dividend Policies
of Japanese and U.S. Firms. Journal of Finance 53, 879–904.
Dorsman, A., K. van Montfort, and I. Vink (1999) An adjusted Lintner model
for the Netherlands, Research Memorandum 1999-2000. vrijeUniversiteit
Amsterdam.
Easterbrook, F. H. (1984) Two Agency-Cost Explanations of Dividends. The
American Economic Review 74:4, 650–659.
Eddy, A. and B. Seifert (1988) Firm Size and Dividend Announcements.
Journal of Financial Research.
Eriotis, N. (2005) The effect of Distributed Earnings and Size of the Firm to its
Dividend Policy: Some Greek Data,” International Business and Research
Journal 4:1, 67–74.
Fama, E. (1974) The Empirical Relationships between Dividend and Investment
Decisions of Firms. American Economic Review, June, 304–314.
Fama, E. and K. French (2001) Disappearing Dividends: Changing Firm
Characteristics or Lower Propensity to Pay. Journal of Finance and
Economic 60, 3–43.
Fama, E. F. and H. Babiak (1968) Dividend Policy: An Empirical Analysis.
Journal of the American Statistical Association 63:324, 1132–1161.
Fama, E. F. and M. C. Jensen (1983a). Separation of Ownership and Control.
Journal of Law and Economics 26, 301–325.
35
Fama, E. F. and M. C. Jensen (1983b) Agency Problems and Residual Claims.

Journal of Law and Economics 26, 327–349.
Fluck, Z. (1998) Optimal Financial Contracting: Debt versus Outside Equity.
The Review of Financial Studies 11, 383–418.
Fukuda, A. (2000) Dividend Changes and Earnings Performance in Japan.
Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 8, 53–66.
Garrett, I. and R. Priestley (2000) Dividend Behaviour and Dividend Signalling.
The Journal of Quantitative and Financial Analysis 35:2, 173–189.
Glen, J. D., Y. Harmiklias, R. Miller, and S. Shah (1995) Dividend Policy and
Behaviour in Emerging Markets. International Finance Corporation.
(Discussion Paper No. 26).
Goergen, M., L. Renneboog, and L. Correia da Silva (2005) When do German
Firms Change Their Dividends? Journal of Corporate Finance 11, 375–99.
Gordon, M. (1962) The Savings, Investment and Valuation of a Corporation.
Review of Economics and Statistics 44, 37–51.
Gordon, M. J. (1959) Dividends, Earnings and Stock Prices. The Review of
Economics and Statistics 41:2, 99–105.
Gordon, M. J. (1963) Optimal Investment and Financing Policy. The Journal of
Finance 18:2, 264–272.
Gordon, M. J. and E. Shapiro (1956) Capital Equipment Analysis: The Required
Rate of Profit. Management Science 3:1, 102–110.
Graham, B. (2003)The Intelligent Investor. Harper Business Essentials. Version
updated by Jason Zweig.
Grullon, G. and R. Michaely (2002) Dividends, Share Repurchase and the
Substitution Hypothesis. Journal of Finance 57:4, 1649–1684.
Grullon, G., M. Roni, and B. Sawaminathan (2002) Are Dividend Changes a
Sign of Firms Maturity. The Journal of Business 75:3, 387–424.
Grullon, G., R. Michaely, and Swaminathan (2002) Are Dividend Changes a
Sign of Firm Maturity? Journal of Business 75:3, 387–424.
Grullon, Gustavo, Roni Michaely, and Bhaskaran Swaminathan (2002) Are
Dividend Changes a Sign of Firm Maturity? Journal of Business.
Gupta, G. S. and K.S Lok (1995) Dividend Behaviour in Malaysia. Capital
Market Review, 73–83.
Hakansson, N. H. (1982) To Pay or Not to Pay Dividend. The Journal of
Finance 37:2, 415–428.
Harada, K. and P. Nguyen (2005) Dividend Change Context and Signalling
Efficiency in Japan. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 13, 504–522.
Harada, K. and P. Nguyen (2006) Ownership Concentration, Agency Conflicts,
and Dividend Policy in Japan. Journal of Finance 55, 1–33.
Harjito, D. A. (2009)The Influences of Agency Factors and Transaction Costs
Factors to Dividend Payout Ratio. Paper presented to the 11th Malaysian
Financial Association Conference, Malaysia, 3-5 June.
36
Healy, Paul and Krishna Palepu (1988) Earnings Information Conveyed by

