Do firms use dividend changes to signal future profitability? A simultaneous equation analysis

This paper retests the signaling hypothesis of dividends by examining whether managers change dividends to signal their expectation of earnings prospects using a simultaneous-equation approach. This approach allows us to more clearly test the earnings prospects signaling hypothesis and facilitates the control of several alternative motives that managers may have for changing dividends. We also examine the information content of dividend changes with respect to future earnings changes in the same model system. Our results show that managers change dividends to signal equity-scaled rather than asset-scaled earnings prospects. In addition, we find evidence that managers also change dividends for signaling previous earnings changes and for catering to dividend clienteles. As for the information content of dividend changes, we find that dividend changes have significant and negative impact on ROA changes. The findings suggest that if investors consistently cannot recognize the signaling purpose and find that dividend increases (decreases) are not useful in predicting favorable (unfavorable) future earnings, managers may someday give up using dividend changes to signal the earnings prospects of their firms because they cannot obtain the expected market benefits anymore.     

Dividend Changes and Future Profitability

We investigate the relation between dividend changes and future profitability, measured in terms of either future earnings or future abnormal earnings. Supporting "the information content of dividends hypothesis," we find that dividend changes provide information about the level of profitability in subsequent years, incremental to market and accounting data. We also document that dividend changes are positively related to earnings changes in each of the two years after the dividend change.     

Regular Dividend Announcements and Future Unexpected Earnings: An Empirical Analysis

Previous studies have interpreted stock price reaction to dividend announcements as being consistent with the hypothesis that any changes are forecasts of future corporate profits. Recent studies seem to provide evidence to this effect. This study provides additional empirical evidence pertaining to the issue of whether quarterly cash dividend announcements convey useful information about a firm's future profitability, beyond that contained in contemporaneous quarterly earnings announcements. The association between unexpected changes in quarterly dividends and unexpected accounting earnings in subsequent quarters is examined, after controlling for information contained in past and current earnings series. The results, based on a large sample of regular quarterly cash dividend changes, indicate that firms that increased (decreased) their dividends realized, on average, greater (smaller) unexpected accounting earnings in subsequent periods than firms that did not change their dividends.     

Measuring investors’ assessment of earnings persistence: do investors see through smoothed earnings?

Prior studies document that investors value persistent earnings more than transitory earnings. This argument offers incentives to managers to smooth their reported earnings and make them look more persistent. This study examines whether investors are misled by management’s income-smoothing behavior and whether they can correctly assess the persistence of smoothed earnings. Using a simple theoretical model, this paper shows that investors’ assessment of earnings persistence can be derived from their reactions to reported earnings, which is the ratio of the coefficient on earnings change relative to the coefficient on earnings level in the return–earnings relation. Empirical results show that investors’ assessment of earnings persistence is negatively associated with the level of income smoothing after controlling for time-series persistence of earnings and hence suggest that investors understand that the high persistence of smoothed earnings is not real and they discount the persistence of smoothed earnings when they react to such earnings news.     

The Market's Differential Reactions to Forward-Looking and Backward-Looking Dividend Changes

Empirical evidence on the signaling hypothesis of dividends is weak and mixed. Recent studies find that dividend changes reflect mostly current and past earnings but not future earnings. We provide a model in which not all dividend changes contain new information about future earnings. Some dividend decisions are backward looking (noninformation or nonsignaling events). Other dividend decisions are forward looking (information or signaling events). The model helps identify the two types of dividend changes and predicts that the market will respond strongly only to forward‐looking dividend changes. We provide evidence consistent with the implications of the model.     

The Earnings Information Content of Dividend Initiations and Omissions

Previous studies have found that dividend initiations and omissions convey important information about subsequent earnings changes. However, this finding may be subject to a sample survival bias. We find that survivorship does not affect the positive relation between dividend changes and past earnings changes. Also, we find dividend omitting firms are able to generate significantly positive earnings one to two years after the omission. However, contrary to previous findings, firms' earnings are not significantly increased following the dividend initiation. The results suggest that survivorship tends to bias inference toward finding that dividends signal future earnings.     

Understanding Stock Price Volatility: The Role of Earnings

In an efficient capital market, asset prices vary when investors change their expectations about cash flows, discount rates, or both. Using dividends to measure cash flows, previous research shows that the aggregate dividend‐price ratio varies due to changes in expected discount rates (returns) rather than expected cash flows. In contrast, using accounting earnings instead of dividends as a measure of cash flows, this paper shows that as much as 70% of the variation in the dividend‐price ratio can be explained by changes in expected earnings. Moreover, the paper documents a significant negative correlation between expected returns and expected earnings, suggesting that variations in a common factor to both may generate significant price volatility. The results are consistent with the dividend‐policy irrelevance hypothesis.     

Do Changes in Dividends Signal the Future or the Past?

