M & M's Dividend Policy Theory

The dividend policy has grown over the years. This may be so that the company projects itself as a less risky share and thus also gaining investors faith. The investors buy its shares and thus increase its demand. This helps to gives positive signals to the investors signalling that the company is stable and can generate earnings steadily. This hypothesis is gains standing from the dividend hypothesis theory.

When a company decides to pay dividends, it has to be careful on how much it will be given to the shareholders. It is of no use to pay shareholders dividends

George C. Philippatos and William W. Sihler, 'Models of Dividend Policy', Financial Management (Allyn and Bacon), 228-229

The capital structure of a company changes the risks exposure highlighting the need to determine the impact of debt levels on financial risk (Pearson Learning, 2014). The dividend payout is the ratio of dividends per share to the earnings per share, and both ratios increased for the three years. The increase in the DPS rose at a decreasing rate resulting in slower growth in the dividend payout. The dividend per share is dependent on the total number of dividends paid out in an interim year, and the increase in the DPS was in line with the management’s efforts to reward the investors as the earnings improved. The dividend yield representing the dividend paid out relative to the share price, and the lower divided yield in December 2014 can be attributed to the higher share price hovering over $40, which was more than double the share price in the previous

Since the emergence of the so-called irrelevance theorem by Miller and Modigliani (1961), many corporations are puzzled about why some firms pay dividends while others do not. They were the first to study the effect of dividend policy on the market value of firms by assuming that there are no market imperfections. Miller and Modigliani (1961) proposed that divided policy chosen by a firm has no significant relationship in as far as the market valuation of the firm is concerned. They went further to explain that; the shareholders wealth remains unchanged irrespective of how the firm distributes it income because the firms’ value is rather determined by their investment policies and the earning power of its assets. They further stated that the opportunity to earn abnormal returns in the market does not exist, that is, owners are entitled to the normal market returns adjusted for risk.

Baker et al. (2012) investigate factors that lead to the decision not pay cash dividends from Canadian mangers' perspective. The evidence shows that growth expansion opportunity, low profitability and cash constraints as the major causes underlying firms' decision not pay dividends. Also the results suggest taxations is at best second order as determinants of dividends.

In practice, dividend policy will be affected by taxes as tax rates for different categories of investors will differ. Also, a firm’s dividend policy is perceived by the financial markets to be a signaling mechanism. A cut back in dividends may signify that the firm perceives tough

Some of the results that empirical studies of the dividend theories have produced are that all factors other than distribution level should be held constant, that is the sample companies should differ only in their distribution levels. Second each firms cost of equity should be measured with a high degree of accuracy. Unfortunately we cannot find a set of publicly owned firms that differ only in their distribution levels nor can they obtain their cost of equity. That’s why nobody has been able to identify a relationship between the distribution level and the cost of equity or firm value. Although none of the empirical test are perfect, recent evidence shows that firms with higher dividend payouts also have a higher required returns. This tends to support the tax effect hypothesis, even though the size of the required return is too high to be explained by taxes. All of this can affect what you tell a manager because they make the decision to expropriate shareholders wealth and

The fact that shareholders are taxed twice through this repayment methodology infers that dividends are not their repayment technique of choice. Furthermore, paying out cash reserves through dividends also has the effect of both reducing the company’s assets and also inhibited the company’s ability to fund future growth as Dividends reduce the company’s retained earnings.

Dividends are subjected to higher tax rate compare to capital gain increased due to share buy-back. This discourages shareholders from desire to receive high dividends in place of higher capital gain as share values increase. A comparison is made below between the proposed capital structure and dividend policy.

TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION3PERFORMANCE OF AVON'S STOCK FROM 1978-19883EVALUATION OF AVON' S FINANCIAL CONDITION IN MID-19885PURPOSE OF THE EXCHANGE OFFER6EVALUATION OF THE TRADE-OFF7REFERENCES10INTRODUCTIONA firm's decisions about dividends are often mixed up with other financing and investment decisions. Some firms pay low dividends because management is optimistic about the firm's future and wishes to retain earnings for expansion. Other firms might finance capital expenditures largely by borrowing. All the above are examples of dividend policies which can be defined more precisely as the trade-off between retaining earnings on the one hand and paying out cash and issuing new shares on the other. In order to understand the dividend

A dividend is a usually distributed in cash form to stock holders of a corporation approved by the board of director. It may also include stock dividend or other forms of payment. A stock dividend represents a distribution of additional shares to common stockholders. Dividends are only cash payments regularly made by corporations to their stockholders.

While conducting the analysis of EMI group’s dividend policy, one factor that stood out to us was the clientele effect. The clientele effect shows us who holds most of our outstanding shares. High tax-bracket individuals would prefer zero-to-low dividend payout to save on taxes. Low tax-bracket individuals would prefer a low-to-medium dividend payout, which gives them additional income while helping them save on taxes. An investing corporation would prefer a higher dividend payout because if they own a significant amount of shares, say 1 million, the income stream from that dividend would provide the company with more monetary resources while benefitting from tax exemptions. So before setting a dividend policy for EMI group, we must first

Kumar (1988) builds a model that explains dividend smoothing - one of the most salient features of dividend policy. Dividends once again signal a firm’s quality (productivity), but, since they are over invested in the firm, managers will try to under invest by underreporting a firms productivity. While there is no fully revealing equilibrium, Kumar shows that firms will tend to cluster around optimal dividend levels. Agency theory suggests that dividends can be used as a means to control a firm’s management. Distributing dividends reduces the free cash

The first objection is related to the fact that this is a totally new approach concerning dividend policy, and nobody can predict what is going to happen. We consider that this may have positive effects on share prices, especially taking in consideration that it will stabilise the market price of the company.