Perspectives on Globalisation and Economic Crisis Essay

Perspectives on Globalisation and Economic Crisis - Essay Example Scholars like Chinn and Ito (2008) have supported this perception in the sense that they often present entirely novel plans to steer the process of globalisation. However, Feenstra and Taylor (2013) state that monetary unions aimed at economic integration were a reality even during the 19th century. According to the authors: â€Å"In monetary affairs the launch of the Latin Monetary Union in 1866 by France, Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland (later joined by 7 other countries) could be seen as, if not an early precursor to the Eurozone, at least an attempt to coordinate monetary policy at a transnational level, even if the project was soon undermined by the contradictions of the bimetallic system it sought to defend, and the bloc ended up as a de facto member of the soon ubiquitous gold standard area which began to dominate world monetary affairs after the 1870s.† (Feenstra and Taylor 2013, p. 5) Feenstra and Taylor (2013) further state that the gold standard (as set during the m id 19th century) has served as a platform for ensuring multilateral economic cooperation. Even during the days of colonial rivalries and frequent warfare, leaderships in different countries essentially understood that economic cooperation and intergovernmental dialogue were better avenues for achieving peace and prosperity. European countries were at the foremost in comprehending the importance of such mature financial behaviour although they could not effectively establish peace in their continent unlike today’s European Union. Present day econometric mechanisms of globalisation are also based on mainly economic integration and commercial cooperation. Moreover, geographical situations of different regions as well as geopolitical dynamics play a key role in globalisation simply because it...This paper tries to to elucidate the process of globalization with an objective to explore its economic dynamics with particular reference to the financial markets. It is argued in the paper, that if there is a global economic crisis, then the process of globalization can be affected in various ways. Conversely, regional or country specific economic crises too may obtain a worldwide dimension because of the fiscal dynamics of financial globalization. The gold standard (as set during the mid 19th century) has served as a platform for ensuring multilateral economic cooperation. Even during the days of colonial rivalries and frequent warfare, leaderships in different countries essentially understood that economic cooperation and dialogue were better avenues for achieving peace and prosperity. European countries were at the foremost in comprehending the importance of such financial behaviour although they could not effectively establish peace in their continent unlike today’s EU. As far as the financial world is concerned, it cannot be assumed as synonymous with commerce and industry. Therefore, globalisation with regard to global commerce and industries has its own dimensions with respect to the financial world, or more precisely, the financial or capital markets. A much better comprehension of today’s economic activities is still necessary that can help the international policymakers in finding out that how deficiencies in contemporary financial regulations might set the scene of yet another global economic crisis.

Swedish Daddies Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Swedish Daddies - Research Paper Example In fact, contemporary American society distinguishes people who seek only for success in career and those who want to become successful in their company but not to sacrifice their family life for this aim. As Shaw (2013) assumes, this situation is â€Å"one continuing source of frustration† (p. 351) for women. Each female worker inevitably faces dilemma of her development in the company, because choosing both career and family is much harder than dedicating all the lifetime to career. One of the reasons for this situation is absence of guaranteed maternity leave that helps mothers to dedicate enough time to their newborns, and then return to work in a company. Another reason is that companies force women to choose between career and family even during their job interviews. Finally, there is no paternity-leave law in America, which will put men in the same situation as women currently are. In short, it is hard to balance between career and family in America. 2/ In my opinion, United States should require companies to provide paid maternity leave. As I mentioned above, absence of paid guarantee from company for mothers is one of the main reasons why it is hard for contemporary female workers to choose balancing between career and family life. In other words, women do not feel their financial independence in case they give birth to a child. On the contrary, they have to take care of their babies (which takes all of their time) and realize they have to find the way to earn money at the same time. This is the reason why it is common to say, â€Å"Women are just men with less money† (Shaw, 2013, p. 351). In practice, women may find jobs with flexible hours, but they commonly earn less money for these activities (Shaw, 2013, p. 351). In fact, it is not right, because woman with a child obviously needs more money than a lonely woman does. At the same time, company is not ready to pay for the time woman does not

Performance Measures Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 2

Performance Measures - Research Paper Example Forensic Psychology is understood as a mixture of both psychology of the brain and the legal psychology in any given location. The field is important in that it assists in the assessment and the understanding of people that may be diagnosed with a mental condition and involved in crimes (Ryan, 2007, 98). The field developed after the acknowledgement of the fact that many people had been sent to prison and were not in the proper state of mind. This has had scientists involved in finding means through which these sick people can be sent to mental institutions for the resolution of their issues other than send them to prison to suffer. This is from the fact that they do not deserve a sentence and their mental conditions should stand up in court. Diversion is a major part of Forensic Mental Health (Samuels, 2011, 167). This is a term that is used to refer to the change of custody of a patient with extreme mental conditions from the legal Justice System and straight to the health system for assistance. Psychosocial issues have been of great importance with relation to forensic mental health. Psychosocial issues are the ones that relate to the mind in a psychological manner and thus directly link to Forensic Mental Health. Most of these issues involve the engagement of various job descriptions and locations in an effort to assist people with severe mental conditions. Association of the community with these mentally impaired people is very important for the maintenance of the patient’s character (Candice, 2010, 109). This is a major psychosocial issue in that when these people do not feel at ease with the person, he begins having ideas that he is all alone and that nobody is interested with his company. This may put the person in a worse mental state and drive him to committing another crime of which the justice system does not act on as leniently as the first case. Another sector that has a big role to

Hamlet by William Shakespeare Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Hamlet by William Shakespeare - Essay Example There stand many conflicting theories and ideas on this subject, and this paper aims at analyzing the theme of revenge, in relation to sanity, the impossibility of certainty, the complexity of action and a brief analysis of the play. In the initial Act, Hamlet appears to be in a flawlessly sane state of mind in all the five scenes.   In the second scene, the audience starts to see his character change.  Polonius meets with Ophelia and reminiscences the meeting she previously had with Hamlet.   Ophelia tells her father that indeed Hamlet came to her messy and in a traumatized state of mind, talking of "horror†.   Her father instantly believes that he is actually "Mad for thy love?" (Act 2 Scene 2).   Ophelia answers a question postured by Polonius which she replied that had told Hamlet that Polonius could not communicate or see with him any further.   Her father refers to Hamlet madness once again by announcing that what his daughter uttered, "...   hath made him ( Hamlet) insane." (Act 2 Scene 2). The argument of if Hamlet is mad because of his affection for Ophelia remains often argued, but a more complex and confusing situation is the brawl within the mind of Hamlet. His personal struggle gets shown to the audience in the first scene of the 3rd act. In this first scene, Hamlet recites his eminent "being or not being- that are the query:" (Act 3 Scene 1) speech. Here, the audience truly apprehends that Hamlet is uncertain two means in his life. Being or not being essentially is Hamlet assessment on whether he ought to toil the efforts of living in such harsh world and contest to avenge the murder of his father or commit suicide. Hamlet remains muddled as to whether he have to avenge the death of his father when he, as Sigmund Freud "Oedipus Rex Complex" proposes, wished to kill his father to catch all the attention of his mother. However, in the hind of the mind Hamlet, which keeps him in continuous turmoil, remains his faithfulness to his f amily and furthermore, his father (Shakespeare 67). Hamlet, in scene two of act four, meets with Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, and he appears to be breaking into madness. Hamlet had just murdered Polonius, and his friends were inquiring him on where he located the body of the deceased man. The odd thing about this scene remains that Hamlet appears to play with Guildenstern and Rosencrantz and does not offer them a straight riposte. Hamlet has practically malformed into a different individual and does not seem to be wholly sane (Cantor 44). Since Hamlet doubts the existence of Ghost's revelation, he chooses to put on the behavior of being insane; in the process he actually drives Ophelia mad, initiating her death. Sometimes it also appears that Hamlet's madness appearance become a reality. Next is another condition that cannot be totally elucidated: the condition being Hamlet's delays in revenging the death of his father. The first thing that Hamlet discovers is the death of his fath er in scene five of the scene one, where he trails the ghost. Hamlet eventually hears from this ghost, that he (ghost) is the soul of his father and that he got killed by Claudius. All this took place at the onset of the play and Hamlet waits until the play end to avenge for his father. Then again there stands different perspectives as to if Hamlet waited till the end to actually have revenge. Within the play there remain many insinuations that Hamlet tormented Claudius all the way up till he killed the king and the father of

