Comparing Dividend Puzzle Solutions by Polish, Canadian, Norwegian and American Executives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares firms’ dividend policy antecedents in four countries. The author surveys managers of 230 companies listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange that paid dividends over the 2001-12 period and compares the findings to survey reports from the USA, Canada, and Norway. The main antecedents of dividend policy in these countries are the level of current earnings, their stability over time, the level of expected earnings and the pattern of past dividends. The last factor is of little importance for Polish managers, as the history of dividend payouts in Polish-listed companies is brief. The establishment of factors that shape the dividend policy in public companies has crucial importance in global financial markets. Investors make cash transfers to markets that ensure a high return on invested capital. Orders from foreign investors generate almost 50% of the turnover on the Warsaw Stock Exchange. Therefore, in their decisions on the division of earnings, Polish companies should be guided by similar considerations as those displayed by companies in developed economies that seek to attract foreign investors. The study expands on the existing survey research on dividends and provides new evidence from managers of companies in Poland.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".