Firm Size, Profit After Tax and Dividend Policy of Quoted Manufacturing Companies in Nigeria

7/31/2019 Firm Size, Profit After Tax and Dividend Policy of Quoted Manufacturing Companies in Nigeria

1/29


2/29

2

INTRODUCTION

About 50 years ago, Melton Miller and Franco Modigliani (1961) started a controversy that up

to the present, the issues seem as if they were muted yesterday. A search in many finance

journals local and international will immediately reveal that the concept of dividends and

dividend p olicy are on the hot pen of finance and economic researchers/academicians.

The debate initially was whether the proclamation of Miller and Modigliani (MM) in 1961 that

dividend policy is irrelevant under certain contestable assumptions holds.

At first, the issue was and still is on the relationship between dividend payout policy and the

value of the firm. In the process of determining the nature of this relationship, issues as to

whether dividend policy impacts on the capital structure and investment decisions of firms

arose.

At a point, in recognition of the fact that in reality investors can not wish away: taxes,

transaction costs, information asymmetry, agency costs, and many more factors that MM based

their assumptions on, researchers started in search of factors/determinants of dividend payout

policy of firms. Several factors such as: firm size, profitability, investment policy, past dividend

payout, corporate governance/ agency costs, taxation, ownership structure, leverage, growth,

risk, cash flow and others were examined.


3/29

3

With time, several theories came on stream to explain why and how companies pay dividend.

Mention is made here of theories like:

Dividend irrelevance theory,

The life-cycle theory,

The catering theory,

The pecking order theory,

Agency theory,

Separation theory etc.

These discussions on dividends and dividend policy have also produced insights as to what firms

do with respect to dividend payout policy. Every finance student passes through such

pedagogical issues like:

Full payout policy

A bird in the theory

Constant payout ratio

Small plus extra dividend policy

Clientele effect

Stock dividends

Stock repurchases

And many more concepts geared towards the explanation of firms dividend behavior.

However, Fisher (1976) overwhelmed by the growing number of issues and magnitude of the

debate wrote in his dividend policy puzzle article that the debate has turned into a puzzle and

asked: what should corporations do about dividend policy?

To resolve the puzzle according to Frankfurter and Wood (1997), dividend policy of firms

should be seen as a cultural phenomenon that changes continuously according to environment

and time. Thus, dividend behavioral models must necessarily be continuously modified to

capture those factors that are peculiar to a particular period and environment. After all, as


4/29

4

Adelgan (2003) indicate, the assumption of constant response coefficient is unrealistic. This is

because the response coefficient is affected by firm-specific, industry-specific and economic

factors which are dynamic in nature.

Possibly because of this understanding, several researchers are concentrating on individual

country analysis and/or regional analysis while a few are concerned with industry and firm

specific analysis. For instance, Manoj (2004) dwelt on the factors influencing dividend policy

decisions of corporate India, Kaczynski (2005) studied the determinants of capital structure of

Japanese companies. Also, Eriotis and Vasiliou (2005) investigated the effect of distributed

earnings and size of firm to its dividend policy in Greece. Von Eije and Magginson (2006)

studied the dividend policy of firms in the European Union while Kenwal (2008) wrote on the

determinants of dividend payout ratios of the Indian information technology sector. More

researchers like Sexena (2009) wrote on the determinants of dividend payout policy of regulated

and unregulated firms. Bancel et al (2009) concentrated on the cross-country determinants of

payout policy of European firms while Musa (2009) analyzed the dividend policy of firms in

Nigeria. Furthermore, Hafeez and Attiya (2009) studied the determinants of dividend policy in

Pakistan with Kapoor (2009) dwelling on the impact of dividend policy on shareholders value

in India while Okpara (2010) diagnosed the determinants of dividend policy in Nigeria using

factor analytical approach. Other studies include: Gil and Joseph (2005), Walter et al (2006),

DeAngelo and DeAngelo (2007), Baker(2009), Magni and Velozpareja (2009), Franc-Dabroska

(2009), Jungsub lee (2009), Kumari et al (2009), Tamule and Rambo (2009), not forgetting

Brave et al (2005) who wrote on payout policy in the 21 st century.

All these efforts however, have not yielded the desired resolution. According to Sexena (2009),

the issue as to why firms pay dividend is as yet unresolved. There is lack of unanimity among

researchers though everyone agrees that the issue is important as dividend payment is one of the

most commonly observed phenomenon in corporations worldwide.


