MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997054197 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2019.12.006

Dividend policy and share price volatility: empirical evidence from Vietnam

2020· article· en· W2997054197 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thanh Hieu Nguyen, Huu Anh Nguyen, Quang Chung Tran, Quynh Lien Le

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDividend policyVolatility (finance)EconomicsDividendFinancial economicsMonetary economicsEmpirical evidenceShare priceBusinessFinanceStock exchange

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper was conducted to examine the relationship between dividend policy and share price volatility of companies listed on Hochiminh Stock Exchange (HOSE) in Vietnam. Data set used in this research was compiled from financial statements of 260 listed firms on HOSE from 2009 to 2018. Three statistical approaches employed to address econometrics issues as well as to improve the accuracy of the regression coefficients like fixed effects model (FEM), random effects model (REM) and general method of movement (GMM). Based on the results from GMM, the association between share price volatility and dividend yield, dividend payout ratio has been explored. The findings show a positive relationship between dividend yield and stock price volatilities and a negative relationship between dividend payout ratio and stock price volatility. In addition, it is found that a firm's growth rate, leverage and earnings volatility had positive influences on share price volatility while firm's size had negative effect on share price volatility.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccountingSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207