James Cook's Voyage to Australia and The Subsequent British Research Paper

James Cook's Voyage to Australia and The Subsequent British Colonization - Research Paper Example James Cook, an inhabitant of England, was born in the year 1728. He was one of the most popular explorers of the 17th century. He also made a mark in the history of the world for his navigation and cartographic skills. Cook was promoted as a captain in the Royal Navy. Cook navigated to different parts of the world and was popular for his three distinct voyages in the Pacific Ocean. He was also the first to observe a European connection with Australia along the eastern coastline. He also gained distinction in becoming the first person to circumnavigate the coast of New Zealand. The legacy of knowledge which James Cook had was very influential among his successors. His role in the political history of the world is also a matter of huge importance as he took a major role in opening up areas along the Pacific which led to the colonization. In the three voyages undertaken by James Cook he travelled thousands of miles and helped in the mapping of various lands starting from New Zealand and continuing till Hawaii. In his expeditions he was reputed for surveying and naming certain features which was not done before. He was instrumental in marking islands in the maps of Europe which was one of his significant contributions. James Cook’s talent in surveying came into the forefront when he successfully mapped the coast of Newfoundland in 1760. He was the one who produced the large scale accurate maps of the island. His success in the very first voyage promoted him to the rank of a commander and was given the charge of identifying Terra Australis which was believed to exist in a place further from Australia. He was persuaded by Alexander Dalrymple who was a dignitary person belonging to the Royal society. During his second voyage he navigated along very high latitudes in the southern part and became the first person to cross the Antarctic Circle. In his expedition he took the possession over South Georgia and also surveyed and mapped the area. In his second voyage, Cook was also successful in the employment of the chronometer which helped him to study the accurate longitudinal positions. The chart of the Southern Pacific Ocean was made by the help of the chronometer and it gained so much accuracy level that those charts are still being used in the 21st century. He returned from the second voyage as a captain of the Royal Navy and he was felicitated with many awards and recognition programs. He was also declared to be the first navigator belonging from Europe in the House of Lords. Captain James Cook volunteered the third voyage in finding out the Northwest Passage. He set on for the voyage in the year 1776. During his last voyage James Cook became the first among the Europeans to visit the Hawaiian Islands. He also explored the western coast of the Northern part of America and he covered the Strait

The Evolution of Federalism Essay Example for Free

The Evolution of Federalism Essay Federalism is the current type of government used in the United States. In this system of government, there is distribution of power between central authority or the national government and the local political units. The framers of the United States Constitution decided that a federalist government would work best for the country because it can lead to a stronger and unified government thereby giving focus to the needs of each state and the country as a whole. Every type of government is unique in its own way and each has its own pros and cons. The evolution of a federal type of government has both positive and negative effects. Aside from unifying the government, the local government’s independence results in efficiency due to fast decision-making. The federal system provides convenience to the citizens because they can compare the structure in different states thereby giving them the ultimate decision where they want to live in. A federalist government has a greater chance for progress because their system allows them to strategize and formulate different approaches in their economic and political framework. The existence of a federal government avoids and reduces the risk of authoritarianism (Walker, 2001). There are also several disadvantages of the federal government such as the incoherence or overlapping of several policies among different states and the tendency for unhealthy competition among states due to the difference of governance. For its continued existence, the government needs to formulate a system regardless of the form. No type of government guarantees the success of a nation. At present, different structures of government are being used all throughout the world and by far, the only key to a progressive and successful society lies not in the government itself but the people behind it. References Walker, G. (2001). Ten advantages of a federal constitution. On Line Opinion. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1265page=3

Influences on Dividend Payout Decisions

Influences on Dividend Payout Decisions CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The intricacies of Dividends and Dividend policy can leave even the most seasoned financial professional feeling a little uneasy. While conventional wisdom suggests that paying dividends affects both firms value and shareholder wealth to retain earnings to explore growth opportunities, much debate still surrounds this dynamic discipline; especially when it comes to how dividend decisions can lead to value maximization Kent (2003). Dividend policy is an important component of the corporate financial management policy. It is a policy used by the firm to decide as to how much cash it should reinvest in its business through expansion or share repurchases and how much to pay out to its shareholders in dividends. Dividend is a payment or return made by the firm to the shareholders, (owners of the company) out of its earnings in the form of cash. For a long time, the subject of corporate dividend policy has captivated the interests of many academicians and researchers, resulting in the emer gence of a number of theoretical explanations for dividend policy. For the investors, dividend serve as an important indicator of the strength and future prosperity of the business, thereby companies try to maintain a stable dividend because if they reduce their dividend payments, investors may suspect that the company is facing a cash flow problem. Investors prefer steady growth of dividends every year and are reluctant to investment to companies with fluctuating dividend policy. Over time, there has been a substantial increase in the number of factors identified in the literature as being important to be considered in making dividend decisions. Thus, extensive studies have been done to find out various factors affecting dividend payout ratio of a firm. However, there is no single explanation that can capture the puzzling reality of corporate dividend behavior. Ocean deep judgment is involved by decision makers to resolve this issue of dividend behavior. The decision of companies t o retain or pay out the earnings in form of dividends is important for the maximization of the value of the firm (Oyejide, 1976). Therefore, companies should set a constructive target dividend payout ratio, where it pays dividends to its shareholders and at the same time maintains sufficient retained earnings as to avoid having raise funds by borrowing money. A tough challenge was faced by financial practitioners and many academics, when Miller and Modigliani (MM) (1961) came with a proposition that, given perfect capital markets, the dividend decision does not affect the firm value and is, therefore, irrelevant. This proposition was greeted with surprise because at that time it was universally acknowledged by both theorists and corporate managers that the firm can enhance its business value by providing for a more generous dividend policy and that a properly managed dividend policy had an impact on share prices and shareholder wealth. Since the M M study, many researchers have relaxed the assumption of perfect capital markets and stated theories about how managers should formulate dividend policy decisions. Problem Statement Dividend policy has attracted a substantial amount of research by many researchers and theorists, who have provided theoretical as well as empirical observations, into the dividend puzzle (Black, 1976). Even though researchers and theorists have extended their studies in context to dividend decisions, the issue as to why corporations distribute a portion of their earnings as dividends is not yet resolved. The issue of dividend policy has stimulated much debate among financial analysts since Lintners (1956) seminal work. He measured major changes in earnings as the