5/29

5

These studies also purposed to study the capital market as a whole even as they made general

conclusions on the factors affecting dividend policy decisions not minding that countries differ,

industries differ, even companies differ whether in same sectors or not.

Therefore, the present study, though a study on dividend policy is an exclusive analysis of the

dividend policy of quoted manufacturing companies on the Nigerian Stock exchange. The study

investigates the impact of firm size, past dividend and earnings after tax on dividend policy

decisions of manufacturing companies in Nigeria.

Following from the above introduction, the next section explores related Literature review -

conceptual and empirical. Next we present the methodology adopted in this study. This will be

followed by the analysis of data and interpretation of findings and finally concluding remarks

are presented.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Many researchers have provided insights, theoretical as well as empirical into the dividend

policy puzzle. However, the issue as to why firms pay dividends is yet unresolved.

Pontifications for a corporate dividend policy have been proposed in the literature, but there is

no agreement among researchers. Everyone however, agrees that the issue is important as

dividend payment is one of the most commonly observed phenomenons in corporations

worldwide. Thus, the importance of dividend policy cannot be over emphasized.

Researchers have found that firms use dividends as a mechanism for financial signaling to

investors regarding the stability and growth prospects of the firm. Again, dividends play an

important role in a firms capital structure. Yet s ome studies have established relationships

between firm dividend and investment decisions. According to the residual dividend theory, a

firm will pay dividends only if it does not have profitable investment opportunities, i.e. positive


6/29

6

net present value projects. Further, a firms stock price is affected, among other things, by the

dividend pattern. Firms usually do not like to reduce or eliminate dividend payments

(Woodridge and Gosh, 1988, 1991); hence, they make announcements of dividend initiation or

increase only when they are confident of keeping up with their good performance. Indeed, the

market value of a firm is dependent upon its stock price. One of the most popular models for

stock valuation (the dividends discounting models) relies upon the assumption that the firm will

pay dividends until eternity.

Black (1976) in his study posed this question: What should the corporation do about dividend

policy? Researchers have proposed many different theories about the factors that influence a

firms dividend policy. A number of factors have been identified in previous empirical studies to

influence the dividends policy decisions of firms. These include:

Profitability

Risk

Cash flows

Agency costs

Growth

Ownership

Taxes

Price earning ratio

Leverage

Size of firm etc

EMPIRICAL FRAMEWORK

Profits have long been regarded as the primary indicator of the firms capacity to pay dividends.

Lintner (1956) concluded a classic study on how U.S managers make dividend decisions. He

developed a compact mathematical model based on survey of 28 well established industrial U.S


7/29

7

firms which is considered to be a finance classic. According to him, the dividend payout pattern

of a firm is influenced by the current year earnings and previous year dividend. Baker, Farelly

and Edelman (1986) surveyed 318 New York stock Exchange ( NYSE) firms and concluded that

the major determinants of dividend payments are anticipated level of future earning and pattern

of past dividends. Pruitt and Gitman (1991) asked financial managers of the 1000 largest U.S

firms and reported that current and past year profits are important factors influencing dividend

payments. Baker and Powell (2000) conclude from their survey of New York Stock Exchange

(NYSE) listed firms that dividend determinants are industry specific and anticipated level of

future earnings is the major determinant. Pruitt and Gitman (1991) find that risk (year to year

variab ility of earnings) also determine the firms dividend policy. A firm that has relatively

stable earnings is often able to predict approximately what its future earnings will be. Such a

firm is more likely to pay a higher percentage of its earnings than firms with fluctuating

earnings. In other studies, Roseff (1982), Lloyd et al (1985) and Collins et al (1996) used beta

value of a firm as an indicator of its market risk. They found statistically significant and negative

relationship between beta and dividend payout. Their findings suggest that firms having higher

level of market risk will payout dividends at lower rate. D Souza (1999) also finds statistically

significant and negative relationship between beta and dividend payout. The liquidity or cash

flow position is also an important determinant of dividend payouts. A poor liquidity position

means less generous dividends due to shortage of cash. Alli et al (1993) reveal that dividend

payments depends more on cash flows, which reflect the companys ability t o pay dividends

than on current earnings, which are less heavily influenced by accounting practices. They claim

that current earnings do not really reflect the firms ability to pay dividends. Green et al (1993)

questioned the irrelevance argument and investigated the relationship between the dividends and

investments and financing decisions. Their study showed that dividend payout levels are not

totally decided after a firms investment and financing decisions have been made. Dividend

decision is taken along with investment and financing decisions. Partington (1983) revealed that


8/29

8

firms use target payout ratios, firms motives for paying dividends and the extent to which

dividends are determined are independent of investment policy. Higgins (1981) indicates a direct

link between growth and financing needs: rapidly growing firms have external financing needs

because working capital needs normally exceed the incremental cash flows from new sales.

