We hypothesize that, in weak‐institution countries, firms adjust the ‘timing’ of dividend payments by committing to distribute a percentage of current earnings as dividends, revealing the extent of firm‐level agency conflicts to future investors and facilitating the raising of external capital. Consistent with this hypothesis, we find that, on average, firms in weak‐institution countries have a higher speed of adjustment ( SOA ) to their target payout ratio, pay dividends earlier in the life cycle, and are more likely to disclose a dividend policy committing to pay a minimum percentage of earnings. Within‐country tests show that, in weak‐institution countries, the firms with the highest SOA dividend policies have fewer agency problems and an increased ability to raise external capital. Finally, returns tests around earnings announcements show that high‐ SOA dividend policies are associated with larger market reactions to earnings in weak‐institution countries. Collectively, our findings suggest that dividend policy helps to alleviate agency conflicts in weak‐institution countries between firms and (future) investors.

Consensus estimates, formed by taking an average of analyst forecasts, play an important role in capital markets (e.g., provide investors with a proxy for earnings expectations). We show I/B/E/S, a prominent information intermediary, removes 6% of one‐quarter‐ahead earnings forecasts before calculating the consensus, and among the 23% of firm‐quarters with at least one forecast removed, this figure rises to 16%. We provide evidence suggesting that I/B/E/S subjectively applies policies that govern its removal decisions and accepts feedback from firms that contributes to this subjectivity. Specifically, we find optimistic forecasts are removed more frequently than pessimistic forecasts, and such asymmetry increases further when removals allow firms to meet or beat the consensus. Furthermore, we find that these effects are more pronounced when managers’ incentives to just meet or beat the consensus are stronger (i.e., higher subsequent insider sales or higher compensation delta), or managers have greater ability to influence I/B/E/S. Lastly, we demonstrate that these subjective removals benefit I/B/E/S by improving consensus accuracy, explaining why I/B/E/S is willing to be influenced by firms.