Dividend Initiations and Omissions. Journal of Financial Economics 21:2,
149–176.
Hermalin, B. E., and M. S. Weisbach (1991)The Effects of Board Composition
and Direct Incentives on Firm Performance. Financial Management 20,101–
112.
Higgins, R. C. (1981) Sustainable Growth under Inflation. Financial
Management 10, 36–40.
Higgins, R. C. (1981) The Corporate Dividend-saving Decision. Journal of
Finance Quant Anal.
Holder, E. M., W. F. Langrehr, and L. J. Hexter (1998) Dividend Policy
Determinants: An Investigations of Influence of Stakeholder Theory.
Financial Management 27:3, 73–82.
Hsiao, C. (1986) Analysis of Panel Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Jeffrey, C. Hobbs (2006) Dividend Signalling and Sustainability.
Jensen, M. C. (1986) Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance and
Takeovers. The American Economic Review 76:2, 323–329.
Jensen, M. C. (1986) Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance and
Takeovers. American Economic Review 76, 323–329.
Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling (1976) Theory of the Firm: Managerial
Behaviour, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial
John, K. and J. Williams (1985) Dividends, Dilution, and Taxes: A Signalling
Equilibrium. The Journal of Finance 40, 1053–1070.
Kalay, A. (1982) Stockholder-Bondholder Conflict and Dividend Constraints.
Kalay, A. (1984) The Ex-Dividend Day Behaviour of Stock Prices: A Re-
Examination of the Clientele Effect. The Journal of Finance 37:4, 1059–
1070.
Kanwal, A. and K. Sujata (2008) Determinants of Dividend Payout Ratio—A
Study of Indian Information Technology Sector. International Research
Journal of Finance and Economics.
Kapoor, S. and K. Anil (2008) Determinants of Dividend Payout Ratio—A
Study of Indian Information Technology Sector. Available at
http//eurojournals.com/finance.htm
Kashif, Imran (2011) Determinants of Dividend Payout Policy: A Case of
Pakistan Engineering Sector. The Romanian Economic Journal.
Kester, George W. and Isa Mansor (1996) Dividend Policy in Malaysia: A
Comparative Analysis. Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies 33:1, 33–48.
Khan, T. (2006) Company Dividends and Ownership Structure: Evidence from
UK Panel Data. The Economic Journal 116, 172–189.
37
Kim, B. and G. Maddala (1992) Estimation and Specification Analysis of