key determinant of the companies dividend decisions. There are many factors that affect dividend decisions of a firm as it is very difficult to lay down an optimum dividend policy which would maximize the long-run wealth of the shareholders resulting into increase or decrease of the firms value, but the primary indicator of the firms capacity to pay dividends has been Profits. Miller and Modigliani (1961), DeAngelo and DeAngelo (2006) gave their proposition on the dividend irrelevance, but the argument made by them was on assumptions that werent practical and in fact, the dividend payout decision does affect the shareholders value. The study focuses on identifying various determinants of dividend payout and whether these factors influence the dividend payout decision. Research Objective: There are many theories in the corporate finance literature addressing the dividend issue. The purpose of study is to understand the factors influencing the dividend decision of companies. The specific objectives of this study are: To analyze the financials of the company to draw a framework of factors such as Retained earnings, Age of the company, Debt to Equity, Cash, Net income, Earnings per share etc. responsible for dividend declaration. To understand the criticality of a companys profitability (in terms of Earnings per share) component in declaration of dividends. To measure each factor individually on how it affects the dividend decision. Research Questions: Q1. What is the relation between dividend payout and firms debt? Q2. What is the relation between dividend payout and Profitability? Q3. What is the relation between dividend payout and liquidity? Q4. What is the relation between dividend payout and Retained Earnings? Q5. What is the relation between dividend payout and Net Income? Scope of the Study: This study investigates areas of concern that are extensive thereby due to limitation of time; the scope of research will be limited as the period of study is only three years 2006-2008. The study is focused only on firms trading on NYSE and has considered only those firms who pay dividends. Organization of the paper: The remaining chapters will be organized as follows: Chapter Two: Literature Review This chapter discusses the Determinants of Dividend payout and the theories behind the research questions in context to the Dividend policy. Chapter Three: Research Methodology The chosen research design, data collection and statistical tests for analysis are described in the chapter. Chapter four: Data Analysis and Findings: To address the research questions, results obtained from the regression analysis will be presented and discussed. Chapter five: Recommendations and Conclusion. This chapter provides recommendations for the future research and a conclusion for all this research. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Dividend remains one of the greatest enigmas of modern finance. Corporate dividend policy is an important decision area in the field of financial management hence there is an extensive literature devoted to the subject. Dividends are defined as the distribution of earnings (present or past) in real assets among the shareholders of the firm in proportion to their ownership. Dividend policy refers to managements long-term decision on how to utilize cash flows from business activities-that is, how much to plow back into the business, and how much to return to shareholders (Khan and Jain, 2005). Lintner (1956) conducted a notable study on dividend distributions, his was the first empirical study of dividend policy through his interview with managers of 28 selected companies, he stated that most companies have clear cut target payout ratios and that managers concern themselves with change in the existing dividend payout rather than the amount of the newly established payout. He also states that, Dividend policy is set first and other policies are then adjusted and the market reacts positively to dividend increase announcements and negatively to announcements of dividend decreases. He measured major changes in earnings as the key determinant of the companies dividend decisions. Lintners study was expanded by Farrelly et al. (1988), who, mailed a questionnaire to 562 firms listed on the New York Stock Exchange and concluded that managers accept dividend policy to be relevant and important. Lintners view was also supported by the study results of Fama and Babiak (1968) and Fama (1974) who suggested that managers prefer a stable dividend policy, and are hesitant to increase dividends to a level that cannot be supported. Fama and Babiaks (1968) study also concludes that Net income appears to explain the dividend change decision better than a cash flow measure. The study by Adaoglu (2000), Amidu and Abor (2006) and Belans et al (2007) stated that net income shows positive and significant association with the dividend payout, therefore indicating that, the firms with the positive earnings pay more dividends. Merton Miller and Franco Modigliani (1961) made a proposition that the value of a firm is not affected by its dividend policy. Dividend policy is a way of dividing up operating cash flows among investors or just a financial decision. Financial theorists Martin, Petty, Keown, and Scott, 1991 supported this theory of irrelevance. Miller and Modiglianis conclusion on the irrelevance of dividend policy presented a tough challenge to the conventional wisdom of time up to that point, it was universally acknowledged by both theorists and corporate managers that the firm can enhance its business value by providing for a more generous dividend policy as investors seem to prefer dividends over capital gains (JM Samuels, FM.Wilkes and R.E Brayshaw). Benartzi et al. (1997) conducted an extensive study and concluded that Lintners model of dividends remains the finest description of the dividend setting process available. Baker et al. (2001) conducted a survey on 630 NASDAQ-listed firms and analyzed the responses from 188 CFOs about the importance of 22 different factors that influence their dividend policy, they found that the dividend decisions made by managers were consistent with Lintners (1956) survey results and model. Their results also suggest that managers pay particular attention to the dividend policy of the firm because the dividend decision can affect firm value and, in turn, the wealth of stockholders, thus dividend policy requires serious attention by the management. E.F Fama and K.R French (2001) investigated the characteristics of companies paying dividends and concluded that the top most characteristics that affect the decision to pay dividends are Firm size, Profitability, and Investment opportunities. They studied dividend payment in the United States and found that the proportion of dividend payers declined sharply from 66% in 1978 to 20.8% in 1999, and that only about a fifth of public companies paid dividends. Growth companies such as Microsoft, Cisco and Sun Microsystems were found to be non-dividend payers. They also explained that the probability that a firm would pay dividends was positively related to profitability and size and negatively related to growth. Their research concluded that larger firms are more profitable and are more likely to pay dividends, than firms with more investment opportunities. The relationship between firm size and dividend policy was studied by Jennifer J. Gaver and Kenneth M. Gaver (1993). They suggested t hat A firms dividend yield is inversely related to the extent of its growth opportunities. The inference here is that as cash flow increases, the coefficient of dividend decreases, indicating that smaller firms that have greater investment opportunities thus they tend not to make dividend payment while larger firms tend to have proactive dividends policy. Ho, H. (2003) undertook a comparative study of dividend policies in Japan and Australia. Their study revealed that dividend policies in Australia and Japan are affected by different financial factors. Dividend policies are affected positively by size in Australia and liquidity in Japan. Naceur et al (2006) examined the dividend policy of 48 firms listed on the Tunisian Stock Exchange during the period 1996-2002. His research indicated that highly profitable firms with more stable earnings could afford larger free cash flows and thus paid larger dividends. Li and Lie (2006) reported that large and profitable firms are more likely to raise their dividends if the past dividend yield, debt ratio, cash ratio are low. A study was conducted by Norhayati Mohamed, Wee Shu Hui, Mormah Hj.Omar, and Rashidah Abdul Rahman on Malaysian companies over a 3 year period from 2003-2005. The sample was taken from the top 200 companies listed on the main board of Bursa Malaysia based on market capitaliza tion as at 31December 2005. Their study concluded that bigger firms pay higher dividends. or the purpose of finding out how companies arrive at their dividend decisions, many researchers and theorists have proposed several dividend theories. Gordon and Walter (1963) presented the Bird in Hand theory which suggested that to minimize risk the investors always prefer cash in hand rather than future promise of capital gain. This theory asserts that investors value dividends and high payout firms. As said by John D. Rockefeller (an American industrialist) The one thing that gives me contentment is to see my dividend coming in. For companies to communicate financial well-being and shareholder value the easiest way is to say the dividend check is in the mail. The bird-in-hand theory (a pre-Miller-Modigliani theory) asserts that dividends are valued differently to capital gains in a world of information asymmetry where due to uncertainty of future cash flow, investors will often tend to prefer dividends to retained earnings. As a result the value of the firm would be increased as a higher payout ratio will reduce the required rate of return (see, for example Gordon, 1959). This argument has not received any strong