Many dividend theories imply that changes in dividends have information content about the future earnings of the firm. We investigate this implication and find only limited support for it. Firms that increase dividends in year 0 have experienced significant earnings increases in years ?1 and 0, but show no subsequent unexpected earnings growth. Also, the size of the dividend increase does not predict future earnings. Firms that cut dividends in year 0 have experienced a reduction in earnings in year 0 and in year ?1, but these firms go on to show significant increases in earnings in year 1. However, consistent with Lintner's model on dividend policy, firms that increase dividends are less likely than nonchanging firms to experience a drop in future earnings. Thus, their increase in concurrent earnings can be said to be somewhat “permanent.” In spite of the lack of future earnings growth, firms that increase dividends have significant (though modest) positive excess returns for the following three years.     

Tax Costs and Signalling Benefits: The Impact of Surplus ACT

Companies with surplus ACT are faced with additional tax costs if they use dividends to signal information to investors, hence there is a trade-off between tax costs and signalling benefits. This paper provides evidence that investors' reactions to dividend surprises are influenced by the signal generated by earnings and tax planning considerations. The results indicate that in the presence of a positive earnings signal and a binding tax constraint, decreases in dividends are value enhancing.     

Accounting and Valuation: How Helpful Are Recent Accounting Rule Changes?

The longstanding debate over the proper definition of “earnings”—whether investors when setting stock prices focus primarily on GAAP earnings or other measures like operating cash flow—is both misguided and theoretically unresolvable. The biggest problem faced by investors in evaluating earnings reports is not their inability to understand the effects of the different accounting methods companies use when aggregating accounting line items into reported net income. More challenging, and more critical to the investment process, is getting complete and reliable information about the line items themselves. The authors' underlying premise is that investors, when provided sufficient information about these “components” of earnings, can combine or reconfigure them in whatever way they find most useful. But without sufficient and reliable information about the individual line items, investors will find it difficult to understand how earnings are generated and thus to produce the forecast of future earnings necessary to value a company. In the past few years, there have been significant rule changes in accounting for employee options, derivatives, and special purposes entities. The authors evaluate the extent to which the new rules encourage disclosures that are helpful from a valuation perspective. Although there has been some progress, financial reporting in each of the three areas continues to fall well short of providing the complete, disaggregated data required to value a firm with confidence.     

Dividends and Market Signalling: an Analysis of Corporate Insider Trading

This study tests the multiple‐signal theory of dividends of John and Lang (1991) in the context of a European market. Our evidence shows that investors are more sensitive to insider trading signals than to signalled changes in existing dividends. In effect, the insider sales signal is universally understood as bad news. After controlling for the quality of a firm's investment opportunities, investors are found to penalise dividend outflows by mature firms that exhibit more informed insider sales activity. Finally, we offer an innovative exploration of the role of earnings announcements in market reaction to the dividend signal.     

The Pricing of Dividends in Equity Valuation

Abstract:   This study uses Ohlson's (1995 and 2001 ) accounting‐based equity valuation model to structure tests of four explanations for the anomalously positive pricing of dividends reported by Rees (1997) and Fama and French (1998) . First, we find that dividends are not simply a proxy for publicly available information that helps predict future abnormal earnings. Second, although dividends act as if they signal managers' private information about future profitability, they remain positively priced for firms with low incentives to signal. Third, dividends do not signal management's willingness to abstain from incurring agency costs. Fourth, however, controlling for one‐year‐ahead realized forecast errors yields a pricing of dividends that is very close to that of dividend displacement. After showing that dividends are not simply a proxy for analysts' misforecasting, we conclude that dividends appear to be positively priced because they are a proxy for the mispricing by investors of current earnings or book equity.     

Underreaction to Industry‐Wide Earnings and the Post‐Forecast Revision Drift

We test whether the post‐forecast revision drift is mainly attributable to investors’ underreaction to industry‐wide earnings news conveyed by analysts’ forecast revisions. We find a large drift associated with industry‐wide earnings news but no drift associated with firm‐specific earnings news. Consistent with the functional fixation hypothesis, we provide evidence that the post‐forecast revision drift is driven by investors’ underreaction to the higher persistence of industry‐wide earnings. Although prior research has focused on differential persistence of earnings components stemming from managerial reporting discretion, we provide evidence suggesting that investors do not fully understand the differential earnings persistence attributable to industry fundamentals.     

Stock dividends in China: signalling or liquidity explanations?

We test alternative hypotheses on a sample of Chinese stock dividends. The inverse Mills ratio, a signal about future performance, is positively related to announcement returns but does not predict higher future performance. Analysts do not revise their earnings forecasts after the announcement date. Our results are more consistent with liquidity‐based theories. We find that managers choose higher stock dividend ratios if share prices deviate more from the industry‐wide average. Increases in proportional spreads, depth, and the number of trades and decreases in average trade size, and price impact suggest greater participation of liquidity and small investors following stock dividends.     