Models of Dividend Behaviour Based on Censored Panel Data. Empirical
Kim, Y. J. and M. Ettredge (1992) Lifo Adoption and Dividend Payouts.
Journal of Managerial and Decision Economics 13, 475–484.
Kola, J. (2007) The Influence of the Dividend Policy on the Market Share Price
Volatility: Study Based on the Evidence from the Polish Stock Exchange
Market. Aarhus School of Business.
Kouki, M. and M. Guizani (2009) Ownership Structure and Dividend Policy
Evidence from the Tunisian Stock Market. European Journal of Scientific
Research 25, 42–53.
Kowaleski, O., I. Stetsyuk, and O. Talavera (2007) Corporate Governance and
Dividend Policy in Poland. Wharton Financial Institutions Centre. (Working
Paper No. 07-09).
La Porta, R., F. Lopez de Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny (2000) Agency
Problems and Dividend Policies Around the World. Journal of Finance 55,
1–33.
Lang, Larry H. P. and Robert H. Litzenberger (1989) Dividend Announcements:
Cash Flow Signalling vs. Free Cash Flow Hypothesis. Journal of Financial
Economics.
Lettaua, M. and S. Ludvigson (2005) Expected Returns and Expected Dividend
Growth. Journal of Finance and Economic76, 583–626.
Lie, E. (2005) Operating Performance Following Dividend Decrease and
Omissions. Journal of Corporate Finance12, 27–53.
Lintner, J. (1962) Dividends, Earnings, Leverage, Stock Prices, and the Supply
of Capital to Corporations. The Review of Economics and Statistics 44, 243–
469.
Litzenberger, R. H. and K. Ramaswamy (1979) The Effect of Personal Taxes
and Dividends on Capital Asset Prices: Theory and Empirical Evidence.
Journal of Financial Economics 7:2, 163–195.
Liu, S. and Y. Hu (2005) Empirical Analysis of Cash Dividend Payment in
Chinese Listed Companies. Nature and Science 1:3, 65–70.
Lloyd, W. P., S. J. Jahera, and D. E. Page (1985) Agency Cost and Dividend
Payout Ratios. Quarterly Journal of Business Economics 24:3, 19–29.
Mancinelli, L. and A. Ozkan (2006) Ownership Structure and Dividend Policy:
Evidence from Italian Firms. The European Journal of Finance 12, 262–
282.
Manos, R. (2001) Capital Structure and Dividend Policy: Evidence from
Emerging Markets. University of Birmingham. (Unpublished PhD Thesis).
38
Manos, Ronny (2002) Dividend Policy and Agency Theory: Evidence on Indian
Firms. Finance and Development Research Programme Working Paper
Series. (Paper No. 41).
McConnell, J. and H. Servaes (1990) Additional Evidence on Equity Ownership
and Corporate Value. Journal of Financial Economics 27:2, 595–612.
Mehar, A. (2005) Corporate Governance and Dividend Policy. Pakistan
Economic and Social Review XLIII:1, 115–128.
Michaely, Roni, Richard Thaler, and Kent Womack (1995) Price Reactions to
Dividend Initiations and Omissions: Overreaction or Drift? Journal of
Finance 50:2, 573–608.
Miller, M. H. and F. Modigliani (1961) Dividend Policy, Growth and the
Valuation of Shares. The Journal of Business 34:4, 411–433.
Miller, M. H. and K. Rock (1985) Dividend Policy under Asymmetric
Information. The Journal of Finance 40:4, 1031–1051.
Miller, M. H. and K. Rock 1985 Dividend Policy Under Asymmetric
Information. The Journal of Finance 40, 1031–1051.
Modigliani, F. and M. H. Miller (1958)The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance
and the Theory of Investment. The American Economic Review 48:3, 261–297.
Modigliani, F. and M. H. Miller (1959)The Cost of Capital, Corporation
Finance, and the Theory of Investment: Reply. The American Economic
Review 49:4, 655–669.
Modigliani, F. and M. H. Miller (1961) Dividend Policy, Growth, and the
Valuation of Shares. The Journal of Business 34:4, 411–433.
Modigliani, F. and M. H. Miller (1963) Dividend Policy and Market Valuation:
A Reply. The Journal of Business 36:1, 116–119.
Moh’d, M. A., L. G. Perry, and J. N. Rimbey (1995) An Investigation of the
Dynamic Relationship Between Agency Theory and Dividend Policy. The
Financial Review 30:2, 367–385.
Mollah, A. S., K. Keasey, and H. Short (2000) The Influence of Agency Costs
and Dividend Policy in Emerging Market: Evidence from the Dhaka Stock
Exchange. Retrieved November 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
www.bath.ac.uk/Centres/CDS/enbs-papers-pdfs/mollahnew.pdf
Mollah, A. S., R. B. Rafiq, and P. A. Sharp (2007) Relevance of Agency Theory
for Dividend Policy in An Emerging Economy: The Case of Bangladesh. The
IFCAI Journal of Applied Finance 13, 5–15.
Mollah, S., K. Keasey, and H. Short (2002) The Influence of Agency Costs on
Dividend Policy in an Emerging Market: Evidence from the Dhaka Stock
Exchange. (Working Paper). www.bath.ac.uk.
Morck, R., A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny (1988) Management Ownership and
Market Valuation: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Financial Economics
20, 293–315.
39
Myers, S. C. (1984) The Capital Structure Puzzle. Journal of Finance 39:3,