empirical support. Dividends, paid by companies to shareholders from earnings, serve as an important indicator of the strength and future prosperity of the business. This explanation is known as signaling hypothesis. Signaling is an example factor for the relevance of dividends to the value of the firm. It is based on the idea of information asymmetry between managers and investors, where managers have private information about the firm that is not available to the outsiders. This theory is supported by models put forward by Miller and Rock (1985), Bhattacharya (1979), John and Williams (1985). They stated that dividends can be used as a signaling device to influence share price. The share price reacts favorably when an announcement of dividend increase is made. Few researchers found limited support for the signaling hypothesis (see Gonedes, 1978, Watts, 1973) and there are other researchers, who supported the hypothesis, for example, in Michaely, Nissim and Ziv (2001), Pettit (1972) and Bali (2003). The tax-preference theory assumes that the market valuation of a firms stocks is increased when the dividend payout ratios is low which in turn lowers the required rate of return. Because of the relative tax liability of dividends compared to capital gains, investors need a large amount of before-tax risk adjusted return on stocks with higher dividend yields (Brennan, 1970). On one side studies by Lichtenberger and Ramaswamy (1979), Poterba and Summers, (1984), and Barclay (1987) have presented empirical evidence in support of the tax effect argument and on the other side Black and Scholes (1974), Miller and Scholes (1982), and Morgan and Thomas (1998) have either opposed such findings or provided completely different explanations. The study by Masulis and Trueman (1988) model dividend payments in form of cash as products of deferred dividend costs. Their model predicts that investors with differing tax liabilities will not be uniform in their ideal firm dividend policy. As the tax l iability on dividends increases (decreases), the dividend payment decreases (increases) while earnings reinvestment increases (decreases). According to Farrar and Selwyn (1967), in a partial equilibrium framework, individual investors choose the amount of personal and corporate leverage and also whether to receive corporate distributions as dividends or capital gains. Barclay (1987) has presented empirical evidence I support of the tax effect argument. Others, including Black and Scholes (1982), have opposed such findings or provided different explanations. Farrar and Selwyns model (1967) made an assumption that investors tend to increase their after tax income to the maximum. According to this model corporate earnings should be distributed by share repurchase rather than the use of dividends. Brennan (1970) has extended Farrar and Selwyns model into a general equilibrium framework. Under this, the expected usefulness of wealth as a system of barter is maximized. Despite being more robust both the models are similar as regards to their predictions. According to Auerbachs (1979) discrete-time, infinite-horizon model, the wealth of shareholders is maximized by the shareholders themselves and not by firm market value. If there does, infact, exist a difference between capital gains and dividends tax; firm market value maximization is no longer determined by wealth maximization. He states that the continued undervaluation of corporate capital leads to dividend distributions. The clientele effects hypothesis is another related theory. According to this theory the investors may be attracted to the types of stocks that fall in with their consumption/savings preferences. That is, investors (or clienteles) in high tax brackets may prefer non-dividend or low-dividend paying stocks if dividend income is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains. Also, certain clienteles may be created with the presence of transaction costs. There are several empirical studies on the clientele effects hypothesis but the findings are mixed. Studies by Pettit (1977), Scholz (1992), and Dhaliwal, Erickson and Trezevant (1999) presented evidence consistent with the existence of clientele effects hypothesis whereas studies by Lewellen et al. (1978), Richardson, Sefcik and Thomason (1986), Abrutyn and Turner (1990), found weak or contrary evidence. There is an assumption that the managers do not always take steps which would lead to maximizing an investors wealth. This gives rise to another favorable argument for hefty dividend payouts which shifts the reinvestment decision back on the owners. The main hitch would be the agency conflict (conflict between the principal and the agent) arising as a result of separate ownership and control. Therefore, a manager is expected to move the surplus funds from the high retained earnings into projects which are not feasible. This would be mainly due to his ill intention or his in competency. Thus, generous dividend payouts increase a firms value as it reduces the managements access to free cash flows and hence, controlling the problem of over investment. There are many more agency theories explaining how dividends can increase the value of a firm. One of them was by Easterbrook (1984); he proposed that dividend payments reduce agency problems in contrast to the transaction cost theory which is of the view that dividend payments reduce the value as it forces to raise costly finances from outside sources. His idea is that if the dividends are not paid, there is a problem of collective action that tends to lead to hap-hazard management of the firm. So, dividend payouts and raising external finance would attract auditory and regulatory measures by financial intermediaries like investment banks, respective stock exchange regulators and the potential investors as well. All this monitoring would lead to considerable reduction of agency costs and appreciate the market value of t he firm. Moreover, as defined by Jenson and Meckling (1976), Agency costs=monitoring costs+ bonding, costs+ residual loss i.e. sum of agency cost of equity and agency cost of debt. Hence, Easterbrook (1984) noted that dividend payments and raising new debt and its contract negotiations would reduce potential for wealth transfer. The realization for potential agency costs linked with separation of management and shareholders is not new. Adam Smith (1937) proposed that management of earlier companies is wayward. This problem was highly witnessed during at the time of British East Indian Companies and tracking managers was a failure due to inefficiencies and high costs of shareholder monitoring (Kindleberger, 1984). Scott (1912) and Carlos (1922) differ with this view point. They agree that although some fraud existed in the corporations, many of the activities of the managers were in line with those of the shareholders interests. An opportune and intelligent manager should always invest the surplus cash available into those opportunities which are well researched to be in the best interest of the shareholders. Berle and Means (1932) was the first to discover the insufficient utilization of funds which are surplus after other investment opportunities taken by the management. This thought was further promoted by Jensens (1986) free cash flow hypothesis. This hypothesis combined market information asymmetries with the agency theory. The surplus funds left after all the valuable projects are largely responsible for creation of the conflict of interest between the management and the shareholders. Payment of dividends and interest on other debt instruments reduce the cash flow with the management to invest in marginal net present value projects and for other perquisite consumptions. Therefore, the dividend theory is better explained by the combination of both the agency and the signaling theory rather than by any o ne of these alone. On the other hand, the free cash flow hypothesis rationalizes the corporate takeover frenzy of the 1980s Myers (1987 and 1990) rather than providing a clear and comprehensive dividend policy. The study by Baker et al. (2007) reports, that firms paying dividend in Canada are significantly larger and more profitable, having greater cash flows, ownership structure and some growth opportunities. The cash flow hypothesis proposes that insiders to a firm have more information about future cash flow than the outsiders, and they have incentivized motives to leak this to outsiders. Lang and Litzenberger (1989) check the cash flow signaling and free cash flow explanations of the effect of dividend declarations on the stock prices. This difference between permanent and temporary changes is also explored in Brook, Charlton, and Hendershott (1998). However, this study is based on the hypothesis that dividend changes contain cash flow information rather than information about earnings. This is the cash flow signaling hypothesis proposing that dividend changes signal expected cash flows changes. The dividend decisions are affected by a number of factors; many researchers have contributed in determining which determinant of dividend payout is the most significant in contributing to dividend decisions. It is said that the primary indicator of the firms capacity to pay dividends has been Profits. According to Lintner (1956) the dividend payment pattern of a firm is influenced by the current year earnings and previous year dividends. Pruitt and Gitmans (1991) survey of financial managers of 1000 largest U.S companies about the interplay among the investment and dividend decisions in their Firms reported that, current and past year profits are essential factors influencing dividend payments. The conclusion derived from Baker and Powells (2000) survey of NYSE-listed firms is that the major determinant is the anticipated level of future earnings and continuity of past dividends. The study of Aivazian, Booth, and Cleary (2003) concludes that profitability and return on equity positively correlate with the size of the dividend payout