Use of benchmarks in predicting earnings management?

This study conducts multiple approaches to identify whether earnings benchmarks are an indicator for earnings management within the Australian market. We investigate firms reporting small positive earnings and small positive earnings changes, referred to as benchmark beaters. Accrual quality models, earnings distributions and earnings persistence measures are applied to identify whether benchmark beating firms are manipulating earnings. Our findings suggest that the small positive earnings benchmark attracts earnings managers. However, we do not identify any evidence to indicate that the positive earnings change benchmark is a signal for earnings management.     

The Persistence and Pricing of the Cash Component of Earnings

Prior research shows that the cash component of earnings is more persistent than the accrual component. We decompose the cash component into: (1) the change in the cash balance, (2) issuances/distributions to debt, and (3) issuances/distributions to equity. We find that the higher persistence of the cash component is entirely due to the subcomponent related to equity. The other subcomponents have persistence levels almost identical to accruals. We investigate whether investors understand the implications of the differential persistence of the three subcomponents. Our results suggest that investors correctly price debt and equity issuances/distributions but misprice the change in the cash balance in a similar manner to accruals. Our tests enable us to empirically distinguish the “accrual” and “external financing” anomalies with results implying that the accrual anomaly subsumes the external financing anomaly. Our results also suggest that naive fixation on earnings is unlikely to be a complete explanation for the accrual anomaly. Our findings are more consistent with investors misunderstanding diminishing returns to new investments.     

Dividend policy and permanence of earnings

We examine managers’ adjustment of dividends to information about earnings. We base our analysis on a ‘permanent earnings’ model of dividend behavior, which implies that dividends are changed primarily in response to permanent changes in earnings; transitory earnings changes have little or no effect on dividends. Within the permanent earnings framework, the permanent component of earnings may be the predominant factor affecting dividend payouts, or it may be one of the important factors affecting dividends. In the former case earnings and dividends are co-integrated; in the latter they are not. Using a sample of 337 firms over the 40 year period from 1950–1989, we find the data to be strongly consistent with the permanent earnings model. We also find that the data are more consistent with a model that relates dividend and earnings changes rather than levels. Thus, we conclude that earnings and dividends are not co-integrated. This contrasts with the implicitly co-integrated (levels) dividend model of Lintner (1956), and indicates that factors other than the permanent component of earnings, such as tax policy, clientele effects, transaction costs, etc. may have a significant impact on the long-run behavior of dividends.     

Earnings Response Coefficients and Dividend Policy Parameters

In a seminal paper. Ball and Brown (1968) documented a positive statistical association between earnings surprises and stock returns around an earnings announcement. They concluded that accounting earnings conveyed ‘useful’ information to the market. However, the question of how accounting earnings convey useful information is still being understood. Recent work on this topic has found that current accounting earnings aid investors and analysts in predicting future accounting earnings. Few studies, however, have examined the usefulness of current earnings for predicting other value-relevant attributes. A model by Ohlson (1989a) suggests that investors are also interested in the relationship between current earnings and future dividends. Ohlson's model is supported by empirical tests in this paper which show that the relationship between current earnings and future dividends is significant in explaining cross-sectional variation in earnings response coefficients (ERCs). A second result of interest is that information in dividends substitutes for that in accounting earnings. We find that dividend policy parameters reflect information contained in current earnings. These results add new insights on the information revealed through the analysis of ERCs. Consistent with logic presented here, a symmetrically opposite result is found with respect to dividend response coefficients. The informativeness of earnings (dividends) is found to be negatively (positively) related to the information content of dividends.     

How Naïve Is the Market’s Use of Firm‐Specific Earnings Information?

Recent studies suggest the apparent delay in the stock-price response to earnings announcements (i.e., post-earnings announcement drift) is caused by investors who underestimate the autocorrelation of seasonally-differenced earnings (persistence). I present results that suggest: (1) a firm's future persistence is predictable on the basis of its past persistence; (2) the immediate stock-price response to earnings is positively related to historical persistence; (3) post-earnings-announcement drift is independent of historical persistence; and (4) consistent with (2) and (3), the difference between a firm's current observed persistence and that implied in stock prices is independent of its historical persistence. These results extend prior research by demonstrating that investors are aware not only that seasonally-differenced earnings are autocorrelated, but that investors recognize firm-specific differences in the magnitude of the autocorrelation.     

Gauging the effects of stock liquidity on earnings management: Evidence from the SEC tick size pilot test

This paper studies whether stock market liquidity has a causal effect on real earnings management. We introduce a new and cleaner identification of liquidity shock - the 2016 Tick Size Pilot Program - to show that firms with less liquid stocks are more likely to engage in real earnings management. We provide direct evidence that stock liquidity helps to deter real earnings management via enhancing governance by long-term institutional investors through trading and direct intervention, and via facilitating short selling to discipline managers. The effect is stronger in firms that do not pay dividends.