575–592.
Myers, S. C. and N. S. Majluf (1984) Corporate Financing and Investment
Decisions When Firms Have Information that Investors Do Not Have.
Nacelur, B. S., and Beelines Goad’s (2007) On the Determinants and Dynamics
of Dividend Policy. Journal of International Review of Finance.
Naeem, S. and M. Nasr (2007) Dividend Policy of Pakistani Firms: Trends and
Determinants. International Review of Business Research Papers 3:3, 242–
254.
Nazir, M. S., M. M. Nawaz, W. Anwar, and F. Ahmed (2010) Determinants of
Stock Price Volatility in Karachi Stock Exchange: The Mediating Role of
Corporate Dividend Policy. International Research Journal of Finance and
Nishat, M. and C. M. Irfan (2003) Dividend Policy and Stock Price Volatility in
Pakistan.11th Pacific Basin Finance, Economics and Accounting
Conference.
Nissim, D. and A. Ziv (2001) Dividend Changes and Future Profitability.
Journal of Finance 56, 2111–2133.
Pandey, I.M. and R. Bhat(2007) Dividend Behaviour of Indian Companies
Under Monetary Policy Restrictions. Journal of Managerial Finance 33:3,
14–25.
Pani, U. (2008). Dividend Policy and Stock Price Behaviour in Indian
Corporate Sector: A Panel Data Approach. Retrieved from Indian Institute
of Technology: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1216171
Park, C. H. (2010) When Does the Dividend–price Ratio Predict Stock Returns?
Journal of Empirical Finance17,81–101.
Paxson, D. and D. Wood (1998)The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Finance.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Pettit, R. R. (1977) Taxes, Transactions Costs and the Clientele Effect of
Dividends.Journal of Financial Economics 5:3, 419–436.
Poterba, J. M. and L. H. Summers (1984) New Evidence that Taxes Affect the
Valuation of Dividends. Journal of Finance 39:5, 1397–1415.
Redding, L. (1997) Firm Size and Dividend Payouts. Journal of Financial
Intermediation 6:3, 224–248.
Reddy, Y. S. (2002) Dividend Policy of Indian Corporate Firms: An Analysis of
Trends and Determinants.(Working Paper Series) Available at:
http/ssrn.com.
Robinson, C. Justin (2005) International Perspective on Corporate Finance: The
Lintner Model and Dividend Policy among Publicly Listed Firms in
Barbados. Savings and Development 29:2, 155–168.
40
Rozeff, M. S. (1982) Growth, Beta and Agency Costs as Determinants of

Dividend Payout Ratios. The Journal of Financial Research 5:3, 249–259.
Sawicki, J. (2005) An Investigation into the Dividend of Firms in East Asia.
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. (Working Paper).
Schiller, R. J. (1984) Stock Prices and Social Dynamics. Brookings Papers on
Economic Activity, 457–510.
Scholz, J. K. (1992) A Direct Examination of the Dividend Clientele
Hypothesis. Journal of Public Economics 49:3, 261–285.
Sharif, S. J., M. Salehi, and H. Bahadori (2010) Ownership Structure of Iranian
Evidence and Payout Ratio. Asian Social Science 6:7, 36–42.
Shefrin, H. M. and M. Statman (1984) Explaining Investors Preference for Cash
Dividends. Journal of Financial Economics 13, 253–282.
Shleifer, Andrei and Robert Vishny (1986) Large Shareholders and Corporate
Control. Journal of Political Economy94:3, 461–488.
Simon, S. P. Lee (2009) Dividend Policy (Relevant to Paper II-PBE
Management Account and Finance). The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Smith, C.W. Jr. (1977) Alternative Methods for Raising Capital: Rights versus
Underwritten Offerings. Journal of Financial Economics 5, 273–307.
Thaler, R. H. and H. M. Shefrin (1981) An Economic Theory of Self-control.
Journal of Political Economy 89, 392–406.
Twaijry, A. A. (2007) Dividend Policy and Payout Ratio—Evidence from
Kulalmpur Stock Exchange. The Journal of Risk Finance 8:4, 349–363.
Watts, Ross (1973) The Information Content of Dividends. Journal of Business
46:2, 191–211.
Williamson, O. (1988) Corporate Finance and Corporate Governance. Journal of
Finance 43:3, 567–591.
Williamson, O. (1996). The Mechanisms of Governance. Oxford; New York:
Oxford University Press.