ratio. The study by Lv Chang-jiang and Wang Ke-min (1999) on 316 listed companies in China that paid cash dividends during 1997 and 1998 by using modified Lintner dividend model, suggested that the dividend payout ratio is due to the firms current earning level. Other researchers like Chen Guo-Hui and Zhao Chun-guang (2000), Liu Shu-lian and Hu Yan-hong (2003) also concluded their research on the above stated understanding about dividend policy of listed companies in China. A survey done by Baker, Farrelly, and Edelman (1985) and Farrelly, Baker, and Edelman (1986) on 562 New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) firms with normal kinds of dividend polices in 1983 suggested that the major determinants of dividend payments were the anticipated level of future earnings and the pattern of past dividends. DeAngelo et al. (2004) findings suggest that earnings do have some impact on dividend payment. He stated that the high/increasing dividend concentration may be the result of high/increasing earnings concentration. Goergen et al. (2005) study on 221 German firms shows that net earnings were the key determinants of dividend changes. Baker and Smith (2006) examined 309 sample firms exhibiting behavior consistent with a residual dividend policy and their matched counterparts to understand how they set their dividend policies. Their study showed that for the matched firms, the pattern of past dividends and desire to maintain a long-term dividend payout ratio elicit the highest level of agreement from respondents. The study by Ferris et al. (2006) found mixed results for the relation between a firms earnings and its ability to pay dividends. Kao and Wu (1994) used a time series regression analysis of 454 firms over the period of 1965 to1986, and showed that there was a positive relationshi p between unexpected dividends and earnings. Carroll (1995) used quarterly data of 854 firms over the period of 1975 to 1984, and examined whether quarterly dividend changes predicted future earnings. He found a significant positive relationship. Liquidity is also an important determinant of dividend payouts. A poor liquidity position would generate fewer dividends due to shortage of cash. Alli et.al (1993), reveal that dividend payments depend more on cash flows, which reflect the companys ability to pay dividends, than on current earnings, which are less heavily influenced by accounting practices. They claim current earnings do no really reflect the firms ability to pay dividends. A firm without the cash flow back up cannot choose to have a high dividend payout as it will ultimately have to either reduce its investment plans or turn to investors for additional debt. The study by Brook, Charlton and Hendershott (1998) states that, Firms expecting large permanent cash flow increases tend to increase their dividend. Managers do not increase dividends until they are positive that sufficient cash will flow in to pay them (Brealey-Myers-2002). Myers and Bacons (2001) study shows a negative relationship between the liquid ratio and dividend payout. For companies to enable them to enhance their dividend paying capacity, and thus, to generate higher dividend paying capacity, it is necessary to retain their earnings to finance investment in fixed assets. The study by Belans et al (2007) states that the relationship between the firms liquidity and dividend is positive which explains that firms with more market liquidity pay more dividends. Reddy (2006), Amidu and Abor (2006) find opposite evidence. Lintner (1956) posited that the level of retained earnings is a dividend decision by- product. Adaoglu (2000) study shows that the firms listed on Istanbul Stock Exchange follow unstable cash dividend policy and the main factor for determining the amount of dividend is earning of the firms. The same conclusion was drawn by Omet (2004) in case of firms listed on Amman Securities Market and he further states that the tax imposition on dividend does not have the significant impact on the dividend behavior of the listed firms. The study by Mick and Bacon (2003) concludes that future earnings are the most influential variable and that the past dividend patterns as well as current and expected levels are empirically relevant in explaining the dividend decision. Empirical support for Lintners findings, that dividends were indeed a function of current and past profit levels and were negatively correlated with the change in sales was found by Darling (1957), Fama and Babiak (1968). Benchman a nd Raaballe (2007) discovered that the propensity to pay out dividends is positively correlated to retained earnings. Also, the study by Denis and Osobov (2006) states that retained earnings are a significant dividend characteristic for non- US firms including UK, German, and French firms. One of the motives for dividend policy decision is maintaining a moderate share price as poor stock price performance mostly conveys negative information about firms reputation. An empirical research took by Zhao Chun-guang and Zhang Xue-li et al (2001) on all A shares listed companies listed in Shenzhen and Shanghai Stock Exchange, states that the more cash dividends is paid when the stock prices are high. Chen Guo-Hui and Zhao Chun-guang (2000) undertook a research on all A shares listed before 1996 and paid dividend into share capital in 1997 as their sampling, and employed single-factor analysis, multifactor regression analysis to analyze the data. Their research showed a positive stock price reaction to the cash dividend, stock dividend policy. Myers and Bacon (2001) discussed that the debt to equity ratio was positively correlated to the dividend yield. Therefore firms with relatively more investment opportunities would tend to be more geared and vice versa (Ross, 2000). The study by Hu and Liu, (2005) declares that there is a positive correlation between the cash dividend the companies pay and their current earnings, and a inverse relationship between the debt to total assets and dividends. Green et al. (1993) questioned the irrelevance argument and investigated the relationship between the dividends and investment and financing decisions .Their study showed that dividend payout levels are decided along with investment and financing decisions. The study results however do not support the views of Miller and Modigliani (1961). Partington (1983) declared that firms motives for paying dividends and extent to which dividends are decided are independent of investment policy. The study by Higgins (1981) declares a direct link between growths and financing needs, rapidly growing firms have external financing needs because working capital needs normally exceed the incremental cash flows from new sales. Higgins (1972) suggests that payout ratios are negatively related to firms need top fund finance growth opportunities. Other researchers like Rozeff (1982), Lloyd et al. (1985) and Collins et al. (1996) all show significantly negative relationship between historical sales growth and dividend payout whereas D, Souza (1999) however shows a positive but insignificant relationship in the case of growth and negative but insignificant relationship in case of market to book value. Jenson and Meckling (1976) find a strong relationship between dividends and investment opportunities. They explain, in some circumstances where firms have relative uptight disposable cash flow and a number of investment opportunities have, the shareholders are ready to accept low dividend payout ratio. From the investors point of view, the dividend payments represent definite evidence of a companys worth. A company that expects sufficient future cash flows, large enough to meet debt obligations and dividend payments, will increase dividend payout. Howe (1998) believed that the actions of the managers might convey information to the investors outside as they are more informed about the future prospects of their firms than the market. Reddy (2002) studied dividend behavior and expressed his views on the observed behavior with the help of signaling hypothesis. The undervalued firms (assessed by the price Influences on Dividend Payout Decisions Influences on Dividend Payout Decisions CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The intricacies of Dividends and Dividend policy can leave even the most seasoned financial professional feeling a little uneasy. While conventional wisdom suggests that paying dividends affects both firms value and shareholder wealth to retain earnings to explore growth opportunities, much debate still surrounds this dynamic discipline; especially when it comes to how dividend decisions can lead to value maximization Kent (2003). Dividend policy is an important component of the corporate financial management policy. It is a policy used by the firm to decide as to how much cash it should reinvest in its business through expansion or share repurchases and how much to pay out to its shareholders in dividends. Dividend is a payment or return made by the firm to the shareholders, (owners of the company) out of its earnings in the form of cash. For a long time, the subject of corporate dividend policy has captivated the interests of many academicians and researchers, resulting in the emer gence of a number of theoretical explanations for dividend policy. For the investors, dividend serve as an important indicator of the strength and future prosperity of the business, thereby companies try to maintain a stable dividend because if they reduce their dividend payments, investors may suspect that the company is facing a cash flow problem. Investors prefer steady growth of dividends every year and are reluctant to investment to companies with fluctuating dividend policy. Over time, there has been a substantial increase in the number of factors identified in the literature as being important to be considered in making dividend decisions. Thus, extensive studies have been done to find out various factors affecting dividend payout ratio of a firm. However, there is no single