上市企业融资文献综述及外文文献资料(3)

leverage, external finance, and debt maturity. X are the control variables and include profitability, risk, stock market capitalization, inflation, and GDP per capita. μ is the error term. Using this model, it is possible to investigate the effects of investment opportunity set and corporate finance on dividend payout policy. 3.3 Estimation issues

This study adopts a panel data method given that it allows for broader set of data points. Therefore, degrees of freedom are increased and collinearity among the explanatory variables is reduced and the efficiency of economic estimates is improved. Also, panel data can control for individual heterogeneity due to hidden factors, which, if neglected in time-series or cross section estimations leads to biased results ([9] Baltagi, 2005). The panel regression equation differs from a regular time-series or cross-section regression by the double subscript attached to each variable. The general form of the model can be written as: Equation 2 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] where α is a scalar, ?is KX 1 and Xit is the it th observation on K explanatory variables. We assume that the μit follow a one-way error component model: Equation 3 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] where μi is time-invariant and accounts for any unobservable individual-specific effect that is not included in the regression model. The term Vit represents the remaining disturbance, and varies with the individual countries and time. It can be thought of as the usual disturbance in the regression. The choice of the model estimation whether random effects or fixed effects will depend on the underlying assumptions. In a random effect model, μi and Vit are random with known disturbances. In the fixed effects model, the μi are assumed to be fixed parameters to be estimated and the remainder disturbances stochastic with Vit independent and identically distributed, i.e. νit ～iid (0,σν2 ). The explanatory variables Xit are assumed independent of the Vit for all i and t . We use the [62] Hausman (1978) specification test in choosing the appropriate model. We report the results of the Hausman specification test in Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. 4. Empirical results 4.1 Descriptive statistics

Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] presents the descriptive statistics of the dependent and independent variables. The sample covers 34 emerging countries over a 17-year period, 1990-2006. It reports the mean and standard deviation of all the variables used in the study as well as the number of observations over the sample period. The mean value for the dependent variable (dividend payout) is 0.32, implying that across the sample countries the average dividend payout is 32 percent. There is, however, a variation in the dependent variable across the countries over the time period as shown by standard deviation of 0.49 with a minimum and maximum dividend payout of 0.00 and 3.93, respectively.

The mean investment opportunity set measured by the Tobin's q is 1.05 with a variation of 0.52. All the countries have positive investment opportunities with minimum and maximum values of 0.06 and 5.01, respectively. Financial leverage, measured by the debt to equity ratio has a mean value of 1.17 and has a standard deviation of 127.58. External finance registers an average value of -0.01 over the period with a standard deviation of 5.27. Debt maturity has a mean figure of 0.58, indicating that short-term debt accounts for 58 percent of total debt. Profitability defined in terms of return on assets also registers an average value of 6.66 percent. The standard deviation is also shown as 5.37. Risk shows a mean value of -3.37. Stock market capitalization to GDP has a mean value of 49.74 percent. The minimum and maximum values for this variable are 0.00 and 528.49, respectively, with a variation of 66.52. The average inflation rate and GDP per capita are 2.61 and 8.04 percent, respectively (Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). 4.2 Correlation analysis

We test for possible degree of multi-collinearity among the regressors by including a correlation matrix of the variables in Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. Dividend payout shows significantly positive correlations with debt maturity, profitability, and GDP per capita. Investment opportunity set exhibits significantly negative correlations with financial leverage, inflation, and GDP per capita, but shows significantly positive correlations with external finance, debt maturity, profitability,

and market capitalization. There is a significant but negative correlation between financial leverage and profitability and a positive correlation between financial leverage and risk. External finance shows significant and positive correlations with profitability and inflation but a negative correlation with GDP per capita. Debt maturity is significantly and negatively correlated with GDP per capita. There are significant and negative correlations between profitability and risk, market capitalization, as well as GDP per capita. However, we found positive correlation between profitability and inflation. There are statistically and significant positive correlations between risk and market capitalization, and GDP per capita. Market capitalization is also positively correlated with GDP per capita. Overall, the magnitude of the correlation coefficients indicates that multi-collinearity is not a potential problem in the regression models. 4.3 Panel regression results

Both fixed and random effects specifications of the model were estimated. After which the [62] Hausman (1978) test was conducted to determine the appropriate specification. We report the results of the Hausman test in Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. The test statistics are all significant at 1 percent, implying that the fixed effects model is preferred over the random effects. The Hausman specification test suggests we reject the null hypothesis that the differences in coefficients are not systematic.

