do liquidity induced changes in aggregate dividends signal aggregate future earnings growth - wann...
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Do Liquidity Induced Changes in Aggregate Dividends Signal Aggregate Future Earnings Growth - Wann and Long
1/13
-
8/9/2019 Do Liquidity Induced Changes in Aggregate Dividends Signal Aggregate Future Earnings Growth - Wann and Long
2/13
evidence that dividend changes signal future earnings growth. The lack of consistent
evidence between theory and corporate practice is puzzling.
Although Miller and Modigliani (1961) argue that there is no optimal dividend
policy at the firm level, this does not imply that there is no optimal dividend level at
the macroeconomic level. Marsh and Merton (1987) find that aggregate dividendsdisplay systematic time series behavior, casting doubt on the ability of firm-specific
dividend behavior to wholly explain the dividend puzzle. The relationship between
aggregate dividends and aggregate earnings may actually be stronger than firm-level
relationships if aggregation filters out firm-specific earnings information and
signifies macroeconomic trends. This is further strengthened by Marsh and Mertons
(1987) suggestion that firms consider industry payout ratios when choosing a target
payout ratio.
Prior research has paid less attention to aggregate data than firm-level data.
Therefore, we expand the current research by utilizing macroeconomic data providedby the Federal Reserve Statistical Releases. In addition, other research largely ignores
the effect that underlying economic stimuli may have on aggregate changes in dividend
payout policy and subsequent future earnings growth. For example, changes in
aggregate cash balances (liquidity shocks) may help provide a context in understanding
the relationship between changes in payout policy and changes in future earnings
growth. In fact, we find that aggregate payout deviations from Lintners (1956) long-
run target ratio following a liquidity shock signal aggregate future earnings growth.
Thus, the purpose of this paper is to provide new evidence concerning the
relationship between changes in dividends and future earnings. In this process, wemake several empirical contributions. First, we extend prior research by investigat-
ing the role that a latent economic variable, such as increases in excess cash balances
(liquidity shocks), may have in relating payout ratio to changes in future earnings
growth. For example, we find increases in aggregate payout ratios, if induced by
positive liquidity shocks, predict higher aggregate future earnings growth. Second, to
the best of our knowledge, we are the first to use the macroeconomic data supplied
by the Federal Reserve to reexamine the role that changes in aggregate dividend
levels may have in signaling changes in aggregate future earnings.
In addition, we present further evidence of Lintners (1956) ratchet effect.
Simply stated, this effect suggests firms are reluctant to cut dividends, and will only
increase dividends if supported by higher expected earnings. If true, then aggregate
dividends need to grow when the current payout ratio is below the aggregate long-
run target payout, and remain unchanged when payout is above the target.
Consequently, a long-run target payout ratio is maintained if earnings grow when
the current payout ratio is higher than target, and remain unchanged when payout
ratios are lower than target. Lastly, we provide additional support for a long-run
aggregate target payout ratio.
2 Literature review
2 J Econ Finan (2009) 33:112
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
8/9/2019 Do Liquidity Induced Changes in Aggregate Dividends Signal Aggregate Future Earnings Growth - Wann and Long
3/13
setting dividend policy (Lintner 1956). He used the results to develop a model to
explain changes in dividend policy. Lintner finds that firms set dividend policy first,
symbolic of the high importance assigned to stable dividends. Furthermore, changes
in dividends are primarily based upon support provided by earnings levels. Lintner
suggests that firms adjust dividends to the long-run target payout ratio asymmetri-cally by increasing dividends slowly and avoiding dividend cuts. This is referred to
as the ratchet effect.
A more recent survey by Brav et al. (2004) supports Lintners (1956) finding that
changes in dividends are primarily based upon the support and perceived stability
provided by earnings levels. Similar to Lintners study, the survey results suggest
that firms strive to maintain dividend levels and avoid dividend cuts. Conversely,
Skinner (2004) analyzes S&P data ands finds that Lintners relationship between
aggregate dividends and aggregate earnings has declined.
