Exploring the effects of family control on dividend policy—Evidence from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examines if publicly listed family‐controlled corporations (hereafter called FCCs) have more differential effects on cash dividend policy (in both willingness to pay and amounts paid) than non‐FCCs. While the literature provides mixed conclusions, this study focuses on the theoretical underpinning that FCCs’ unique behavior model with objective to preserve their socio‐emotional wealth (SEW) tend to protect their highly undiversified invested capital, operate conservatively and conserve corporate wealth for future generations. As a result, FCCs, especially those with large size and large accumulated profits, would pursue type II expropriative agency motive by lowering cash dividend payout. Nevertheless, when FCCs operate for long years, their transgenerational sustainability intentions and reputational concerns stemmed from the SEW will induce FCCs to endeavor non‐financial goals. This study further finds evidence that FCCs with longer years, and accumulated large retained earnings and size are willing to align with minority shareholders’ interests by being more willing to pay more cash dividends. However, comparing to their non‐FCC counterparts, the heterogeneous variable of FCCs age interacts with retained earnings and size to cause larger positive effects in willingness to pay more cash dividends; and cash dividend payouts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".