MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1874472657 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v8n11p68

The Impact of Dividend Payment on Market’s Expectation after the Global Crisis

2015· article· en· W1874472657 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thanh Thai Nguyen, Tristan Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and Valuation Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDividendDividend policyFinancial economicsEconomicsOrder (exchange)Valuation (finance)Financial crisisContext (archaeology)EarningsInvestment decisionsBusinessMonetary economicsFinanceBehavioral economicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This paper examines if there is any change in investors’ behavior toward dividend payout policy of the US corporations after the breakout of the global financial crisis in 2007-2008. In order to do so, dividend signaling theory is adopted as the main theme where we build econometrical models describing the influence of dividend payment on market’s expectation. Unlike most of the previous studies which use either price-dividend or dividend-earnings type tests to provide empirical evidence for the signaling theory, this paper attempts to perform a new type of test called present value of growth options (PVGO)-dividend type test. It is inspired by the recent development of real options as an investment valuation tool. This paper is in our opinion the very first to examine the implications of the signalling models in the context of the relation between dividend and PVGO using real options technique. Our result shows that in the market flooded with information like the US financial market, dividend no longer plays a significant role in delivering additional valuable information to investors. This outcome is highly inconsistent with dividend signaling theory. </p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicFinancial Reporting and Valuation ResearchFrench-language works237,207