Miller and Modigliani (1961) also recognize that firms are unwilling to decreasedividends and will increase dividends only when they expect to achieve equal or
higher earnings in the future. In a study of the ratchet effect for dividends, Shirvani
and Wilbratte (1997) find support for the long-run target payout ratio implied by
Lintner (1956). For example, when the payout ratio is lower than target, dividends
are allowed to grow. Conversely, growth in earnings serves as the stabilizing factor
when the payout ratio is too high. Support for a long-run target dividend payout ratio
implies that dividends and earnings must be cointegrated (Engle and Granger 1987).
The ratchet effect also suggests that dividend announcements provide important
signaling content. However, much of the existing literature examines the relationship between dividend changes and future earnings without consideration for the
underlying economic conditions that drive dividend changes.
Several other studies have attempted to relate dividend changes with future
earnings changes. Benartzi et al. (1997) test the actual realization of future
unexpected earnings in response to dividend changes. Surprisingly, there is not
much evidence for the expected positive relationship between dividend increases and
future unexpected earnings growth. This finding is not consistent with the notion that
changes in dividends have information content about the future earnings of firms.
Grullon et al. (2002) further examine the signaling hypothesis with a sample limited
to firms that change their dividends by more than 10% and use return on assets as
the measure of profitability. Firms that increase dividends actually experience
declines in return on assets in the following 3 years. Likewise, firms that decrease
dividends experience an increase in return on assets for the next 3 years.
Benartzi et al. (2003) re-evaluate the link between dividends and earnings
changes using Fama and Frenchs (2000) modified partial adjustment model. The
strength in this methodology lies in the ability to relate future earnings to past
earnings, and thereby control for the predictable component of earnings. Once again,
no support for the information content hypothesis is found.
In contrast, there is support for the information content hypothesis in an aggregate
study of the payout ratio of the U.S. equity market portfolio (Arnott and Asness
J Econ Finan (2009) 33:112 3
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
8/9/2019 Do Liquidity Induced Changes in Aggregate Dividends Signal Aggregate Future Earnings Growth - Wann and Long
4/13
Further support for the information content hypothesis is in a study examining the
increased propensity of firms to pay dividends (Julio and Ikenberry 2004). Although
Fama and French (2001) find that the number of firms paying dividends declined
during the late 1990s, a reversal has taken place since 2000. One suggested reason
for the reappearance of dividend payments is that some firms have decided to usedividends as a signal of confidence amidst investor anxiety over corporate
governance. Firms with low debt levels and limited access to capital markets began
to use dividends as signals of confidence in the beginning of 2000.
One area of study that has received little attention is the markets reaction to
dividend changes in relation to liquidity levels. Guay and Harford (2000) study the
permanence of cash flow shocks and relate them to the announcement of either
dividend increases or share repurchases. When the announcement of the payout form
does not match the markets expectation concerning future cash flows, stock returns
respond in the following ways. For example, when the market perceives a permanentcash flow increase and the firm chooses a temporary payout method, such as a
repurchase, stocks experience negative returns. Likewise, when the market has
estimated a transient cash flow shock and the firm chooses a more permanent
payout, such as an increased dividend, stocks experience positive returns. These
results imply that the form of payout is related to expectations regarding the
permanence of the cash flow shock.
Another study investigates the permanence of earnings deviations to determine
why stock repurchases have fluctuated so widely (Dittmar and Dittmar 2002).
Permanent and temporary increases in earnings are related to increases inrepurchases. Dividends only increase in response to permanent increases in earnings.
Dividends and repurchases are used interchangeably in distributing permanent
earnings.
Lie (2000) finds that firms with excess cash within their industry are also firms
that increase dividends or repurchase shares to alleviate the agency problem of free
cash flow. Lie (2000) defines excess cash flow as operating income before
depreciation, minus interest expenses, taxes, and depreciation. Stock prices of firms
with excess cash only react significantly to special dividend and repurchase
announcements, and not to regular dividend increases.
