The Paradox of Managerial Dividend Policy in Corporate Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prime objective of this paper is to survey the managers of Bursa Malaysia listed non-financial firms and to divulge their views regarding the significance of various potential factors that may affect dividend decisions. In addition to that, we are also interested in highlighting that how managerial perception about the importance of these factors varies from country to country. Our next objective is to know the level of importance, Malaysian managers give to dividend processes and pattern, firm value. Dividend policy (DP) and residual dividend policy (RDP). Finally, we are interested in measuring the level of support that Malaysian managers provide for different justifications for the payment of dividends. Survey instrument including a cover letter was mailed to chief finance officers (CFO) and finance managers of 493 Bursa Malaysia listed firms in October 2017. In the cover letter, a request was made to all respondents that in case of their non-involvement in dividend decision the letter must be forwarded to concerned authority involved in dividend decisions. The response rate of the current study is 40.09 percent (202 out of 493 firms). The study has used a mail survey of Bursa Malaysia listed non-financial firms that have paid at least one cash dividend during the period of 2013-2016 as a primary means of collecting data. No single pattern in rankings of factors among different countries has emerged. However, like their American, Canadian and Indonesian counterparts, According to Malaysian managers, dividend decisions have a significant effect on firm value. Although, a great deal of support has already been established with all dividend theories, however clientele and agency theory has proven to be the strongest one. In author’s knowledge, this is the first study designed to explore the views of Malaysian managers on DP in Malaysia.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".