To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results ✕ Clear filters

Testing Trade-Off and Pecking Order Predictions About Dividends and Debt

Review of Financial Studies 2002 15(1), 1-33
Journal Article Testing Trade-Off and Pecking Order Predictions About Dividends and Debt Get access Eugene F. Fama, Eugene F. Fama University of Chicago Address correspondence to Eugene F. Fama, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, 1101 East 58th St., Chicago, IL 60637, or e-mail: [email protected]. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Kenneth R. French Kenneth R. French Dartmouth College Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Financial Studies, Volume 15, Issue 1, January 2002, Pages 1–33, https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/15.1.1 Published: 16 June 2015

Testing Trade-Off and Pecking Order Predictions about Dividends and Debt

Review of Financial Studies 2002 15(1), 1-33
Confirming predictions shared by the trade-off and pecking order models, more profitable firms and firms with fewer investments have higher dividend payouts. Confirming the pecking order model but contradicting the trade-off model, more profitable firms are less levered. Firms with more investments have less market leverage, which is consistent with the trade-off model and a complex pecking order model. Firms with more investments have lower long-term dividend payouts, but dividends do not vary to accommodate short-term variation in investment. As the pecking order model predicts, short-term variation in investment and earnings is mostly absorbed by debt.

The Equity Premium

Journal of Finance 2002 57(2), 637-659
ABSTRACT We estimate the equity premium using dividend and earnings growth rates to measure the expected rate of capital gain. Our estimates for 1951 to 2000, 2.55 percent and 4.32 percent, are much lower than the equity premium produced by the average stock return, 7.43 percent. Our evidence suggests that the high average return for 1951 to 2000 is due to a decline in discount rates that produces a large unexpected capital gain. Our main conclusion is that the average stock return of the last half‐century is a lot higher than expected.