Higgins (1972) shows that payout ratios are negatively related to firms needs to finance growth

opportunities. Rozeff (1982), Lloyd et al (1985) and Colions et al (1996) all show significantly

negative relationship between historical sales growth and dividend payout. D Souza (1999)

however shows a positive but insignificant relationship in the case of growth and negative but

significant relationship in the case of market to book value. Crutchley and Hansen (1989)

examine the relationship between Ownership, dividend policy and leverage and conclude that

managers make financial policy trade offs to control for agency costs in an efficient manner.

Smith and Watts (1992) investigated the relations among executive compensation corporate

financing and dividend policies. They conclude that a firms dividend policy is affected by its

other corporate policy decisions. In addition, Jensen, Solberg and Zorn (1992) linked the

interaction between financial policies and insider ownership to information asymmetries

between insiders and external investors. They employed a simultaneous system of equation and

found that corporate financial decisions and insider Ownership are interdependent. Atul and

Saxena (2009) conclude that a firms dividend policy will depend upon its past growth rate,

future growth rate, systematic risk, the percentage of common stocks held by insiders, and the

number of common stockholders. However, the established relationships were all negative

except for number of common stockholders.

Uzoaga and Alozieuwa (1974) investigated the pattern of dividend policy pursued by a sample

of 13 companies in Nigeria within four years (1969-1972). The study concludes that the change

in the level of dividend paid by companies could best be explained by fear and resentment rather

than the conventional factors used in the Lintners mode l. This conclusion was challenged by

later studies such as Inanga (1975, 1978), Soyode (1975), and Oyejide (1976). They criticize the


9/29

9

study for its failure to empirically test the contribution of conventional factors to change in

dividend of the affected companies. I think Inanga, Soyede and Oyejide missed their argument.

Note that the period (1969 -1972) was a war time period in Nigeria. The question is what

statistical tests will a study that covered only four years produce? Four years is not enough for a

company to go one cycle and using results from such test will not compare favourably or do I

say reasonably with Lintners model that used data spanning several years and the number of

companies included in the study far outnumber that of Uzoaga and Alozieuwa. Similarly,

Inanga (1975) and Soyode (1975) also failed to empirically investigate the extent to which

Lintners model could be used to explain the dividend policy of the companies in Nigeria. The

two studies rather advanced both conventional and non-conventional factors such as excess

liquidity resulting from the infusion of new capital and the unrealistic pricing policy of the

Capital Issues Commission (CIC) as explanation for the change on dividend behaviour of their

sampled companies.

Oyejide (19 76) empirically tested Lintners Model as modified by Britain (1966). His study

covered 8 years (1968-1976) and included 19 companies. The study found strong support for

Lintners model in Nigeria. Oyejide (1976) found support in later studies of Izedonmi and Eriki

(1996) and Adelagan (2003). Adelagans study is more interesting as it covered a period of 13

years (1984-1997) against 5 years for Izedonmi and Eriki. Adelegan (2003) re-evaluated the

incremental information content of cash flow in the modified L intners model. Musa (2005)

Criticized both Lintners and Rozeffs Model with their modifications on the basis of the fact

that the model was predicated on the assumption of constant response coefficient implying that

investors react identically to all explanatory indices of firms. As Adelagan (2003) and others

indicate, the assumption of constant response coefficient is unrealistic. This is because the

response coefficient is affected by firm specific, industry- specific and economic factors which

are dynamic in nature.


10/29

10

Well, since according to Frankfurter and Wood (1997) dividend policy of firms is a cultural

Phenomenon that changes continuously according to environment and time, dividend behavioral

models must necessarily be continuously modified to capture those factors that are peculiar to a

particular period and environment.

Musa (2005) claimed to have developed a different model. He called it the parsimonious

approach. However, according to Lee (2002) and others, his parsimonious approach does not

guarantee a conclusion and if based on incorrect working hypotheses or interpretations of in-

complete data, may even strongly support a false conclusion. Considering the fact that he

admitted to have manipulated his sample selection of firms, the result of his study cannot be

relied upon. To expanciate, he selected firms with positive earnings, firms that paid dividend

during the period under study, those with record of cash flows and those firms with record of

capital spending.