3 Data
The sample data includes quarterly income statement and balance sheet data from
table F.102 in the Federal Reserves Flows of Funds Release for Nonfarm
Nonfinancial Corporate Business. The macroeconomic data covers the period from
1952 Q1 to 2004 Q3 and originates from tax files, not from financial statements. All
dollar values are converted into constant 2004 Q3 dollars using the CPI provided by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In this section, we briefly discuss the variables used in the study, but provide
4 J Econ Finan (2009) 33:112
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
8/9/2019 Do Liquidity Induced Changes in Aggregate Dividends Signal Aggregate Future Earnings Growth - Wann and Long
5/13
predict changes in future earnings. Here payout ratios are simply dividends divided
by earnings before tax. The long-run target payout ratio is a rolling average of the
previous 8-quarter payout ratios. The target adjusted payout ratio is defined as the
percentage that actual payout is above or below the long-run target payout ratio.
Liquidity shock is measured as the percentage actual cash is above or below target
cash. Target or expected cash is the eight-quarter rolling average cash-to-net-assetsratio times net assets.
In Table 2 we report the descriptive statistics for the main variables analyzed in
the study. We follow the convention of Opler et al. (1999) concerning scaling by
total assets net of cash and marketable securities. The median cash-to-net assets ratio
is 4.23% and the median liquidity shock equals 1.63%. The median payout ratio is
approximately 29% while the median deviation from the target payout ratio is
0.53%.
Table 2 Descriptive statistics for the main variables analyzed during the time period 1952 Q1 to 2004
Q3, at the macroeconomic level
Variable Mean 25th Quartile Median 75th Quartile Standard deviation N
Cash/Net assets 4.75% 3.61% 4.23% 5.41% 1.58% 202
Liquidity shocks 1.47% 6.82% 1.63% 4.34% 7.38% 202
Earnings ($billion) 94.4004 74.8098 92.4527 109.4480 24.2543 202
Payout ratio 35.61% 23.25% 28.99% 46.03% 16.71% 202
ln(Payout/Target Payout) 1.42% 9.97% 0.53% 10.43% 16.99% 202
ln(Earningst+4) 1.37% 10.48% 3.71% 12.39% 18.47% 198
ln(Earningst+8) 1.91% 14.27% 2.77% 19.88% 25.24% 194ln(Earningst+12) 1.96% 15.13% 3.49% 21.75% 27.29% 190
ln(Earnings ) 2 90% 16 04% 6 03% 27 76% 29 91% 186
Table 1 Definitions for the main variables analyzed in the study
Variable Definition
Cash-to-Net
assets ratio
The sum of checkable deposits and currency, time and savings deposits, money
market fund shares, commercial paper, and U.S. government securities alldivided by net assets
Net assets Assets minus the sum of checkable deposits and currency, time and savings
deposits, money market fund shares, commercial paper, and U.S. government
securities
Target cash Expected cash level as a fraction of net assets, Target Cash = (t8,tNet Assets),
where, t8,t is the eight-quarter rolling average cash-to-net assets ratio
Liquidity shock Measures excess cash balances, and is the percentage actual cash is above or
below target cash in the current period, LS=ln[Casht/(t8,t*Net Assetst)]*100
Earnings Profits before tax
Payout ratio Dividends divided by profits before tax
Target payout ratio The prior 8-quarter rolling average payout ratio
Target adjustedpayout
Measures the percentage actual payout is above or below target payout,Target Adjusted Payout = ln(Payoutt/Target Payout)*100
J Econ Finan (2009) 33:112 5
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
8/9/2019 Do Liquidity Induced Changes in Aggregate Dividends Signal Aggregate Future Earnings Growth - Wann and Long
6/13
4 Methodology
4.1 Variance ratio tests
Survey results imply that firms strive to maintain long-run target payout ratios
(Lintner 1956; Brav et al. 2004), which suggests that dividends and earnings are
cointegrated. In order to test for cointegration, we apply Lo and MacKinleys (1988)
variance ratio test to payout and cash-to-net asset ratios for the time span of 1952 Q1
to 2004 Q3.1 The variance ratio test compares the size of the permanent trend
component with the temporary trend component from a time series for a particular
variable. The ratio of the permanent trend component to the temporary trend
component forms the variance ratio. Variance ratios are calculated from a four-
quarter to a 16-quarter time horizon.
Table 3 contains the results of variance ratio tests for changes in payout and cash-
to-net asset ratios. In the aggregate, if firms adjust current payout and cash-to-net
asset ratios to a desired long-run target ratio, then deviations above (below) the target
ratio should be followed by downward (upward) adjustments. Consequently,
changes in the variables studied should exhibit negative correlation.
