MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529125587 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v7n5p77

Does Dividend Policy Affect Firm Earnings? Empirical Evidence from Nigeria

2016· article· en· W2529125587 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ifuero Osad Osamwonyi, Iyobosa Lola-Ebueku

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDividend payout ratioDividend policyDividendPanel dataLeverage (statistics)Dividend yieldStock exchangeEarningsMonetary economicsBusinessEarnings per shareEconomicsEconometricsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the effect of dividend policy on firm’s returns using data of seventeen (17) manufacturing firms listed on the Nigerian stock Exchange. Employing descriptive statistics, correlation analysis and panel regression technique, where the fixed effect regression was adopted, the findings reveal that current dividend payout, growth opportunity of firms and dividend per share have positive and significant effect on earnings per share, with that of growth having an overwhelming influence. Current dividend payout and dividend per share are both significant at the 5percent level. One lagged dividend payout (previous dividend payout), cash flow and leverage have positive but not significant influence on EPS, while the impact of size is negative and not significant. The study recommends the implementation of effective and result-oriented dividend policies by financial managers of firms as well as sound investment, effective regulatory and supervisory framework by capital market regulators in order to enhance firms’ earnings and performance in Nigeria.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207