Market response to dividend change announcements: unregulated versus regulated US firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper attempts to determine whether there is a significant difference in how the stock market responds to dividend change announcements of regulated (both utilities and financials) versus unregulated firms and, if so, which factors cause this difference. An analysis of dividend change announcements of US firms over the period 1962–2016 shows that the market response is larger for unregulated than for regulated firms, but this difference is statistically significant only for dividend increases (not for dividend decreases). Further, cross‐sectional analysis indicates that, for dividend increases, the difference between regulated and unregulated firms increases with diffused ownership and informational asymmetry. When both these factors are controlled for, the difference between regulated and unregulated firms becomes statistically insignificant. Thus, the evidence suggests that the significant difference in market response to dividend increases of regulated versus unregulated firms can be explained by differences in diffused ownership and informational asymmetry. There seems to be no intrinsic difference between regulated and unregulated firms in the market response to dividend decreases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".