The results presented in Table 3 indicate that changes in payout ratios and cash-
to-net assets do not follow a random walk for up to eight quarters, and those changes
are in fact mean reverting at a significance level ofp=0.10 and p=0.05, respectively.
This implies that over 8-quarters in the aggregate there is a collective attempt tomaintain a target ratio by raising payout and cash-to-net assets ratios when they are
Table 3 Variance ratio tests
Number nq of base
observations
Number q of base observations aggregated to
form variance ratio
4 8 12 16
Dividends/earnings
Variance ratio 211 0.47 0.32 0.23 0.21
Test statistic (1.85)a (1.71)a (1.65) (1.56)
Implied correlation 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.05
Cash/net assets
Variance ratio 211 0.51 0.42 0.58 0.60
Test statistic (3.26)b (2.38)c (1.32) (1.09)
Implied correlation 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.03
Dividends, earnings, cash, and net asset variables are stated in constant 2004 Q3 dollars, and are used in
variance ratio tests for random walk. Dividends exclude net share issues and earnings are profits beforetax. n denotes the total number of quarterly observations over the period 1952 Q1 to 2004 Q3 in the
variance ratio test.aSignificance at the 10% level.b Significance at the 1% level.c Significance at the 5% level.
6 J Econ Finan (2009) 33:112
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
8/9/2019 Do Liquidity Induced Changes in Aggregate Dividends Signal Aggregate Future Earnings Growth - Wann and Long
7/13
is this process of reverting to a mean target that allows deviations from the target to
convey information about future earnings growth.
Based on this analysis, we use the 8-quarter rolling average payout ratio as the
long-run target ratio. The target payout ratio is then used to calculate the degree
actual payout deviates from the target. Similarly, we use the 8-quarter rolling averagecash-to-net assets ratio as a benchmark to calculate liquidity shocks or periods of
increases in excess cash balances.
4.2 Regression analysis
In the following regression analysis, we examine the effects of several scenarios
relating changes in dividends (with and without liquidity shocks) to future earnings
growth. Each regression is estimated over the sample period of 1952 Q1 to 2004 Q3
using Maximum Likelihood estimation and corrected for autocorrelated errors. Thetime horizon ranges from four to 16 quarters, or 1 to 4 years.
As noted earlier, prior surveys of business executives suggest dividends are only
increased when strong earnings are sustainable. However, there is not strong
empirical evidence that dividend changes signal future earnings growth. Using
aggregated data we reexamine this issue in our first regression. Equation 1 measures
how changes in target-adjusted payout ratios predict future changes in earnings. If1is significantly positive (1>0), then this is evidence that higher target-adjusted
payouts signal higher future earnings. Equation 1 is as follows:
ln Earningsti
1 1ln Payoutt=Target Payout ( 1
In Eq. 2 below, we introduce an interactive variable to capture the effects of
changes in payout ratios that are induced by liquidity shocks (i.e., excess cash
balances). An increase in excess cash, if perceived as permanent, can be used to
permanently increase dividends, and signal the firms confidence in a more
profitable future. Prior literature suggests dividends are increased when permanent
increases in cash flows occur (Guay and Harford 2000; Dittmar and Dittmar 2002).
Equation 2 is as follows:
ln Earningsti
2 2ln Payoutt=Target Payout
2ln Payoutt=Target Payout *LS ( 2
Liquidity shocks enter Eq. 2 as an interactive dummy variable, where LS=1 if
actual cash balance is above target cash (liquidity shock>0), otherwise LS=0. If 2is significantly positive (2>0) then a positive liquidity shock suggests that the
excess cash is perceived as permanent and signals confidence in higher future profits
or earnings. It will also convey the importance of recognizing that other economic
stimuli may have a significant impact in predicting a firms future profitability. As in
Eq. 1, a significantly positive 2 implies, that in general, the market views higher
payouts as a signal for higher future earnings.
