股权分置、公司治理与股利分配决策：现金股利还是股票股利？

以2004~2007中国上市公司为样本,应用LOGISTIC回归对-股权分置改革前后我国上市公司股利分配决策进行理论与实证分析。结果表明,股权分置改革后,我国上市公司发放股票股利呈现增多的趋势,第一大股东、第二大股东持股比例越高,以及董事会人数越多,公司越倾向于现金股利分配,但机构投资者持股比例越高,越倾向于发放股票股利。同时,企业成长性强的公司倾向于发放股票股利,而现金流量好的公司往往不发放股票股利,企业规模与股票分配决策无关。     

刘娟娟李军训

本文筛选了2005至2012年纺织业上市公司的数据为样本,通过多元线性回归模型检验了纺织业上市公司治理结构对现金股利分配倾向的影响。研究结果发现：股权集中、董事会规模大、股权制衡度低、高管薪酬高和选择四大会计师事务所的纺织业上市公司倾向分配现金股利,流通股比例高的纺织业上市公司不倾向分配现金股利。     

论上市公司治理结构与现金股利分配倾向的关系——以纺织业为例

本文筛选了2005至2012年纺织业上市公司的数据为样本,通过多元线性回归模型检验了纺织业上市公司治理结构对现金股利分配倾向的影响。研究结果发现:股权集中、董事会规模大、股权制衡度低、高管薪酬高和选择四大会计师事务所的纺织业上市公司倾向分配现金股利,流通股比例高的纺织业上市公司不倾向分配现金股利。     

我国上市公司现金股利政策的影响因素分析

本文基于公司现金股利政策的基本理论,分析我国上市公司现金股利政策特征,对影响我国上市公司现金股利政策的因素进行逐一分析,分析结果表明:我国上市公司现金股利政策受到国有股及法人控股比例、大股东控制、盈利能力、公司流动性、偿债能力、公司规模、行业属性、法律制度以及契约制度等因素影响.本文认为,我国上市公司的现金红利政策是一个公司治理问题,而不是一个单纯的财务问题.     

上市公司现金股利政策影响因素研究

上市公司的现金股利政策是现代财务学的核心问题之一,研究现金股利政策具有十分重要的理论意义与现实意义。本文通过对国内外现金股利政策影响因素相关研究文献进行系统梳理和归纳总结,得出上市公司现金股利政策主要受到盈利能力、成长能力、行业、规模、负债水平、股票股利、现金流量、政策规范、股价、股东意愿、公司治理、股权结构等因素以及多个因素所组成的综合因素的影响。在此基础上,为我国上市公司制定出较为合理的现金股利政策,以及对完善公司治理机制和上市公司的监管提供一些建议。     

机构投资者、公司治理与上市公司股利政策

本文实证研究了2001—2004年间中国证券市场中机构投资者持股、公司治理与上市公司股利政策之间的关系。针对我国特殊的股权结构制度背景下,现金股利政策的两种理论观点——“自由现金流假说“和“利益输送假说“以及在我国资本市场上呈现的“恶意派现“现象,实证检验了我国机构投资者是否能够发挥治理、监督作用。研究结果发现:在2001—2004年间,机构投资者持股公司的每股现金股利发放水平显著地高于非机构投资者持股的公司,发放现金股利公司的机构投资者的持股比例显著地高于不发放现金股利公司,公司现金股利发放水平成为投资者构建投资组合的重要标准;机构投资者的持股比例不会对上市公司的股利政策产生影响,对于我国上市公司近年来出现的“恶意派现“现象,机构投资者发挥了其监督治理职能,机构投资者持股比例越高,上市公司发生“恶意派现“的可能性越小。     

企业价值与股利政策关系的实证研究

本文系基于2007年上市公司企业价值和股利政策之间关系进行的实证研究。对企业价值与是否支付股利、与每股现金股利和现金股利支付率关系作分析;并对大规模公司和小规模公司的发放股利、现金股利支付情况作分析。公司规模在大规模公司的回归中没有通过假设检验,说明在大规模企业里,规模效应已经达成,上市公司提升企业价值的侧重点已不放在扩大企业规模上。     

应计利润和现金流量对股利决策影响的实证研究

本文首先从理论上分析了应计利润、现金流量对上市公司股利政策的影响作用，并提出了有关这种影响作用的假设；其次利用2003年上市公司的相关数据，验证了现金流量越好的公司越倾向于发放现金股利，应计利润越多的公司越倾向于发放股票股利。研究表明，股利可以起到一定信号传递的作用，特别是现金股利，可以帮投资者甄别品质不同的公司，促进上市公司的优胜劣汰，提高投资效益。     

高管学术经历对企业现金股利政策影响研究

本文以2008-2020年沪深A股上市公司为研究对象，实证分析高管学术经历对于企业现金股利分配政策的影响。研究表明，拥有学术型高管的企业更倾向于支付现金股利。同时学术型高管通过影响企业会计信息质量和社会责任来影响企业现金股利发放倾向；内部环境较差的企业，高管的学术经历对企业现金股利支付的促进作用更显著，而外部监管环境的差异对两者关系影响不显著。     

