Optimal Payout Ratio under Perfect Market and Uncertainty ...

Optimal Payout Ratio under Perfect Market and Uncertainty: Theory and Empirical Evidence

Cheng-Few Lee Rutgers University Janice H. Levin Building Piscataway, N.J. 08854-8054 E-mail: lee@business.rutgers.edu

Manak C. Gupta Temple University

428 Alter Hall Fox School of Business Philadelphia, PA 19122 E-mail: mcgupta@temple.edu

Hong-Yi Chen Rutgers University E-mail: hchen37@pegasus.rutgers.edu

Alice C. Lee* State Street Corp., Boston, MA, USA

E-mail: alice.finance@

February 2010

* Disclaimer: Any views or opinions presented in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of State Street Corporation. State Street Corporation is not associated in any way with this publication and accepts no liability for the contents of this publication.

Optimal Payout Ratio under Perfect Market and Uncertainty: Theory and Empirical Evidence

Abstract The main purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretical model of the optimal payout ratio under perfect markets and uncertainty. First, we theoretically derive the proposition of DeAngelo and DeAngelo's (2006) optimal payout policy when a partial payout is allowed. Second, we theoretically derive the impact of total risk, systematic risk, and growth rate on the optimal payout ratio. We use the U.S. data during 1969 to 2008 to investigate the impact of total risk, systematic risk, and growth rate on the optimal payout ratio. We find that the relationship between the payout ratio and risk is negative (or positive) when the growth rate is higher (or lower) than the rate of return on assets. In addition, we also find that a company will generally reduce its payout when the growth rate increases.

1

Optimal Payout Ratio under Perfect Market and Uncertainty: Theory and Empirical Evidence

1. Introduction

Corporate dividend policy has long engaged the attention of financial economists, dating back to the irrelevance theorem of Miller and Modigliani (1961; M&M) where they state that there are no illusions in a rational and a perfect economic environment. Since then, their rather controversial findings have been challenged and tested by weakening the assumptions and/or introducing imperfections into the analysis. The signaling models developed by Bhattacharya (1979) and Miller and Rock (1985) have yielded mixed results. Studies by Nissim and Ziv (2001), Brook et al. (1998), Bernheim and Wantz (1995), Kao and Wu (1994), and Healy and Palepu (1988) support the signaling (asymmetric information) hypothesis by finding a positive association between dividend increases and future profitability. Kalay and Lowenstein (1986) and Asquith and Mullins (1983) find that dividend changes are positively associated with stock returns in the days surrounding the dividend announcement dates and Sasson and Kalody (1976) conclude that there is a positive association between the payout ratio and average rates of return. On the other hand, studies of Benartzi, Michaely, and Thaler (1997) and DeAngelo, DeAngelo, and Skinner (1996) find no support for the hypothesized relationship between dividend changes and future profitability.

Another important factor affecting dividend policy, it is argued, is agency costs (Easterbrook, 1984; Jensen, 1986). Again, the results of empirical studies have been mixed at best. Several researchers, among them, Agrawal and Jayaraman (1994), Jensen, Solberg, and Zorn (1992), and Lang and Litzenberger (1989) find positive support for the

2

agency cost hypothesis, while others find no support for this hypothesis [e.g., Lie (2000), Yoon and Starks (1995), and Denis et al. (1994)].

Economists have also addressed other possible imperfections as well, such as taxes and tax-induced clientele effects. Kalay and Michaely (l993), Litzenberger and Ramaswamy (l979), for example, find positive support while Black and Scholes (l974) find no such support for a tax-effect hypothesis. Other explanations for market imperfections range from transactions cost and flotation costs to irrational behavior. Behavioral theories have recently found increasing attention, among them "avoiding the regret," "habit," and "bounded rationality" explanations for the so-called dividend puzzle. Lee et al. (1987) have developed a dynamic dividend adjustment model. Besides, there have been several industry specific studies, for example, Akhigbe et al. (1993), Baker and Powell (1999) and Gupta and Walker (l975).

DeAngelo and DeAngelo (2006) have reexamined the irrelevance of the M&M dividend irrelevance theorem by allowing not to pay out all free cash flow. They argue that the original Miller and Modigliani (1961) irrelevance result is "irrelevant" because it only considers either paying out all of the free cash flow or not paying any of the free cash flow, resulting in a sub-optimal payout policy. Therefore, payout policy matters a great deal if the payout policies under consideration are those in which not all of the free cash is paid out.

The main purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretical model to support the proposition of DeAngelo and DeAngelo's (2006) optimal payout policy when the partial payout is allowed. In addition, we use an uncertainty instead of a certainty model. By using this uncertainty model, we derive a theoretical relationship between the optimal

3

ratio and both systematic risk and total risk. The importance of the stochasticity and nonstationarity of the firm's profitability in analyzing the effectiveness of dividend policy is explored in some detail. Furthermore, using assumptions similar to those of DeAngelo and DeAngelo (2006), we allow the dynamic model holding some amount of cash into a positive NPV project for financial flexibility reason1. Our dynamic model can show the existence of an optimal payout ratio under a frictionless market with uncertainty. In addition, we also explicitly derive the theoretical relationship between the optimal payout ratio and important financial variables, such as systematic risk and total risk. In other words, we perform comparative analysis of the relationship between the payout ratio and (i) change in total risk; (ii) change in systematic risk; (iii) changes in both total risk and systematic risk, simultaneously; (iv) no change in risk. Our results show that the optimal payout policy with respect to risk of a firm will depend upon whether its growth rate is larger or smaller than its rate of return on assets.

Based upon the theoretical model derived in this paper, we implement US data into empirical analysis. A growing body of empirical research focuses on the optimal dividend payout policy. For example, Rozeff (1982) shows that optimal dividend payout is related to the fraction of insider holding, growth of the firm, and the firm's beta coefficient. Specifically, he finds evidence that the optimal dividend payout is negatively correlated to beta risk. Grullon et al. (2002) show that dividend changes are related to the change in the growth rate and the change in ROA (rate of return on assets). They also find that dividend increases are associated with subsequent declines in profitability and

1 One of the reviewers points out that some static models have already shown it profit maximizing to allow for financial flexibility [eg. Gabudean (2007), Blau and Fuller, (2008)]. In addition, this reviewer also points out that several empirical study find evidence of firms preferring financial flexibility [eg. Lie, (2005), DeAngelo et al. (2006), and Denis and Osobov, (2007)].

4

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download