J Econ Finan (2009) 33:112 7
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
8/9/2019 Do Liquidity Induced Changes in Aggregate Dividends Signal Aggregate Future Earnings Growth - Wann and Long
8/13
earnings, when payout is above target and when payout is below target. To measure
these effects we use two dummy interaction variables. Equation 3 is follows:
ln Earningsti
3 3ln Payoutt=Target Payout
3ln Payoutt=Target Payout *D1*LS
p3ln Payoutt=Target Payout *D2*LS ( 3
The first interaction term measures the effect of payout changes induced by a
liquidity shock when payout ratio is above its long-run target. As in Eq. 2, LS=1 if
actual cash balance is above target cash (liquidity shock>0), otherwise LS=0. In
addition, the dummy variable D1 will have a value of D1=1 if payout is above the
long-run target payout, otherwise D1=0. If, actual payout is above long-run target
payout, then a firm can (1) cut dividends, or (2) maintain current dividends andallow growth in earnings to lower the payout ratio to the target ratio. Prior research
supporting the ratchet effect suggests firms are reluctant to cut dividends and will let
future earnings catch-up to high dividends. In this case, increasing dividends when
payout is above a long-run target should provide signaling information for higher
expected future earnings. Therefore, in the first interaction term, we should find that
3 is significantly greater that zero (3>0).
The second interaction term in Eq. 3 measures the effect of payout changes
induced by a liquidity shock when payout ratio is below its long-run target. Here the
dummy variable D2 will take on a value of D2=1 if payout is below the long-runtarget, otherwise D2=0. Consequently, if actual payout is below long-run target
payout, then dividends need to grow relative to earnings in order to raise payout
back to target. Therefore, in contrast to the previous case, an increase in the payout
ratio here should not signal increases in future earnings. This implies that the
coefficient in the second interaction term, 3, should not be significantly different
from zero (3=0). Again, as in Eq. 1, a significantly positive 3 continues to imply
that, in general, the market views higher payouts as a signal for higher future
earnings.
5 Results
Equation 1 examines the general relationship between changes in target adjusted
payout ratios and changes in future earnings over a time horizon of four to 16
quarters. These results are presented in Table 4. We find that increases in payout
ratios predict significantly higher future earnings over all time periods (p=0.01).
This provides support that higher payout ratios signal higher future earnings. These
aggregate results are similar to firm level studies that find dividend changes predict
future profitability (Nissim and Ziv 2001; Chang et al. 2006; Asquith and Mullins1983; Healy and Palepu 1988; Michaely et al. 1995).
8 J Econ Finan (2009) 33:112
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
8/9/2019 Do Liquidity Induced Changes in Aggregate Dividends Signal Aggregate Future Earnings Growth - Wann and Long
9/13
payout ratio is a signal of higher future earnings. What is interesting is that in order
for increases in payout ratios to signal even higher future earnings, an economicstimulus is needed. Our liquidity shock variable, as measured by a percent increase
Table 4 Future growth in earnings and payout ratio deviations from target
Dependent variable 1 Intercept 1 ln(Payoutt/Target Payout)
ln(Earningst+4) 0.0124 0.3683
t-statistic (0.41) (5.86)a
N=198
R2=45.34
ln(Earningst+8) 0.0172 0.5091
t-statistic (0.49) (7.98)a
N=194R2=69.71
ln(Earningst+12) 0.0277 0.3435
t-statistic (0.63) (5.25)a
N=190
R2=74.51
ln(Earningst+16) 0.0469 0.3287
t-statistic (1.29) (5.09)a
N=186
R2=79.48
Regressions for Eq. 1. Earnings are the natural log of the cumulative sum of changes in profits before tax
in future periods t+ i where i denotes the number of future quarters used in the summation. t-statistics are
shown in parentheses. N is the number of observations used in the regression.aSignificance at the 1% level.
