MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772468623 · doi:10.12735/jbm.v6n1p1

Dividend Policy and the Sensitivity of Firm Value to Dividend Announcements and Investment

2017· article· en· W2772468623 on OpenAlex
Kyung Suh Park, KyungJae Rhee

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business & Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDividend policyDividendSensitivity (control systems)Monetary economicsValue (mathematics)Dividend payout ratioInvestment (military)Enterprise valueEconomicsBusinessFinancial systemFinancial economicsFinanceMathematicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate how investors react differently to dividend announcement depending on the level of dividend management, and find that the stock market reacts more favorably to dividend announcements by dividend managing firms than to those of non-dividend managing firms. In addition, it takes announcements of dividend reductions by non-dividend managing firms as good news, supporting our hypothesis that decreasing dividends by non-dividend managing firms are a signal of good investment opportunities, while this is not the case for dividend managing firms. We also confirm that the dividend announcement returns of non-dividend managing firms are significantly and positively related to their annual investment levels, while it is not the case for dividend managing firms.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.223 · 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