WorkingPaper 99

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WorkingPaper 99

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WorkingPaper 99

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PIDE WORKING PAPERS

Market Imperfections and Dividend

PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

Market Imperfections and Dividend

Attiya Yasmin Javid

PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

© Pakistan Institute of Development

Pakistan Institute of Development Economics

Designed, composed, and finished at the Publications Division, PIDE.

Table 1. Results of Lintner Model 17

2.1.1. Miller and Modigliani’s Dividend Irrelevance Theory

2.1.2. Gordon and Lintner Theory

where dividends grow at a constant rate in perpetuity, P0 is stock value, D1 is the

2.1.3. Tax Preference Theory

2.1.4. Agency Cost Theory

2.1.5. Behaviour Theory

2.1.6. Free Cash Flow Theory

2.1.7. Signalling Theory

2.1.8. Dividend Stability Theory

could send a wrong signal to the investors. They might construe it as an

2.1.9. Life Cycle Theory of Dividends

2.2. Review of Empirical Literature

2.2.1. Empirical Evidence on Lintner Model

2.2.2. Empirical Evidence on Agency Theory

2.2.3. Empirical Evidence on Transaction cost and Residual Theory

2.2.4. Empirical Evidence on Signalling Theory

2.2.5. Empirical Evidence on Life Cycle Theory of Dividends

3. METHODOLOGY AND DATA

3.1. Model Specification

3.1.1. Lintner Partial Adjustment Model

D*it = α i Εit … … … … … … (1)

The Lintner model provides three important conclusions: (1) Stable

3.1.2. Lintner Model and Dividend Stability Theory

3.1.3. Signalling Theory

3.1.4. Agency Cost Theory

3.1.5. Transaction and Residual Cost Theory

3.1.6. Life Cycle Theory of Dividends

3.2. Econometric Modelling

3.3. Data and Sample Selection

4.1. Summary Statistics of Data

4.2. Empirical Results of Regression Analysis

4.2.1. Lintner Model

4.2.2. Fama and Babiak Version for Testing Dividend Stability

Empirical studies provide different speed of adjustment and the target

4.2.3. Results of Signalling Theory

Empirical research about relationship between leverage and dividend policy is

4. 2.4. Results of Agency Cost Theory

4.2.5. Results of Transaction Cost and Residual Theory

significantly related with dividend yield. Increase in sales of firm’s products

EPS 0.01*(2.99) 0.019*(2.73) 0.015*(3.06)

4.2.6. Results of Life Cycle Theory of Dividends

4.3. Industrial Effect

to reduce agency costs. It is concluded that chances of dividend would be higher

Table A: Variables Description

Table A2: Descriptive Statistics

Al-Malkawi, H. N. (2007) Determinant of Corporate Dividend Policy in Jordan.

Fama, E. F. and M. C. Jensen (1983b) Agency Problems and Residual Claims.

Healy, Paul and Krishna Palepu (1988) Earnings Information Conveyed by

EPS 0.01(2.99) 0.019(2.73) 0.015*(3.06)