The Disadvantages And Disadvantages And Basics Of Dividend Policy

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

Dividends should be made cumulative and issuable upon a liquidation event or an IPO. Such dividends may be converted, if the holder desires, to common shares. This will encourage management to seek a quicker exit.

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.

Dividend Policy | -Pay out dividend to shareholders in profitable period | -100% plowback to reinvest in the business |

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

We believe that Ms Stark should not revise her recommendation regarding FPL. The HOLD recommendation seems to be the most appropriate. Our judgement assumes a dividend cut from FPL. However, this dividend cut would be a precise strategic choice rather than one dictated by financing difficulties. Specifically, the dividend cut will raise future growth, with little effect on the stock price.

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.

If no dividend are paid, the company does not need financing required for the dividends. Hence the company’s financing needs

In general the three-stage approach allows us to add complexity to the standard dividend discount models by enabling changing growth scenarios throughout the forecasting period: an initial period of higher than normal growth, a transition/consolidation period of declining growth and final a period of stable growth. The main assumptions are that the company on which we conduct the calculation study currently is in extraordinary strong growth phase. The time period with the extraordinary strong growth must be strictly defined and eventually be replaced with the declining growth assumption. Lastly, Capital Expenditures and Depreciation are expected to grow at the same rate as revenues. .

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.

The dividends that stockholders receive and the value of their stock shares depend on the business’s profit performance. Managers’ jobs depend on living up to the business’s profit goals.

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