This study however, adopts the Lintners Model as modified. The study among other objectives

will establish the firms specific and industry- specific nature of dividend policy decisions

among manufacturing companies in Nigeria

METHODOLOGY

The objective of this study is to investigate the dividend policy of manufacturing companies in

Nigeria. The population of this study comprises all the quoted manufacturing companies at the

Nigerian stock exchange (1989- 2005). These are spread across the different sectors based on the

Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) classifications. They also cut across different types of

production / products. A total number of 17 companies entered into the analysis in this study.

All the data used were sourced from the Nigerian stock exchange (NSE) fact book several

issues.


11/29

11

MODEL SPECIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES

MODELS OF DIVIDEND POLICY

John Lintner (1956) in a study of 600 firms out of which he chose to interview and survey 28

focused on how corporate managers decide on dividend policies of their companies. Out of the

many observations Lintner made, one important conclusion is that companies have a long-run

target dividend payment ratio ( Nikolaos (2005) ).

In his analysis, Lintner developed a partial adjustment model that captures his

findings.

According to Lintner in Eriotis (2005), each firm has a target dividend payout ratio

(r i). Using this payout ratio, Lintner computed the expected target dividend at time

t (D it) as a proportion of the real earnings of the firm i at time t (E it ). That is:

D it = r iEit-------------- (1)

However, as observed by Eriotis (2005), in the real world the dividend which the

firm finally pays at time t, D it differs from the expected one D* it. Therefore, he

suggested that it is more reasonable to model the change between the actual

dividend at time t and time t-i, instead of the actual dividend at time t only.

Furthermore, taking the change in actual dividend into account, it is realistic and

consistent with the long- run target payout ratio, to assume that the actual change

in dividend at time t, (D it- D i t-I) equals to a constant portion (D i) Plus the speed

with which the dividend at time t-I, has adjusted to the target dividend at time t


12/29

12

(D it- D it-i). Since the expected dividend at time t is a proportion of the real earnings

at time t, the final model is given as:

D it - D it-I = i + C iriEit - C iD it-i . (2 )

Where:

D it = Actual dividend at time t

E it = Earnings of the firm during time t

Ci

= the adjustment factor (measures the speed of adjustment of dividend

to optimal target dividend at time t)

ri = the target payment ratio

To estimate this theoretical model, the economic model below is applied.

D it = i + 1E it + 2D it-I + E it.. (3 ) Where

D it = Change in dividend from time t-I to time t for firm i

1 = C i x r i in equation 2 2 = variable C i in equation 2E it = the error term

Lintner reported an 85% explanatory power when the above model was applied.

Thus dividend changes in his sampled companies is explained 85% of the time by

the independent variables of earnings and past dividend.

Fama and Babiak (1968) reviewed the performance of Lintners model. Using 392

companies over a period of 18 years (1946- 1964), they tested Lintners model wit h


13/29

13

their data and methodology and found that it performed well but noted that it can

perform better by introducing the lag of earnings and removing the constant term.

Another way to derive equation 3 above as used in the Literature is the adaptive

expectations model. This model assumes that the dividend at time t is given by a

proportion (K i) of the long-run expected earnings at time t (E it) Plus a disturbance

term (v it).

D it = K i E it + V it (4 )

In addition, the model assumes that the changes at time t in long-run expected

earnings (E it*-E it-i) can be expressed as a proportion i of the change between the

actual earnings at time t and the expected long- run earnings at time t-I (E it E it*)

That is

E*it E*

it-I = iE it E*

it-i (5 )

However, if the successive earnings changes are independent, the optimal value of

i is one (full adjustment). The assumption here is that the change in dividend (D it

D it-i) is equal to a constant portion i plus the proportion K i of the actual earnings

E it minus the dividend at time t-I .

D it D it-I = i + K iEit - D it-I + V it (6 )

Nevertheless, Fama and Babiak (1968) suggest that the adaptive expectations

model appears to be an inappropriate specification to their sample.

Joannos and Filippas (1997) examined the dividend policy of 34 companies listed

in the Athens stock exchange during the period 1972-1988. Their results conclude

that Lintners model best describes the dividend policy of the firms. They


14/29

14

identified current profits as the most important variable that tends to influence

changes in dividends while the previous dividends also significantly influence the

changes in the dividend policy of firms.