explanation that can capture the puzzling reality of corporate dividend behavior. Ocean deep judgment is involved by decision makers to resolve this issue of dividend behavior. The decision of companies t o retain or pay out the earnings in form of dividends is important for the maximization of the value of the firm (Oyejide, 1976). Therefore, companies should set a constructive target dividend payout ratio, where it pays dividends to its shareholders and at the same time maintains sufficient retained earnings as to avoid having raise funds by borrowing money. A tough challenge was faced by financial practitioners and many academics, when Miller and Modigliani (MM) (1961) came with a proposition that, given perfect capital markets, the dividend decision does not affect the firm value and is, therefore, irrelevant. This proposition was greeted with surprise because at that time it was universally acknowledged by both theorists and corporate managers that the firm can enhance its business value by providing for a more generous dividend policy and that a properly managed dividend policy had an impact on share prices and shareholder wealth. Since the M M study, many researchers have relaxed the assumption of perfect capital markets and stated theories about how managers should formulate dividend policy decisions. Problem Statement Dividend policy has attracted a substantial amount of research by many researchers and theorists, who have provided theoretical as well as empirical observations, into the dividend puzzle (Black, 1976). Even though researchers and theorists have extended their studies in context to dividend decisions, the issue as to why corporations distribute a portion of their earnings as dividends is not yet resolved. The issue of dividend policy has stimulated much debate among financial analysts since Lintners (1956) seminal work. He measured major changes in earnings as the key determinant of the companies dividend decisions. There are many factors that affect dividend decisions of a firm as it is very difficult to lay down an optimum dividend policy which would maximize the long-run wealth of the shareholders resulting into increase or decrease of the firms value, but the primary indicator of the firms capacity to pay dividends has been Profits. Miller and Modigliani (1961), DeAngelo and DeAngelo (2006) gave their proposition on the dividend irrelevance, but the argument made by them was on assumptions that werent practical and in fact, the dividend payout decision does affect the shareholders value. The study focuses on identifying various determinants of dividend payout and whether these factors influence the dividend payout decision. Research Objective: There are many theories in the corporate finance literature addressing the dividend issue. The purpose of study is to understand the factors influencing the dividend decision of companies. The specific objectives of this study are: To analyze the financials of the company to draw a framework of factors such as Retained earnings, Age of the company, Debt to Equity, Cash, Net income, Earnings per share etc. responsible for dividend declaration. To understand the criticality of a companys profitability (in terms of Earnings per share) component in declaration of dividends. To measure each factor individually on how it affects the dividend decision. Research Questions: Q1. What is the relation between dividend payout and firms debt? Q2. What is the relation between dividend payout and Profitability? Q3. What is the relation between dividend payout and liquidity? Q4. What is the relation between dividend payout and Retained Earnings? Q5. What is the relation between dividend payout and Net Income? Scope of the Study: This study investigates areas of concern that are extensive thereby due to limitation of time; the scope of research will be limited as the period of study is only three years 2006-2008. The study is focused only on firms trading on NYSE and has considered only those firms who pay dividends. Organization of the paper: The remaining chapters will be organized as follows: Chapter Two: Literature Review This chapter discusses the Determinants of Dividend payout and the theories behind the research questions in context to the Dividend policy. Chapter Three: Research Methodology The chosen research design, data collection and statistical tests for analysis are described in the chapter. Chapter four: Data Analysis and Findings: To address the research questions, results obtained from the regression analysis will be presented and discussed. Chapter five: Recommendations and Conclusion. This chapter provides recommendations for the future research and a conclusion for all this research. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Dividend remains one of the greatest enigmas of modern finance. Corporate dividend policy is an important decision area in the field of financial management hence there is an extensive literature devoted to the subject. Dividends are defined as the distribution of earnings (present or past) in real assets among the shareholders of the firm in proportion to their ownership. Dividend policy refers to managements long-term decision on how to utilize cash flows from business activities-that is, how much to plow back into the business, and how much to return to shareholders (Khan and Jain, 2005). Lintner (1956) conducted a notable study on dividend distributions, his was the first empirical study of dividend policy through his interview with managers of 28 selected companies, he stated that most companies have clear cut target payout ratios and that managers concern themselves with change in the existing dividend payout rather than the amount of the newly established payout. He also states that, Dividend policy is set first and other policies are then adjusted and the market reacts positively to dividend increase announcements and negatively to announcements of dividend decreases. He measured major changes in earnings as the key determinant of the companies dividend decisions. Lintners study was expanded by Farrelly et al. (1988), who, mailed a questionnaire to 562 firms listed on the New York Stock Exchange and concluded that managers accept dividend policy to be relevant and important. Lintners view was also supported by the study results of Fama and Babiak (1968) and Fama (1974) who suggested that managers prefer a stable dividend policy, and are hesitant to increase dividends to a level that cannot be supported. Fama and Babiaks (1968) study also concludes that Net income appears to explain the dividend change decision better than a cash flow measure. The study by Adaoglu (2000), Amidu and Abor (2006) and Belans et al (2007) stated that net income shows positive and significant association with the dividend payout, therefore indicating that, the firms with the positive earnings pay more dividends. Merton Miller and Franco Modigliani (1961) made a proposition that the value of a firm is not affected by its dividend policy. Dividend policy is a way of dividing up operating cash flows among investors or just a financial decision. Financial theorists Martin, Petty, Keown, and Scott, 1991 supported this theory of irrelevance. Miller and Modiglianis conclusion on the irrelevance of dividend policy presented a tough challenge to the conventional wisdom of time up to that point, it was universally acknowledged by both theorists and corporate managers that the firm can enhance its business value by providing for a more generous dividend policy as investors seem to prefer dividends over capital gains (JM Samuels, FM.Wilkes and R.E Brayshaw). Benartzi et al. (1997) conducted an extensive study and concluded that Lintners model of dividends remains the finest description of the dividend setting process available. Baker et al. (2001) conducted a survey on 630 NASDAQ-listed firms and analyzed the responses from 188 CFOs about the importance of 22 different factors that influence their dividend policy, they found that the dividend decisions made by managers were consistent with Lintners (1956) survey results and model. Their results also suggest that managers pay particular attention to the dividend policy of the firm because the dividend decision can affect firm value and, in turn, the wealth of stockholders, thus dividend policy requires serious attention by the management. E.F Fama and K.R French (2001) investigated the characteristics of companies paying dividends and concluded that the top most characteristics that affect the decision to pay dividends are Firm size, Profitability, and Investment opportunities. They studied dividend payment in the United States and found that the proportion of dividend payers declined sharply from 66% in 1978 to 20.8% in 1999, and that only about a fifth of public companies paid dividends. Growth companies such as Microsoft, Cisco and Sun Microsystems were found to be non-dividend payers. They also explained that the probability that a firm would pay dividends was positively related to profitability and size and negatively related to growth. Their research concluded that larger firms are more profitable and are more likely to pay dividends, than firms with more investment opportunities. The relationship between firm size and dividend policy was studied by Jennifer J. Gaver and Kenneth M. Gaver (1993). They suggested t hat A firms dividend yield is inversely related to the extent of its growth opportunities. The inference here is that as cash flow increases, the coefficient of dividend decreases, indicating that smaller firms that have greater investment opportunities thus they tend not to make dividend payment while larger firms tend to have proactive dividends policy. Ho, H. (2003) undertook a comparative study of dividend policies in Japan and Australia. Their study revealed that dividend policies in Australia and Japan are affected by different financial factors. Dividend policies are affected positively by size in Australia and liquidity in Japan. Naceur et al (2006) examined the dividend policy of 48 firms listed on the Tunisian Stock Exchange during the period 1996-2002. His research indicated that highly profitable firms with more stable earnings could afford larger free cash flows and thus paid larger dividends. Li and Lie (2006) reported that large and profitable firms are more likely to raise their dividends if the past dividend yield, debt ratio, cash ratio are low. A study was conducted by Norhayati Mohamed, Wee Shu Hui, Mormah Hj.Omar, and Rashidah Abdul Rahman on Malaysian companies over a 3 year period from 2003-2005. The sample was taken from the top 200 companies listed on the main board of Bursa Malaysia based on market capitaliza tion as at 31December 2005. Their study concluded that bigger firms pay higher dividends. or the purpose of finding out how companies arrive at their dividend decisions, many researchers and theorists have proposed several dividend theories. Gordon and Walter (1963) presented the Bird in Hand theory which suggested that to minimize risk the investors always prefer cash in hand rather than future promise of capital gain. This theory asserts that investors value dividends and high payout firms. As said by John D. Rockefeller (an American industrialist) The one thing that gives me contentment is to see my dividend coming in. For companies to communicate financial well-being and shareholder value the easiest way is to say the dividend check is in the mail. The bird-in-hand theory (a pre-Miller-Modigliani theory) asserts that dividends are valued differently to capital gains in a world of information asymmetry where due to uncertainty of future cash flow, investors will often tend to prefer dividends to retained earnings. As a result the value of the firm would be increased as a higher payout ratio will reduce the required rate of return (see, for example Gordon, 1959). This argument has not received any strong empirical support. Dividends, paid by companies to shareholders from earnings, serve as an important indicator of the strength and future prosperity of the business. This explanation is known as signaling hypothesis. Signaling is an example factor for the relevance of dividends to the value of the firm. It is based on the idea of information asymmetry between managers and investors, where managers have private information about the firm that is not available to the outsiders. This theory is supported by models put forward by Miller and Rock (1985), Bhattacharya (1979), John and Williams (1985). They stated that dividends can be used as a signaling device to influence share price. The share price reacts favorably when an announcement of dividend increase is made. Few researchers found limited support for the signaling hypothesis (see Gonedes, 1978, Watts, 1973) and there are other researchers, who supported the hypothesis, for example, in Michaely, Nissim and Ziv (2001), Pettit (1972) and Bali (2003). The tax-preference theory assumes that the market valuation of a firms stocks is increased when the dividend payout ratios is low which in turn lowers the required rate of return. Because of the relative tax liability of dividends compared to capital gains, investors need a large amount of before-tax risk adjusted return on stocks with higher dividend yields (Brennan, 1970). On one side studies by Lichtenberger and Ramaswamy (1979), Poterba and Summers, (1984), and Barclay (1987) have presented empirical evidence in support of the tax effect argument and on the other side Black and Scholes (1974), Miller and Scholes (1982), and Morgan and Thomas (1998) have either opposed such findings or provided completely different explanations. The study by Masulis and Trueman (1988) model dividend payments in form of cash as products of deferred dividend costs. Their model predicts that investors with differing tax liabilities will not be uniform in their ideal firm dividend policy. As the tax l iability on dividends increases (decreases), the dividend payment decreases (increases) while earnings reinvestment increases (decreases). According to Farrar and Selwyn (1967), in a partial equilibrium framework, individual investors choose the amount of personal and corporate leverage and also whether to receive corporate distributions as dividends or capital gains. Barclay (1987) has presented empirical evidence I support of the tax effect argument. Others, including Black and Scholes (1982), have opposed such findings or provided different explanations. Farrar and Selwyns model (1967) made an assumption that investors tend to increase their after tax income to the maximum. According to this model corporate earnings should be distributed by share repurchase rather than the use of dividends. Brennan (1970) has extended Farrar and Selwyns model into a general equilibrium framework. Under this, the expected usefulness of wealth as a system of barter is maximized. Despite being more robust both the models are similar as regards to their predictions. According to Auerbachs (1979) discrete-time, infinite-horizon model, the wealth of shareholders is maximized by the shareholders themselves and not by firm market value. If there does, infact, exist a difference between capital gains and dividends tax; firm market value maximization is no longer determined by wealth maximization. He states that the continued undervaluation of corporate capital leads to dividend distributions. The clientele effects hypothesis is another related theory. According to this theory the investors may be attracted to the types of stocks that fall in with their consumption/savings preferences. That is, investors (or clienteles) in high tax brackets may prefer non-dividend or low-dividend paying stocks if dividend income is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains. Also, certain clienteles may be created with the presence of transaction costs. There are several empirical studies on the clientele effects hypothesis but the findings are mixed. Studies by Pettit (1977), Scholz (1992), and Dhaliwal, Erickson and Trezevant (1999) presented evidence consistent with the existence of clientele effects hypothesis whereas studies by Lewellen et al. (1978), Richardson, Sefcik and Thomason (1986), Abrutyn and Turner (1990), found weak or contrary evidence. There is an assumption that the managers do not always take steps which would lead to maximizing an investors wealth. This gives rise to another favorable argument for hefty dividend payouts which shifts the reinvestment decision back on the owners. The main hitch would be the agency conflict (conflict between the principal and the agent) arising as a result of separate ownership and control. Therefore, a manager is expected to move the surplus funds from the high retained earnings into projects which are not feasible. This would be mainly due to his ill intention or his in competency. Thus, generous dividend payouts increase a firms value as it reduces the managements access to free cash flows and hence, controlling the problem of over investment. There are many more agency theories explaining how dividends can increase the value of a firm. One of them was by Easterbrook (1984); he proposed that dividend payments reduce agency problems in contrast to the transaction cost theory which is of the view that dividend payments reduce the value as it forces to raise costly finances from outside sources. His idea is that if the dividends are not paid, there is a problem of collective action that tends to lead to hap-hazard management of the firm. So, dividend payouts and raising external finance would attract auditory and regulatory measures by financial intermediaries like investment banks, respective stock exchange regulators and the potential investors as well. All this monitoring would lead to considerable reduction of agency costs and appreciate the market value of t he firm. Moreover, as defined by Jenson and Meckling (1976), Agency costs=monitoring costs+ bonding, costs+ residual loss i.e. sum of agency cost of equity and agency cost of debt. Hence, Easterbrook (1984) noted that dividend payments and raising new debt and its contract negotiations would reduce potential for wealth transfer. The realization for potential agency costs linked with separation of management and shareholders is not new. Adam Smith (1937) proposed that management of earlier companies is wayward. This problem was highly witnessed during at the time of British East Indian Companies and tracking managers was a failure due to inefficiencies and high costs of shareholder monitoring (Kindleberger, 1984). Scott (1912) and Carlos (1922) differ with this view point. They agree that although some fraud existed in the corporations, many of the activities of the managers were in line with those of the shareholders interests. An opportune and intelligent manager should always invest the surplus cash available into those opportunities which are well researched to be in the best interest of the shareholders. Berle and Means (1932) was the first to discover the insufficient utilization of funds which are surplus after other investment opportunities taken by the management. This thought was further promoted by Jensens (1986) free cash flow hypothesis. This hypothesis combined market information asymmetries with the agency theory. The surplus funds left after all the valuable projects are largely responsible for creation of the conflict of interest between the management and the shareholders. Payment of dividends and interest on other debt instruments reduce the cash flow with the management to invest in marginal net present value projects and for other perquisite consumptions. Therefore, the dividend theory is better explained by the combination of both the agency and the signaling theory rather than by any o ne of these alone. On the other hand, the free cash flow hypothesis rationalizes the corporate takeover frenzy of the 1980s Myers (1987 and 1990) rather than providing a clear and comprehensive dividend policy. The study by Baker et al. (2007) reports, that