This study examines the extent to which agency-based models and asymmetric information theories explain dividend smoothing around the world. Tests on a cross-section of more than two thousand firms from twenty-four countries show that managers of firms with low market-to-book ratios and less cash engage in greater dividend smoothing. Further, firms with highly-concentrated ownership structure and strong corporate governance smooth dividends less. In addition, managers of firms in industries facing high levels of competition smooth dividends more. We also determine that the extent of legal protections provided to shareholders and the culture of the country in which the firm is incorporated, as well as tax regime, have additional explanatory power for dividend smoothing. Our results are most consistent with the simultaneous presence of agency and information asymmetry effects in the decision to smooth dividends.

We examine whether disagreement between managers and investors, in the context of mergers and acquisitions, affects the information contained in bidder returns. We test the disagreement hypothesis, which posits that disagreement causes investors to be less certain about their revaluation of acquiring firms, making bidder returns less informative. Consistent with this hypothesis, we find an inverse relation between bidder returns, which proxy for the degree of disagreement, and the change in the bidders' implied volatility. Also consistent with the hypothesis, we find that the significant inverse relation between bidder returns and the change in implied volatility holds only for cases of negative bidder returns. We test for alternative explanations of this relation, but continue to find robust support for the disagreement hypothesis. Finally, the relation between bidder returns and the likelihood of deal completion is stronger when announcement returns are more informative, suggesting managers “listen to the market” more when the market response is more informative.