Eriotis and Vasiliou (2003) and Vasilious and Eriotis (2005) test the model of

Lintner and suggest two different versions that they say improves on the Lintners

model.

Their firs model considered as dependent variable the change in dividend between

time t and time t-1 and as independent variables, the change in earning of the firm

between time t and t-1 and the change in dividend between time t-1 and t-2.

D it = i + 1 E it + 2 D i,t-1 +u it.(7 )

Where:

D it = the dividend of the firm i at time t

E it = Net income of firm i available for stockholders at time t

D it = Change between dividend at time t and time t-1 ie (D it-D it-1)

E it = Change in net income at time t (E it- E it-1 )

u it = error term.

The second variant of their model considers the variables but without the change

or rather their lags.

D it = i + 1E it + 2D it-i + E it.. (8 )

Their findings in (2003) suggest that dividend payout of firms depend upon the

firms long -run target dividend that is adjusted according to the net earnings of the

firm.


15/29

15

Vasilious and Eriotis (2005) extended their 2003 study by introducing Size as

measured by sales of the firm along Earnings and the lags of dividend and

earnings. According to them, sales include both the risk of company and the

related bankruptcy cost. They observe that large companies are more independent

and less risky than small firms which make them more attractive to investors.

They use data between 1996 and 2001 and a sample of 49 companies resulting to a

Panel data with 718 observations excluding some missing data.

They employ econometric methods designed for Panel data in the analysis of their

data. The use of Panel data models is a powerful research instrument, since it

combines the cross- sectional data with time series data, and provides results that

could not be estimated and studied if only time series or cross- sectional data were

used. A general model for panel data that allows the researcher to estimate panel

data with great flexibility and formulate the difference in the behaviour of the

cross- section elements is theoretically given as:

Y it = x it + Z it + E it.. (9 )

Where:

Y it = is the dependent variable

X i = is the matrix with the independent variables

Z i = is a matrix of constants terms and a set of individual or group specific

variables which may be observed or unobserved.

If the matrix Zi

can be observed, for individuals, then the least square method

gives efficient and consistent estimators


16/29

16

Three considerations are pertinent in this analysis of panel data.

1. The pooled regression considers that Z i contains only a constant term. In this

case, the ordinary least square method provides an efficient and consistent

estimate for the and the coefficients.

2. If Z i is unobserved and correlated with the independent variables, then the

least squares estimator of is biased and inconsistent, as a result of an

omitted variable. The Fixed effects method takes tho se problems into

account and gives an unbiased and consistent estimate of and .

3. If the unobserved individual effects can be formulated and under the

assumption that these observations are uncorrelated with the independent

variables, the econometric model can be estimated by the random effects

method. Vasilious and Eriotis (2005).

The findings of Vasilious and Eriotis (2005) conclude that firm earnings and size

are capable of explaining 95.4% of the dividend policy decision of firms when

cross- sectional weights are considered.

Following previous studies starting with Lintner (1956) through Eriotis and

Vasilious (2005), Dividend in this study is measured by the Naira Payment as

recorded in the companies annual accounts. In this study, dividend is the

dependent variable and is hereby referred to as DIV.

Other variables in this study include

Profit after Tax PAT


17/29

17

Size SIZ

Previous Dividend DIV t-I

Size is used here to represent

A) the cost of issuing new equity and

B) Increases in Investment opportunity

Deriving from the above discussion, the model for estimation in this study is given

as follows:

DIV= F (PAT, SIZ, DIV t -1) .. (10)

Where :

DIV, PAT, SIZ and DIV t-I, are as defined above.

This study tests the explanatory power of a model based on the profit after tax

(PAT) of the firm and its size (SIZ) and introduces the lags of PAT and Dividend.

Thus:

D it = i + 1 PAT it + 2 SIZ it + 3DIV it-1 + 4PAT it-1 +E it . (11)

EMPIRICAL RESULTS

The econometric model specified above is estimated by using the common, the

fixed effects and the random effect model and are presented below:

TABLE 1: RANDOM EFFECTS MODEL

Model D it = i + 1 PAT it + 2 SIZ it + 3DIV it-1 + 4PAT it-1 +E it

Mothod Random effect (GLS, Variance Components

Coefficient T-Stat Prob. (t.Stat) Stand. ErrorConstant 0313.15 0.997470 0.3195 10339.31PAT it 0.569208 10.50597 0.0000 0.054180


18/29


19/29

19

as a factor determining dividend policy of manufacturing firms. All other variable

were significant at the 95% confidence level. Overall, we can conclude that the

random effects model has great explanatory power but there seems to be the

presence of individual effects that made the constant term insignificant in our

estimations. Therefore we test for fixed effects model.