The results indicate a statistically significant but negative relationship between investment opportunities and dividend payout ratio. It could be inferred that firms with high investment opportunities are more likely to exhibit low dividend payout ratio. In other words, firms with high investment opportunities are more likely to pursue a low dividend payout ratio since dividends and investment represent competing potential uses of a firm's cash resources. Paying low dividends means that such firms could retain enough funds to finance their future growth and investments. [29] Gaver and Gaver (1993) note that firms with high growth potential or investment opportunity set are expected to pay low dividends, since investment and dividends are

linked through the firm's cash flow identity. This result is consistent with the results of some prior empirical studies ([56] Rozeff, 1982; [44] Lloyd et al. , 1985; [29] Gaver and Gaver, 1993; [22] Collins et al. , 1996; [32] Gul and Kealey, 1999; [1] Abbott, 2001; Jones, 2001; [4] Amidu and Abor, 2006), but contradicts the findings of [6] Aivazian and Booth (2003).

On corporate finance, various measures of corporate finance were used including, financial leverage, external financing, and maturity of debt. All the corporate finance measures exhibit positive relationships with dividend payout. However, our results do not show any significant relationship between these measures and dividend payout. This could mean that corporate finance is not an important determinant of the dividend behaviour of emerging market firms. In other words, it may suggest that dividend decisions are taken independent of decisions on corporate financial policy. The results also reveal a statistically significant positive relationship between profitability and dividend payout ratio. This signals the fact that a firm's profitability is considered an important factor in influencing dividend payment and that a highly profitable firm is more likely to declare and pay high dividends. Clearly, profitable firms are able to accumulate enough earnings over time and, therefore, may be capable of supporting high dividend payments to their shareholders. This result amply supports our hypothesis of a positive relationship between firm profitability and dividend payout ratio. This finding seems to provide strong support for the residual cash flow theory of dividends and is also consistent with prior empirical studies ([11] Baker et al. , 1985; [23] DeAngelo and DeAngelo, 1990; [54] Pruitt and Gitman, 1991; [38] Jensen et al. , 1992; [6] Aivazian and Booth, 2003; [4] Amidu and Abor, 2006). A priori, risk should have a negative influence on dividend policy. In other words, firms with high risk tend to pursue a low dividend payout policy. Surprisingly, the results of this study, however, show a positive but insignificant relationship between risk and dividend payout ratio. This may suggest that, in the case of emerging markets, risk does not seem to play a role in explaining firms' dividend payout decisions. The results show a significantly negative relationship between the ratio of market

capitalization to GDP and dividend payout. This indicates that as the stock market develops, firms tend to pursue low dividend payout policy. A higher ratio suggests a higher stock market development and this may influence investment growth of firms. According to [17] Braun and Johnson (2005), stock markets can influence the level of investment. Therefore, stock market development should positively correlate with investment growth. This is even evident from our correlation matrix in Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. It stands to reason that, in order to finance that level of investment, firms would pursue low dividend payout policies.

Considering the differences in the levels of economic growth across the countries, one would have expected variations in corporate dividend policies across the various countries. However, the results of this study fail to register any significant relationship between the macroeconomic variables and dividend payout policy, suggesting that inflation and GDP per capita may not be important in influencing dividend payout decision of emerging market firms. 5. Conclusions

This paper examined the effects of investment opportunity set and corporate finance on dividend payout policy of firms in emerging markets, covering the period 1990-2006. This study presents important and interesting evidence regarding the effects of investment opportunities and corporate finance on dividend payout policy. The results suggest that investment opportunity set is a major determinant of firms' dividend payout policy. Our findings imply that firms with high investment potentials would pursue very low dividend payout policy in order to retain funds to finance their investments. On the other hand, as suggested by [29] Gaver and Gaver (1993), contractual arrangements encourage firms without profitable investment opportunities to pay higher dividends, rather than to undertake negative net present value projects. This finding clearly supports several previous empirical studies in this area ([29] Gaver and Gaver, 1993; [32] Gul and Kealey, 1999; [1] Abbott, 2001; [40] Jones, 2001). In addition, the results of this study showed insignificant relationships between all measures of corporate finance and dividend payout. This finding is indicative of

百度搜索“77cn”或“免费范文网”即可找到本站免费阅读全部范文。收藏本站方便下次阅读，免费范文网，提供经典小说综合文库上市企业融资文献综述及外文文献资料(3)在线全文阅读。