Elective Stock Dividends and REITs: Evidence from the Financial Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the recent financial crisis, the U.S. Government introduced new rules which allow Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) to issue elective stock dividends (ESDs), i.e., noncash dividends, to satisfy their distribution requirements. The purported goal of these rules was to provide temporary relief to REITs facing cash flow problems. We investigate how the introduction of these rules affects dividend policy of REITs. Surprisingly, we document that only 17 REITs chose to issue elective stock dividends. We examine the characteristics of these REITs and find that their cash flows are similar to REITs that do not select these dividends. This suggests that cash flow problems are unlikely to be the primary determinant of the ESD issuance decision. Instead, our findings indicate the decision to pay ESDs is related to the level of loans that are close to maturity, REIT size, growth prospects and poor performance during the financial crisis. Furthermore, we find that the same factors determine the ratio, amount and frequency of stock dividends issued by these REITs. We also examine the response of shareholders to ESDs announcements and find positive abnormal returns surrounding these dividend announcements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".