TABLE 3: FIXED EFFECTS MODEL

Model D it = i + 1 PAT it + 2 SIZ it + 3DIV it-1 + 4PAT it-1 +E it

Method FIXED EFFECTS (GLS CROSS SECTION WEIGHTSCoefficients Stand. Error T-Stat Prob

SIZ 0.002487 0.002584 0.962267 0.3369PAT 0.359490 0.038049 9.448067 0.0000DIV(-1) 0.783641 0.095409 8.213502 0.0000PAT(-1 - 0.162841 0.033311 -4.888571 0.0000R2 adj. 0.938489f-stat 1298.459S.E 286359.3

The results of the fixed effects model slightly improved our earlier estimation

results. The explanatory power of the fixed effects model increased to 0.943 and

0.938 for R 2 and R 2 adjusted respectively. Nevertheless, the coefficient of size

remained insignificant but with a positive sign. Apart from size, all other

coefficients are significant at the 95% confidence level and maintained their signs.

Going by the result of the three different estimations in this study, profit after tax

is statistically significant and maintained a positive sign throughout. Thus, the

greater the profit after tax, the more the dividend payout and vice versa.

The variable size showed mixed results. It was statistically significant when

Random effects (GLS variance components) model was used. This model however


20/29

20

established or rather confirmed our expectation that size has a negative

relationship with dividend payout. The higher the size of a firm, the greater the

need to finance its assets with earnings and thus the lower the dividend payout.

Using common coefficients (Gls Cross- Section Weights) model, size was

insignificant but maintained its negative sign. On the other hand, the estimation

using fixed effects (Gls Cross- Section weights) model produced a positive

relationship between Size and dividend payout but the relationship was statistically

insignificant. This positive relationship can be explained when size is seen as a

measure of the cost of issuing new equity. Obviously, the larger the size of a firm

the more appeal it has for investors. In terms of risk, the bigger the firm, the less

risky investors perceive it to be and thus the cost of issuing new equity by bigger

firms are lesser than that of small firms.

Borrowing from Eriotis and Vasilious (2005), the test for long- run target dividend

payout ratio shows that for past dividends, there is a positive and significant

relationship with dividend payout. Thus manufacturing companies considers past

dividend in determining what dividend to pay at time t. Past profit after tax

however showed a negative and significant relationship with dividend payout.

Eriotis and Vasilious (2005) explained this phenomenon by implying that a

positive change in profit after fix has a negative impact on dividend payout

because even though firms are increasing their earning, they try not to change their

dividend policy, at least for the short- run.


21/29

21

HAUSMAN TEST

Apart from the common effects model, two important approaches were used in this

analysis; the random effects model and the fixed effects model. However, the

question of which approach best suites our purpose arises. To take a decision on

which one best fits our model, we conducted the Hausman Test.

A widely used class of tests in econometrics is the Hausman test. The underlying

idea of the Hausman test is to compare two sets of estimates, one of which is

consistent under both the null and the alternative and another which is consistent

only under the null hypothesis. A large difference between the two sets of

estimates is taken as evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis.

The null is that the two estimation methods are both OK and that therefore they

should yield coefficients that are "similar". The alternative hypothesis is that the

fixed effects estimation is OK and the random effects estimation is not; if this is

the case, then we would expect to see differences between the two sets of

coefficients.

Again, the random effects estimator makes an assumption that the fixed effects

estimator is not ok. If this assumption is wrong, the random effects estimator will

be inconsistent, but the fixed effects estimator is unaffected. Hence, if the

assumption is wrong, this will be reflected in a difference between the two set of

coefficients. The bigger the difference (the less similar are the two sets of

coefficients), the bigger the Hausman statistic.


22/29

22

A large and significant Hausman statistic means a large and significant

difference, and leads to the rejection of the null that the two methods are OK in

favour of the alternative hypothesis that one is OK (fixed effects) and one isn't

(random effects). The full test result using Eviews 7.0 is presented below.

The result of the Hausman test from table 4 above is inconclusive. We fail to reject

both models, and conclude that the data do not provide enough information to

discriminate between the two models.

CONCLUSIONS

This study analyzed the aggregate impact of profit after tax (PAT), Size (measured

by total assets), Past dividend and past PAT on the dividend policy of quoted

manufacturing companies in Nigeria.

