We find dividends do matter to shareholders, but more in declining markets than advancing ones. Dividend-paying stocks outperform non-dividend-paying stocks by 1 to 2% more per month in declining markets than in advancing markets. These results are economically and statistically significant and robust to many risk adjustments and across industries. In addition, we find an asymmetric response to dividend changes based on market conditions: dividend increases matter more in declining markets than advancing ones. Tests indicate that results are not due to more profitable firms and appear not to be caused either by free cash flow or signaling explanations. We also find that it is the existence of dividends, and not the dividend yield, that drives returns' asymmetric behavior relative to market movements.

We develop a model of corporate dividend policy based on the idea that management values operating flexibility. By reducing dividends and conserving cash, management increases its flexibility. This improves its ability to invest in projects that it believes are good for the shareholders in the long run but which shareholders would not provide the capital for because they think the projects are value reducing. However, the cost of not paying dividends is a reduction in the current stock price. Management trades off these two aspects of dividends. Flexibility considerations help us understand various dimensions of dividend policy that existing theories do not explain. Our theory generates numerous testable predictions that we confront with the data. The evidence is supportive of the model.

This paper examines the impact of credit default swaps (CDS) on firms' financing and trade credit policies. Our results indicate firms with CDS trading on their debt increase their equity issuances. Further, firms with CDS trading on their debt and high levels of long-term debt issuances decrease their debt financing. Total and idiosyncratic risks are also higher for firms with CDS trading on their debt. These firms pay their suppliers and collect from their customers quicker. Thus, the impacts of the CDS market are not limited to the borrowing firms but also affect economically connected firms.

This study examines the contradictory predictions regarding the association between the premium paid in acquisitions and deal size. We document a robust negative relation between offer premia and target size, indicating that acquirers tend to pay less for large firms, not more. We also find that the overpayment potential is lower in acquisitions of large targets. Yet, they still destroy more value for acquirers around deal announcements, implying that target size may proxy, among others, for the unobserved complexity inherent in large deals. We provide evidence in favor of this interpretation.