Equilibrium in the standard finance model implies that value-maximizing firms make taxable equity payouts, even when deferral effectively allows complete tax escape. Since tax deferral and consumption deferral are inherently jointly supplied goods, an excess aggregate supply of future consumption would result if firms followed conventional wisdom and adopted low or zero payout policies to capture tax deferral benefits. The market provides incentives for firms to supply both taxable payouts and capital gains by overriding any tax deferral advantage, just as it provided incentives for equity financing by overriding the corporate tax advantage of debt in "Debt and Taxes."

This paper studies the dividend policy adjustments of eighty NYSE firms to protracted financial distress as evidenced by multiple losses during 1980-85. Almost all sample firms reduced dividends, and more than half apparently faced binding debt covenants in years they did so. Absent binding debt covenants, dividends are cut more often than omitted, suggesting that managerial reluctance is to the omission and not simply the reduction of dividends. Moreover, managers of firms with long dividend histories appear particularly reluctant to omit dividends. Finally, some dividend reductions seem strategically motivated, e.g., designed to enhance the firm's bargaining positions with organized labor.

Equilibrium in the standard finance model implies that value‐maximizing firms make taxable equity payouts, even when deferral effectively allows complete tax escape. Since tax deferral and consumption deferral are inherently jointly supplied goods, an excess aggregate supply of future consumption would result if firms followed conventional wisdom and adopted low or zero payout policies to capture tax deferral benefits. The market provides incentives for firms to supply both taxable payouts and capital gains by overriding any tax deferral advantage, just as it provides incentives for equity financing by overriding the corporate tax advantage of debt in “Debt and Taxes.”

An annual loss is essentially a necessary condition for dividend reductions in firms with established earnings and dividend records: 50.9 percent of 167 NYSE firms with losses during 1980-85 reduced dividends, versus 1.0 percent of 440 firms without losses. As hypothesized by Merton H. Miller and Franco Modigliani, dividend reductions depend on whether earnings include unusual items that are likely to temporarily depress income. Dividend reductions are more likely given greater current losses, less negative unusual items, and more persistent earnings difficulties. Dividend policy has information content in that knowledge that a firm has reduced dividends improves the ability of current earnings to predict future earnings.

Leverage cross‐sections more than a few years apart differ markedly, with similarities evaporating as the time between them lengthens. Many firms have high and low leverage at different times, but few keep debt‐to‐assets ratios consistently above 0.500. Capital structure stability is the exception, not the rule, occurs primarily at low leverage, and is virtually always temporary, with many firms abandoning low leverage during the post‐war boom. Industry‐median leverage varies widely over time. Target‐leverage models that place little or no weight on maintaining a particular ratio do a good job replicating the substantial instability of the actual leverage cross‐section.

This paper studies the dividend policy adjustments of 80 NYSE firms to protracted financial distress as evidenced by multiple losses during 1980–1985. Almost all sample firms reduced dividends, and more than half apparently faced binding debt covenants in years they did so. Absent binding debt covenants, dividends are cut more often than omitted, suggesting that managerial reluctance is to the omission and not simply the reduction of dividends. Moreover, managers of firms with long dividend histories appear particularly reluctant to omit dividends. Finally, some dividend reductions seem strategically motivated, e.g., designed to enhance the firm's bargaining position with organized labor.

This paper studies the dividend policy adjustments of 80 NYSE firms to protracted financial distress as evidenced by multiple losses during 1980–1985. Almost all sample firms reduced dividends, and more than half apparently faced binding debt covenants in years they did so. Absent binding debt covenants, dividends are cut more often than omitted, suggesting that managerial reluctance is to the omission and not simply the reduction of dividends. Moreover, managers of firms with long dividend histories appear particularly reluctant to omit dividends. Finally, some dividend reductions seem strategically motivated, e.g., designed to enhance the firm's bargaining position with organized labor.