董事高管责任保险与上市公司现金股利行为——基于沪深上市公司的实证研究

董事高管责任险是一种新兴的外部治理机制。本文以2009~2015年我国沪深上市公司中购买董事高管责任保险的公司为研究对象,采用倾向得分样本匹配法(PSM)实证检验了董事高管责任险对上市公司现金股利行为的影响。研究发现:董事高管责任险能够显著提升上市公司派现意愿和派现水平,同时能够显著降低"微股利"公司比。但在不同治理环境下,董事高管责任保险对现金股利行为的影响存在差异,主要体现在:对治理水平低的上市公司,董事高管责任险能够显著提升其派现意愿,而对治理水平高的上市公司则能够显著提升其派现水平。     

Independent directors and the propensity to pay dividends

Using data from 944 public companies in 2006, I examine how a firm's propensity to pay dividends is related to (i) board independence and (ii) independent directors' tenure, number of board seats (busy) and equity incentive compensation. After controlling for the effects of traditional economic, CEO entrenchment and ownership determinants of the propensity to pay dividends, I find evidence of a positive association between the propensity to pay and (i) board independence and (ii) director tenure, and a negative association between the propensity to pay and (i) busy directors and (ii) greater equity incentive compensation in the director pay structure. I find consistent results when the decision is to pay cash dividends or repurchase shares. In further tests, I find that equity incentive compensation in the independent director pay structure is the most pervasive determinant across other dividend measures such as dividend payout, total payout and repurchases. Overall, the findings suggest that the characteristics of independent directors are important determinants of the payout policy. The results also suggest that future corporate governance research could benefit from incorporating characteristics of independent directors rather than limiting governance measures to board independence especially when recent empirical evidence (Linck et al., 2008, 2009) shows convergence, and therefore, narrowing variation in the proportion of outsiders and insiders on a board.     

Family control,institutional environment and cash dividend policy: Evidence from China

Using a sample of 1486 Chinese A-share listed companies for the period 2004–2008, this study empirically tests the impact of family control, institutional environment and their interaction on the cash dividend policy of listed companies. Our results indicate that (1) family firms have a lower cash dividend payout ratio and propensity to pay dividends than non-family firms; (2) a favorable regional institutional environment has a significant positive impact on the cash dividend payout ratio and propensity to pay dividends of listed companies; and (3) the impact of the regional institutional environment on cash dividends is stronger in family firms than in non-family firms. Somewhat surprisingly, we find that controlling family shareholders in China may intensify Agency Problem I (the owner–manager conflict) rather than Agency Problem II (the controlling shareholder–minority shareholder conflict), and thus have a significant negative impact on cash dividend policy. In contrast, a favorable regional institutional environment plays a positive corporate governance role in mitigating Agency Problem I and encouraging family firms to pay cash dividends.     

金融危机对公司现金股利政策的影响研究——基于股权结构的视角

论文分析了金融危机对上市公司现金股利政策的影响。研究发现,在金融危机期间,上市公司会降低现金股利支付水平,以应对未来的不确定性。但是,相比非流通股比率低的公司,非流通股比率高的公司在金融危机期间更有可能支付更多的现金股利,以满足非流通股股东对于现金的需求。研究还发现,如果公司在金融危机期间发放现金股利,则市场反应更积极,这说明公司通过股利政策向市场传递了积极的信号。但是,非流通股比率高的公司支付现金股利的市场反应要显著小于非流通股比率低的公司,这可能是市场担心非流通股股东利用现金股利侵害中小股东利益。本文研究结论为完善上市公司的现金股利政策和保护中小投资者利益提供了现实启示。     

DISAPPEARING DIVIDENDS: CHANGING FIRM CHARACTERISTICS OR LOWER PROPENSITY TO PAY?

The proportion of U.S. firms paying dividends drops sharply during the 1980s and 1990s. Among NYSE, AMEX, and Nasdaq firms, the proportion of dividend payers falls from 66.5% in 1978 to only 20.8% in 1999. The decline is due in part to an avalanche of new listings that tilts the population of publicly traded firms toward small firms with low profitability and strong growth opportunities—the timeworn characteristics of firms that typically do not pay dividends. But this is not the whole story. The authors' more striking finding is that, no matter what their characteristics, firms in general have become less likely to pay dividends.
The authors use two different methods to disentangle the effects of changing firm characteristics and changing propensity to pay on the percent of dividend payers. They find that, of the total decline in the proportion of dividend payers since 1978, roughly one-third is due to the changing characteristics of publicly traded firms and two-thirds is due to a reduced propensity to pay dividends. This lower propensity to pay is quite general—dividends have become less common among even large, profitable firms.
Share repurchases jump in the 1980s, and the authors investigate whether repurchases contribute to the declining incidence of dividend payments. It turns out that repurchases are mainly the province of dividend payers, thus leaving the decline in the percent of payers largely unexplained. Instead, the primary effect of repurchases is to increase the already high payouts of cash dividend payers.     