Table 5 Effect of excess liquidity: Future growth in earnings and payout ratio deviations from target
Dependent variable 2 Intercept 2 ln(Payoutt/Target Payout) 2 ln(Payoutt/Target Payout)*LS
ln(Earningst+4) 0.0150 0.1882 0.3833
t-statistic (0.52) (2.34)a (3.45)b
N=198
R2=48.41
ln(Earningst+8) 0.0227 0.3119 0.4073t-statistic (0.64) (3.84)b (3.73)b
N=194
R2=71.78
ln(Earningst+12) 0.0305 0.2021 0.3438
t-statistic (0.57) (2.56)a (2.89)b
N=190
R2=75.87
ln(Earningst+16) 0.0482 0.2670 0.1452
t-statistic (1.31) (3.23)b (1.18)
N=186
R2
=79.63
Regressions for Eq. 2. Earnings are the natural log of the cumulative sum of changes in profits before tax
J Econ Finan (2009) 33:112 9
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
8/9/2019 Do Liquidity Induced Changes in Aggregate Dividends Signal Aggregate Future Earnings Growth - Wann and Long
10/13
in excess cash, appears to be that force. This effect is captured by the 2 interaction
coefficient in Eq. 2. We find that the 2 coefficient is significantly positive over the
4-quarter to 12-quarter time horizon at a p-values=0.01.
These results support prior research by Guay and Harford (2000) and Dittmar and
Dittmar (2002). They suggest that a positive liquidity shock can be used to signal
confidence in a more profitable future if the increase in excess cash is perceived as
permanent in nature. However, without a positive liquidity shock, an increase in the
target adjusted payout ratio may be viewed as unsustainable, or only temporary, and
therefore, provides less information for signaling future earnings.
As previously outlined, the ratchet effect suggests increases in payout ratios may
contain different signaling information regarding future earnings when payout is
above its long-run target versus when it is below its long-run target. Therefore, in
Eq. 3 we examine the relationship between changes in payout, and changes in
payout induced by a liquidity shock on future earnings, when payout is above target
and when payout is below target. Table 6 shows the results for Eq. 3. We continue to
find that the coefficient for the target adjusted payout ratio is significant (p=0.01) for
up to 4 years.
Table 6 Effect of excess liquidity: Future growth in earnings and payout ratio deviations from target High versus low payout ratios
Dependent variable 3 Intercept 3 ln(Payoutt/
Target Payout)
3 ln(Payoutt/
Target Payout)*D1*LS
3 ln(Payoutt/
Target Payout)*D2*LS
ln(Earningst+4) 0.0008 0.2300 0.5226 0.0031
t-statistic (0.03) (2.87)a (4.35)a (0.02)
N=198
R2=50.51
ln(Earningst+8) 0.0107 0.3293 0.5304 0.1004
t-statistic (0.29) (4.17)a (4.57)a (0.56)
N=194
R2=72.61
ln(Earningst+12) 0.0201 0.2328 0.5333 0.0204
t-statistic (0.36) (2.86)a (3.77)a (0.11)
N=190
R2=76.39ln(Earningst+16) 0.0436 0.2852 0.1820 0.0383
t-statistic (0.93) (3.40)a (1.21) (0.20)
N=186
R2=79.32
Regressions for Eq. 3. Earnings are the natural log of the cumulative sum of changes in profits before tax
in future periods t+ i where i denotes the number of future quarters used in the summation. LSis a dummy
variable, where LS=1 represents the presence of a positive liquidity shock, 0 otherwise. D1 is a dummy
variable, where D1=1 represents a payout ratio higher than the target payout ratio, 0 otherwise. D2 is a
dummy variable, where D2=1 represents a payout ratio lower than the target payout ratio, 0 otherwise.
t-statistics are shown in parentheses. N is the number of observations used in the regression.aSignificance at the 1% level.
10 J Econ Finan (2009) 33:112
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
8/9/2019 Do Liquidity Induced Changes in Aggregate Dividends Signal Aggregate Future Earnings Growth - Wann and Long
11/13
which is significantly positive for the 4-quarter through 12-quarter periods at
p=0.01. Thus, it appears that positive liquidity shocks continue to play an
important role in signaling future earnings growth around increases in aggregate
payout ratios.
In contrast, when payout is below target, we find that changes in liquidity inducedpayout ratios have no significant impact on future earnings in all four time horizons
(3=0). However, the finding that3 is insignificant does not necessarily imply that
a positive liquidity shock is not perceived as a permanent increase in excess cash
balances. It is probably a consequence of the ratchet effect, because when payout is
below long-run target payout, dividends need to grow relative to earnings in order to
raise payout back to it long-run target ratio. Therefore, even if the liquidity shock is
viewed as permanent, its role in this case will be to help restore the current payout
ratio back to its long-run target as dividends increase. Thus, it is not a signal for
significantly higher future earnings.However, the ratchet effect also suggests that firms are reluctant to cut dividends.