Table 4: CORRELATED RANDOM EFFECTSHAUSMAN TEST

Test cross-section random effects

Test SummaryChi-Sq.Statistic Chi-Sq. d.f. Prob.

Cross-section random 0.000000 4 1.0000

Cross-section random effects test comparisons:

Variable Fixed Random Var(Diff.) Prob.

DIV?(-1) 0.587161 0.942951 0.020194 0.0123PAT? 0.558543 0.566684 -0.025305 NAPAT?(-1) -0.088121 -0.346252 -0.032065 NASIZ? -0.014911 -0.025963 -0.000031 NA


23/29

23

The empirical findings of the model estimated in this study suggest that profit

after tax and size of the firm play a significant role in the determination of

Manufacturing Companies dividend policy. This is because the model provides a

significant estimation with explanatory power of 94.3% when cross- section

weights and characteristics groups are taken into account.

Thus the study concludes that manufacturing Companies in Nigeria have a

dividend policy to distribute each year, dividend according to their target payout

ratio, which is adjusted given the level of profit after tax and size of the firm.

Finally, no one model can successfully exhaust all the issues in a research of this

nature. Therefore, this study suffers from the disadvantage of confirmatory

specification as it has the tendency of omitting other important variables.


24/29

24

REFERENCES

Adelegan OJ (2000): An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship between

Cash flows and Dividend Changes, A paper presented at the 23rd

Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association, Munich,

Germany p.5.

Adelegan O. (2003), The Impact of Growth Prospect, Leverage and Firm

Size on Dividend behaviour of corporate firms in Nigeria, The centre

for Econometric and Allied Research UI,Nigeria

Aneel Kanwer(2003) The Dete rminants Of Corporate Dividend Policies In

Pakistan: An Empirical Analysis Foundation for Business and

Economic Research

Baker, H.K and Powell, G.E. (2000) Determinants of corporate dividend

policy: a survey of NYSC firms . Finance and economic journal

Black Fisher (1976) The dividend puzzle The Journal of Portfolio

Management, winter. pp 634-639

Brittain JA (1964): The tax Structure and Corporate Dividend Policy, American

Econ. Rev. 54(3): 272.

Charitou A, and Vafeas N (1998). The Association between Operating

Cash flows and Dividend Changes: An Empirical Investigation,

Collins et all (1996) The role of huriders and dividend policy: A

comparism of regulated and unregulated firms Journal of Financial

and strategic Decisions Vol 9 No 2, Summer PP 1-9.


25/29

25

Crutehley, C and Hansen R (1989) A test of the Agency Theory of

managerial Own ership Corporate Leverage and Corporate dividends

Financial Management Vol. 18 Winter PP 36-46.

Eriotis N. and D. Vasiliou, (2003), Dividend Policy: An Empirical Analysis

of the Greek Market, International Business & Economics Research

Journal , 2004, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 49-57.

Eriotis N. and D. Vasiliou, (2005), The Effect Of Distributed Earnings And

Size of the Firm to its Dividend Policy: Some Greek Data ,

International Business & Economics Journal January 2005 Volume

4, Number 1

Fama E. F. and H. Babiak, (1968), Dividend Policy: An Empirical

Analysis, Journal of the American Statistical Association , 63, pp.

1132 1161.

Farrelly, G.E, Baker, H.K and Edulman, R.BC (1986 ) Corporate

dividends views of policy makers. Akron Business and Economic

review 17:4 (Winter) 62-74.

Frankfurter G. M. and B. G. Wood, Jr., (2002), Dividend Policy Theories

and their Empirical Tests, International Review of Financial

Analysis, vol. 11, issue 2, pp. 111 138.

Hafeez Ahmed and Attiya Y. Javid(2009) The De terminants of

Dividend Policy in Pakistan International Research Journal of

Finance and Economics ISSN 1450-2887 Issue 29


26/29

26

Higgins, R.C (1972) The corporate dividend saving decisions

Journal of financial and Quantitative Analysis Vol 7 No 2 PP 1527-

41

Higgins, R.C. (1981) Sustainable growth under inflation

Financial management Vol. 10 PP 36-40

Inanga, E. L, and Adelegan O. J (2001). A Contextual Analysis of the

Determinants of Dividend Pattern of Banks in Nigeria , A paper

presented at the 24th Annual Congress of the European Accounting

Association, Athens, Greece, April 17 20.