Dividends, Share Repurchases, and the Substitution Hypothesis

We show that repurchases have not only became an important form of payout for U.S. corporations, but also that firms finance their share repurchases with funds that otherwise would have been used to increase dividends. We find that young firms have a higher propensity to pay cash through repurchases than they did in the past and that repurchases have become the preferred form of initiating a cash payout. Although large, established firms have generally not cut their dividends, they also show a higher propensity to pay out cash through repurchases. These findings indicate that firms have gradually substituted repurchases for dividends. Our results also suggest that before 1983, regulatory constraints inhibited firms from aggressively repurchasing shares.     

Dividend policy and the earned/contributed capital mix: a test of the life-cycle theory

Consistent with a life-cycle theory of dividends, the fraction of publicly traded industrial firms that pay dividends is high when retained earnings are a large portion of total equity (and of total assets) and falls to near zero when most equity is contributed rather than earned. We observe a highly significant relation between the decision to pay dividends and the earned/contributed capital mix, controlling for profitability, growth, firm size, total equity, cash balances, and dividend history, a relation that also holds for dividend initiations and omissions. In our regressions, the mix of earned/contributed capital has a quantitatively greater impact than measures of profitability and growth opportunities. We document a massive increase in firms with negative retained earnings (from 11.8% of industrials in 1978 to 50.2% in 2002). Controlling for the earned/contributed capital mix, firms with negative retained earnings show virtually no change in their propensity to pay dividends from the mid-1970s to 2002, while those whose earned equity makes them reasonable candidates to pay dividends have a propensity reduction that is twice the overall reduction in Fama and French [2000, Journal of Financial Economics 76, 549–582]. Finally, our simulations show that, if well-established firms had not paid dividends, their cash balances would be enormous and their long-term debt trivial, thus granting extreme discretion to managers of these mature firms.     

A macro-analysis of financial decisions: An examination of special dividend announcements

This paper investigates macro-level explanations for why firms pay special dividends. We find both the business cycle and market condition affect the propensity and abnormal returns of special dividends. Firms are more likely to announce special dividends in market or economic downturns than upturns. They tend to use additional cash for business growth in expansions and distribute it to reduce agency costs in contractions. The signaling effect of special dividends is stronger and companies with these announcements are better performers in recessions than in expansions. This research sheds light on and enhances the understanding of why firms disburse extra cash dividends at the aggregate level.     

Payout policy around the world

After a big post-2008 increase in the fraction of firms distributing cash in the U.S. -both as dividends and repurchases-, and the end of the increasing popularity of repurchases in other developed and emerging countries, the share of payers is no longer significantly lower in the U.S. than elsewhere. This convergence is mostly due to changing characteristics of firms in the case of dividends (U.S. firms became larger and more profitable), and an ever-higher propensity to repurchase in the U.S. Differences in agency considerations, transaction costs, and earnings volatility across countries and in time are the key factors explaining the differences in the propensity to pay.     

Reappearing Dividends

During the last two decades of the 20th century, the propensity of U.S. companies to pay cash dividends declined significantly. The trend away from dividends accelerated during the late 1990s, leading some economists to conclude that dividend policy was shifting in a very fundamental way. But there was a sharp reversal in this trend starting in 2000.
This article investigates five possible explanations why dividends are reappearing. Given the explosion of new companies during the 1990s, the authors find that part of this rebound can be explained by the "maturity hypothesis"– by the need for such companies to pay out their excess "free cash fiow" to reassure investors that it will not be wasted on value-destroying investments. The authors also report evidence that some companies have chosen to use dividends in part to restore investor confidence about the "quality" of corporate earnings in the wake of concerns over corporate governance. Third, the authors' findings suggest that U.S. companies have responded to the recent dividend tax cut, as one might expect, although the rebound in dividends started well before tax reform became a widely discussed possibility. Finally, the study finds little support for behavioralist explanations in which managers "cater" to irrational investor preferences for dividends. Although the authors hesitate to read too much into the recent rebound, their evidence is consistent with the idea that corporate payout policy has shifted back in favor of conventional cash dividends.     

金融发展影响了公司成熟度与现金股利政策的关系吗?

选取留存收益股权比反映公司成熟度,研究不同金融发展水平下,公司成熟度与现金股利的关系,实证结果显示,伴随公司成熟度的提高,公司实施积极现金股利政策的动机会显著提升;金融发展在提高公司成熟度与现金股利支付倾向正向关系的同时,由于提供更多的投资机会,却弱化了公司成熟度与现金股利支付水平的正向关系。进一步研究发现,金融发展水平的提升能够推迟成熟公司首次对外支付现金股利的时机;其对公司成熟度与现金股利政策关系的影响作用主要源于金融发展的"治理效应"路径;将金融发展分为信贷市场发展和股权市场发展,发现与信贷市场促进公司成熟度与现金股利支付倾向正相关关系不同,股权市场抑制了公司成熟度与现金股利支付倾向及支付水平的正相关关系。