Kenneth M. Eades, Empirical Evidence on Dividends as a Signal of Firm Value, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 17, No. 4, Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Western Finance Association, June 16-19, 1982, Portland, Oregon (Nov., 1982), pp. 471-500

We provide an explanation of why convertibles are called long after the conversion value exceeds the call price. Delaying the call benefits the firm if enough investors are expected to delay their voluntary conversions. Consistent with this theory, we document that a substantial number of investors do not voluntarily convert when the common dividend exceeds the convertible's dividend plus its premium over conversion value. We find that firms would not have increased common stock returns by switching to the strategy of calling to force conversion as soon as possible. Surprisingly, we find that convertible preferreds frequently sell below conversion value.

This casebook looks at the world confronting financial managers today. Considering both the domestic and international issues faced by today's companies, the book provides 44 real-life cases, from basic to advanced level.

We investigate stock market rationality by examining the timeliness and unbiasedness of the market's response to dividend announcements. Our initial findings for market timeliness show a sluggish market reaction to dividend announcements; however, when the ex-dividend effect is controlled for, we find no evidence of a sluggish market reaction. We examine the unbiasedness of the market's response by testing whether the net announcement effect across a sample that is devoid of ex-post selection bias sums to zero. We observe a significant positive net announcement effect and examine several plausible conjectures for this puzzling phenomenon, but none provides a satisfactory explanation.

In this paper we examine the ex-dividend day returns of several taxable and non-taxable distributions. The ex-dividend day returns for the taxable common stocks are consistent with the hypothesis that dividends are taxed more heavily than capital gains. However, the ex-dividend day returns of preferred stocks suggest that preferred dividends are taxed at a lower rate than capital gains; non-taxable stock dividends and splits are priced on ex-dividend days as if they are fully taxable; and non-taxable cash distributions are priced as if investors receive a tax rebate with them. We also find that each of these distributions exhibits abnormal return behavior for several days surrounding the ex-dividend day. We investigate several possible explanations for this anomaly, but none is capable of explaining the phenomenon.

We study the pricing effects of dividend and earnings announcements by taking advantage of the unique setting in Japan where managers simultaneously announce the current year's dividends and earnings as well as forecasts of next year's dividends and earnings. Defining surprises as deviations from analysts' forecasts, we find that share price reactions are significantly affected by earnings surprises, especially management forecasts of next year's earnings. The information content of dividends is marginal and is restricted to announcements of next year's dividends. Consistent with Modigliani and Miller's dividend irrelevance proposition, current dividend surprises have no material impact on stock prices in Japan.

Ex-dividend day returns vary over time. The ex-day returns of high-yield stocks are persistently positive for some time periods and negative for others; in contrast, ex-day returns of low-yield stocks are always positive and less variable. We are unable to explain the variation with changes in the tax code, but we do find a strong effect for the introduction of negotiated commissions. We find evidence that corporate dividend capturing is affecting ex-day returns and confirm the findings of Gordon and Bradford (1980) that the price of dividends is countercyclical.

ABSTRACT Ex‐dividend day returns vary over time. The ex‐day returns of high‐yield stocks are persistently positive for some time periods and negative for others; in contrast, ex‐day returns of low‐yield stocks are always positive and less variable. We are unable to explain the variation with changes in the tax code, but we do find a strong effect for the introduction of negotiated commissions. We find evidence that corporate dividend capturing is affecting ex‐day returns and confirm the findings of Gordon and Bradford (1980) that the price of dividends is countercyclical.

Ex-dividend day returns vary over time. The ex-day returns of high-yield stocks are persistently positive for some time periods and negative for others; in contrast, ex-day returns of low-yield stocks are always positive and less variable. The authors are unable to explain the variation with changes in the tax code but they do find a strong effect for the introduction of negotiated commissions. The authors find evidence that corporate dividend capturing is affecting ex-day returns and confirm the findings of R. H. Gordon and D. F. Bradford (1980) that the price of dividends is countercyclical.