firms paying dividend in Canada are significantly larger and more profitable, having greater cash flows, ownership structure and some growth opportunities. The cash flow hypothesis proposes that insiders to a firm have more information about future cash flow than the outsiders, and they have incentivized motives to leak this to outsiders. Lang and Litzenberger (1989) check the cash flow signaling and free cash flow explanations of the effect of dividend declarations on the stock prices. This difference between permanent and temporary changes is also explored in Brook, Charlton, and Hendershott (1998). However, this study is based on the hypothesis that dividend changes contain cash flow information rather than information about earnings. This is the cash flow signaling hypothesis proposing that dividend changes signal expected cash flows changes. The dividend decisions are affected by a number of factors; many researchers have contributed in determining which determinant of dividend payout is the most significant in contributing to dividend decisions. It is said that the primary indicator of the firms capacity to pay dividends has been Profits. According to Lintner (1956) the dividend payment pattern of a firm is influenced by the current year earnings and previous year dividends. Pruitt and Gitmans (1991) survey of financial managers of 1000 largest U.S companies about the interplay among the investment and dividend decisions in their Firms reported that, current and past year profits are essential factors influencing dividend payments. The conclusion derived from Baker and Powells (2000) survey of NYSE-listed firms is that the major determinant is the anticipated level of future earnings and continuity of past dividends. The study of Aivazian, Booth, and Cleary (2003) concludes that profitability and return on equity positively correlate with the size of the dividend payout ratio. The study by Lv Chang-jiang and Wang Ke-min (1999) on 316 listed companies in China that paid cash dividends during 1997 and 1998 by using modified Lintner dividend model, suggested that the dividend payout ratio is due to the firms current earning level. Other researchers like Chen Guo-Hui and Zhao Chun-guang (2000), Liu Shu-lian and Hu Yan-hong (2003) also concluded their research on the above stated understanding about dividend policy of listed companies in China. A survey done by Baker, Farrelly, and Edelman (1985) and Farrelly, Baker, and Edelman (1986) on 562 New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) firms with normal kinds of dividend polices in 1983 suggested that the major determinants of dividend payments were the anticipated level of future earnings and the pattern of past dividends. DeAngelo et al. (2004) findings suggest that earnings do have some impact on dividend payment. He stated that the high/increasing dividend concentration may be the result of high/increasing earnings concentration. Goergen et al. (2005) study on 221 German firms shows that net earnings were the key determinants of dividend changes. Baker and Smith (2006) examined 309 sample firms exhibiting behavior consistent with a residual dividend policy and their matched counterparts to understand how they set their dividend policies. Their study showed that for the matched firms, the pattern of past dividends and desire to maintain a long-term dividend payout ratio elicit the highest level of agreement from respondents. The study by Ferris et al. (2006) found mixed results for the relation between a firms earnings and its ability to pay dividends. Kao and Wu (1994) used a time series regression analysis of 454 firms over the period of 1965 to1986, and showed that there was a positive relationshi p between unexpected dividends and earnings. Carroll (1995) used quarterly data of 854 firms over the period of 1975 to 1984, and examined whether quarterly dividend changes predicted future earnings. He found a significant positive relationship. Liquidity is also an important determinant of dividend payouts. A poor liquidity position would generate fewer dividends due to shortage of cash. Alli et.al (1993), reveal that dividend payments depend more on cash flows, which reflect the companys ability to pay dividends, than on current earnings, which are less heavily influenced by accounting practices. They claim current earnings do no really reflect the firms ability to pay dividends. A firm without the cash flow back up cannot choose to have a high dividend payout as it will ultimately have to either reduce its investment plans or turn to investors for additional debt. The study by Brook, Charlton and Hendershott (1998) states that, Firms expecting large permanent cash flow increases tend to increase their dividend. Managers do not increase dividends until they are positive that sufficient cash will flow in to pay them (Brealey-Myers-2002). Myers and Bacons (2001) study shows a negative relationship between the liquid ratio and dividend payout. For companies to enable them to enhance their dividend paying capacity, and thus, to generate higher dividend paying capacity, it is necessary to retain their earnings to finance investment in fixed assets. The study by Belans et al (2007) states that the relationship between the firms liquidity and dividend is positive which explains that firms with more market liquidity pay more dividends. Reddy (2006), Amidu and Abor (2006) find opposite evidence. Lintner (1956) posited that the level of retained earnings is a dividend decision by- product. Adaoglu (2000) study shows that the firms listed on Istanbul Stock Exchange follow unstable cash dividend policy and the main factor for determining the amount of dividend is earning of the firms. The same conclusion was drawn by Omet (2004) in case of firms listed on Amman Securities Market and he further states that the tax imposition on dividend does not have the significant impact on the dividend behavior of the listed firms. The study by Mick and Bacon (2003) concludes that future earnings are the most influential variable and that the past dividend patterns as well as current and expected levels are empirically relevant in explaining the dividend decision. Empirical support for Lintners findings, that dividends were indeed a function of current and past profit levels and were negatively correlated with the change in sales was found by Darling (1957), Fama and Babiak (1968). Benchman a nd Raaballe (2007) discovered that the propensity to pay out dividends is positively correlated to retained earnings. Also, the study by Denis and Osobov (2006) states that retained earnings are a significant dividend characteristic for non- US firms including UK, German, and French firms. One of the motives for dividend policy decision is maintaining a moderate share price as poor stock price performance mostly conveys negative information about firms reputation. An empirical research took by Zhao Chun-guang and Zhang Xue-li et al (2001) on all A shares listed companies listed in Shenzhen and Shanghai Stock Exchange, states that the more cash dividends is paid when the stock prices are high. Chen Guo-Hui and Zhao Chun-guang (2000) undertook a research on all A shares listed before 1996 and paid dividend into share capital in 1997 as their sampling, and employed single-factor analysis, multifactor regression analysis to analyze the data. Their research showed a positive stock price reaction to the cash dividend, stock dividend policy. Myers and Bacon (2001) discussed that the debt to equity ratio was positively correlated to the dividend yield. Therefore firms with relatively more investment opportunities would tend to be more geared and vice versa (Ross, 2000). The study by Hu and Liu, (2005) declares that there is a positive correlation between the cash dividend the companies pay and their current earnings, and a inverse relationship between the debt to total assets and dividends. Green et al. (1993) questioned the irrelevance argument and investigated the relationship between the dividends and investment and financing decisions .Their study showed that dividend payout levels are decided along with investment and financing decisions. The study results however do not support the views of Miller and Modigliani (1961). Partington (1983) declared that firms motives for paying dividends and extent to which dividends are decided are independent of investment policy. The study by Higgins (1981) declares a direct link between growths and financing needs, rapidly growing firms have external financing needs because working capital needs normally exceed the incremental cash flows from new sales. Higgins (1972) suggests that payout ratios are negatively related to firms need top fund finance growth opportunities. Other researchers like Rozeff (1982), Lloyd et al. (1985) and Collins et al. (1996) all show significantly negative relationship between historical sales growth and dividend payout whereas D, Souza (1999) however shows a positive but insignificant relationship in the case of growth and negative but insignificant relationship in case of market to book value. Jenson and Meckling (1976) find a strong relationship between dividends and investment opportunities. They explain, in some circumstances where firms have relative uptight disposable cash flow and a number of investment opportunities have, the shareholders are ready to accept low dividend payout ratio. From the investors point of view, the dividend payments represent definite evidence of a companys worth. A company that expects sufficient future cash flows, large enough to meet debt obligations and dividend payments, will increase dividend payout. Howe (1998) believed that the actions of the managers might convey information to the investors outside as they are more informed about the future prospects of their firms than the market. Reddy (2002) studied dividend behavior and expressed his views on the observed behavior with the help of signaling hypothesis. The undervalued firms (assessed by the price