CIRCUMSTANCES ON HIGHER, LOWER, AND NON DIVIDEND PAYMENTS

Öz

Dividend policy is still a controversy in corporate finance area, since public firms are distributing the earnings differently. By conducting multinomial logistic regression analysis with 241 firms as samples which is listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange for period of 2010 to 2015, this study is testing the firm behavior to pay dividends under catering theory, free cash flow theory, and life cycle theory. This study reports, the firm behavior to pay dividends in general are depend on size and age with some fundamental factors, such as debts, current net profit, and retained earnings. The market reactions are significant and directly affecting the firm behaviors for distributing their dividends in relationship with firm characteristics and considering the performance of fundamental factors. Moreover, the maturity level and tendency of internal conflict are randomly spread into larger and older firms, larger and younger firms, smaller and older firms, and smaller and younger firms. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• firm behaviors
• dividends
• free cash flow
• firm life cycle
• catering

Kaynakça

1. Aivazian, V. A., Ge, Y., & Qiu, J. (2005). The impact of leverage on firm investment : Canadian evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11, 277-291. Baker, M., & Wurgler, J. (2004a). A catering theory of dividends. The Journal of Finance, 59(30), 1125-1165. Baker, M., & Wurgler, J. (2004b). Appearing and disappearing dividends : the link to catering incentives. Journal of Financial Economics, 73(2), 271-288. Black, F. (1996). The dividend puzzle. The Journal of Portfolio Management, Special Issue, 8-12. Brav, A., Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R., & Michaely, R. (2005). Payout policy in the 21st century. Journal of Financial Economics 77, 483-527. Budiarso, N. S., & Pontoh, W. (2016). Firm’s dividend decision in Indonesia : cater or mature? Journal of Life Economics, 3(3), 53-66. DeAngelo, H., DeAngelo, L., & Stulz, R. M. (2006). Dividend policy and the earned/contributed capital mix : A test of the life-cycle theory. Journal of Financial Economics, 81(2), 227-254. Dreman, D. N., & Lufkin, E. A. (2000). Investor overreaction: evidence that its basis is psychological. The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, 1(1), 61-75. Easterbrook, F. H. (1984). Two agency-cost explanations of dividends. The American Economic Review, 74(4), 650-659. Fairchild, R., Guney, Y., & Thanatawee, Y. (2014). Corporate dividend policy in Thailand : theory and evidence. International Review of Financial Analysis, 31, 129-151. Garengo, P., Nudurupati, S., & Bititci, U. (2007). Understanding the relationship between PMS and MIS in SMEs : an organizational life cycle perspective. Computers in Industry, 58, 677-686. Grullon, G., Michaely, R., & Swaminathan, B. (2002). Are dividend changes a sign of firm maturity? The Journal of Business, 75(3), 387-424. Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeover. American Economic Review, 76(2), 323-329. Jensen, M. C. (1988). Takeovers : their causes and consequences. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(1), 21-48. Jordan, B. D., Liu, M. H., & Wu, Q. (2014). Corporate payout policy in dual-class firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 26, 1-19. Kuan, T. H., Li, C. S., & Liu, C. C. (2012). Corporate governance and cash holdings : a quantile regression approach. International Review of Economics and Finance, 24, 303-314. Li, K., & Zhao, X. (2008). Asymmetric information and dividend policy. Financial Management, 37(4), 673-694. Li, W., & Lie, E. (2006). Dividend changes and catering incentives. Journal of Financial Economics, 80(2), 293-308.