Canadian corporate payout policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine cash dividends and stock repurchases in Canada from 1988 to 2006 and their relationship with earnings. Design/methodology/approach The study uses logistic regressions to examine the likelihood of paying dividends and the timing of repurchases and OLS regressions to examine the level of payout. Findings The fraction of dividend‐paying firms declines from 1988 to 2001 and then slightly rebounds until the end of the sample period in 2006. Firm size, profitability, investment opportunities, and catering incentives explain the likelihood of paying dividends. Unlike US firms, Canadian repurchase‐only firms do not become important payers in terms of either the percentage of firms or the level of payout. Dividend‐only firms pay out significant amounts of cash. Firms with both regular dividends and regular repurchases pay out the largest amount. The payout of different groups of payers is determined by their earnings. Testing firms with both regular dividends and regular repurchases reveals that earnings, undervaluation, and availability of cash explains the timing of repurchases but earnings mainly explains the level of repurchases. Research limitations/implications Canadian data are unavailable after 2006, which precludes investigating the potential implications of the financial crisis beginning in 2007. Originality/value This is the first paper to analyze the evolution of the relationship between payout and earnings in Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".