Inanga E.L. (1978), The First Indigenization Decree and the Dividend

Policy of Nigerian Quoted Companies The Journal of Modern

African Studies, vol. 16(2).

Inanga, E.L. (1978), Dividend Policy in An Era Indigenization: A Reply and

Further Comments, Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies,

July, pp.25-29.

Izedonmi O,and Eriki P O (1996). Determinants of Dividend Policy in

Publicly Quoted Companies, ICAN News, October/December, 15.

Fin. 55(1): 6 - 8.

Jensen, G.R, Donald, P Solbers and Zorn T. S (1992) SimultaneousDeternination of insider Ownership, Debt and Dividend Policies

Journal of financial and Quantitative Analysis No 27, June PP 247-263

Joannos J. and N. Filippas, (1997), Dividend Policy of Firms listed in The

Athens Stock Exchange: An Empirical Analysis, Spoudai, vol. 47, No. 3-4, pp.249 285, (in Greek).Kenwal A.L (2008) Determinant of Dividend payout ratios A study


27/29

27

of Indian In formation Technology Sector. International Research

Journal of Finance and Economics ISSN 1450-2887 Issue 15 euro

journals Publishing Inc.

hHP: //www.eurojournals.com/finance. Htm

Lee (2002) Divergent evaluation, hierarchy and Cladistics.

zool Scripts 31(2) PP 217-219

Lintner, J.(1956): Distribution of Income of Corporations Among

Dividends, Retained Earnings and Taxes, American Economic

Review (May), pp.97- 113.

Manoj Anand (2004) Factors Influencing Dividend Policy Decisions of

Corporate India the icfai journal of applied finance.

Miller M and Modigliani F (1961) Dividend Policy Growth and the

valuation of shaves Journal of Business, Vol 34 October PP 411-

433.

Musa, Inuwa Fodio(2009) The dividend policy of firms quoted on the

Nigerian stock exchange: An empirical analysis African Journal of

Business Management Vol.3 (10), pp. 555-566, October

Musa FI (2005). Modelling the Dividend Behavioural Pattern of

Corporate Firms in Nigeria. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,

Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria pp.85 - 152.

Nigerian stock exchange: Nigeria Stock Exchange fact book, various issues,

Nigeria Stock Exchange.


28/29

28

Okpara, Godwin Chigozie (2010) A Diagnosis of the Determinant of

Dividend Pay-Out Policy in Nigeria: A Factor Analytical Approach

American Journal of Scientific Research ISSN 1450-223X Issue

8(2010), pp.57-67

Oyejide TA (1976). Company Dividend Policy in Nigeria: An Empirical

Analysis, Niger. J. Econ. Soc. Stud. 18(2): 179.

Pruitt SW,and Gitman LJ (1991). The Interactions between t he Investment,

Financing and Dividend Decisions of Major U.S. Firms, Fin. Rev.

26(3): 237.

Rozeff ,M S (1982). Growth, Beta and Agency Costs as Determinants of

Dividend Payout Ratios, Journal of financial Research Vol. 5 No 3

PP 249-259 Fall.

Saxena A .K. (1999), Determinants of Dividends Payout Policy: Regulated

versus Unregulated Firms

www.westiga.edu/ bquest/1999/payout.htm.

Simons, K. (1994): The Relationship Between Dividend Changes and Cash

Flow: An Empirical Analysis, Journal of Business, Finance and

Accounting, Vol.21, No 4 (June), pp.577-87. 31

Smith, C. W and Watts R (1992) The Investment opportunity set and

corporate financing Dividend and compensation. Journal of

financial Economics Vol. 32. December PP 263-292

Souza (1999) Agency cost, markets risk, investment opportunities and


29/29

dividend poli cy on international perspective. Managerial finance,

Vol 25 No 6 pp 35-43

Soyode A (1975). Dividend Policy in an era of Indigenization: A

Comment Niger. J. Econ. Soc. Stud. 17(8): 126.

Uzoaga W.O. and Alozienwa J.U: (1974):"Dividend policy in an era of Indegenization", The Nigerian Journal of Economics and Social Studies , vol.16.(Nov).

Woolridge, J.R and Ghosh C (1988) An Analysis of Shareholder Reaction to

Dividend cuts and Omissions. Journal of financial research Vol 11 No 4

PP 281-294

.

Documents

Firm Size, Profit After Tax and Dividend Policy of Quoted Manufacturing Companies in Nigeria