Do Investors Value Dividend-Smoothing Stocks Differently?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is widely documented that managers strive to maintain smooth dividends. Yet, it is not clear if this behavior reflects investors’ preferences. In this paper, we study whether investors indeed value dividend-smoothing stocks differently by exploring the implications of dividend smoothing for firms’ investor clientele, stock prices, and cost of capital. We find that retail investors are less likely to hold dividend-smoothing stocks, while institutional investors, and especially mutual funds, are more likely. However, this preference does not result in any detectable relation between the smoothness of a firm’s dividends and the expected return, or market value, of its stock. Together, the evidence suggests that firms adjust the supply of smoothed dividends to match investors’ demand. Dividend smoothing affects the composition of a firm’s shareholders but has little impact on its stock price. This paper was accepted by Amit Seru, finance.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it