Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Bird-in-Hand-Dividends Policy in the Stability of Jordanian Listed Banks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper is empirically scrutinized the long and short-run causalities, which are running from the bird-in-hand dividends policy towards investors' preferences as proxied by banks’ stability. Through analyzing a quarterly data set covering the period Q1/1996-Q4/2018; results from the ADF test proved that the series variables became stationary only after including the first difference. However, although the Johansen test showed long-run integrations among variables; findings from the single equation of the error correction model asserted that there are no long-run causalities running from dividends’ policy towards investors’ preferences as captured by the Z-Score index “ZSI”, bankometer model or market capitalization. By contrast, results from the Waldtest proved that except for earnings per share and retained ratio; the solvency of banks is found to be significantly responding to the change in dividends payout ratio. However, since there are short-run correlations among dividends’ stability, investors’ preferences and banking stability, the study concluded that the ZSI is significantly related to investors’ attitudes towards banks' decisions regarding dividends’ payments.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".