So, when payout is above its long-run target, firms will restore the payout target
through higher future earnings, not by cuts in dividends. So an increase in dividends
when payout is above target is a signal that management is confident that higher
future earnings can restore the long-run target ratio. Thus, the ratchet effect is also
further supported by the significantly positive 3 coefficient in Eq. 3 across three
time periods.
In addition, the arguments presented above offer support for an aggregate long-
run target payout ratio. Evidence for a long-run target payout is further strengthened by the variance ratio tests in Table 3. This test shows payout ratios are mean
reverting and do not follow a random walk over an 8-quarter time horizon.
6 Conclusions
Surveys of financial executives suggest that managers only increase dividends when
strong earnings are sustainable in the future. In contrast, empirical literature provides
mixed evidence that dividend changes signal future earnings growth at the firm
level. We find a strong relationship between aggregate dividends and aggregate
earnings, implying that aggregation filters out firm-specific earnings information and
signifies macroeconomic trends. Using macroeconomic data provided by the Federal
Reserve Statistical Releases, we show that changes in aggregate payout ratios, driven
by positive liquidity shocks, do have information content about aggregate future
earnings growth for horizons up to 3 years. After accounting for the economic
stimuli of liquidity shocks, measured as increases in excess cash balances, we show
a significant relationship between changes in target adjusted payout ratios and future
earnings growth.
However, the impact of liquidity shocks on future earnings is concentrated when
the payout ratio is above its long-run target payout. We find increases in liquidity
J Econ Finan (2009) 33:112 11
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
8/9/2019 Do Liquidity Induced Changes in Aggregate Dividends Signal Aggregate Future Earnings Growth - Wann and Long
12/13
References
Arnott RD, Asness CS (2003) Surprise! Higher dividends=higher earnings growth. Financ Anal J 59:
7088
Asquith P, Mullins DW Jr (1983) The impact of initiating dividend payments on shareholder wealth. J Bus56:7796Benartzi S, Michaely R, Thaler R (1997) Do changes in dividends signal the future or the past? J Finance
52:10071034
Benartzi S, Grullon G, Michaely R, Thaler R (2003) Dividend changes do not signal changes in future
profitability. Working paper
Brav A, Graham JR, Harvey CR, Michaely R (2004) Payout policy in the 21st century. Tuck
Contemporary Corporate Finance Issues III Conference Paper, Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth,
910 July 2004
Chang AC-C, Kumar P, Sivaramakrishnan S (2006) Dividend changes and signaling of future cash flows.
Working paper
Dittmar AK, Dittmar RF (2002) Stock repurchase waves: an explanation of the trends in aggregate
corporate payout policy. Working paperEngle RF, Granger CWJ (1987) Cointegration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing.
Econometrica 55:251276
Fama E, French K (2000) Forecasting profitability and earnings. J Bus 73:161175
Fama E, French K (2001) Disappearing dividends: changing firm characteristics or lower propensity to
pay? J Financ Econ 60:343
Grullon G, Michaely R, Swaminathan B (2002) Are dividend changes a sign of firm maturity? J Bus
75:387424
Guay WR, Harford J (2000) The cash-flow permanence and information content of dividend increasesversus repurchases. J Financ Econ 57:385415
Healy PM, Palepu KG (1988) Earnings information conveyed by dividend initiations and omissions.
J Financ Econ 21:149176
Julio B, Ikenberry DL (2004) Reappearing dividends. J Appl Corp Finance 16:89100
Lie E (2000) Excess funds and agency problems: an empirical study of incremental cash disbursements.
Rev Financ Stud 1:219247
Lintner J (1956) Distributions of incomes of corporations among dividends, retained earnings, and taxes.
Am Econ Rev 46:97113
Lo A, MacKinley C (1988) Stock market prices do not follow random walks: evidence from a simple
specification test. Rev Financ Stud 1:4166
Marsh TA, Merton RC (1987) Dividend behavior for the aggregate stock market. J Bus 60:140
Michaely R, Thaler RH, Womack K (1995) Price reactions to dividend initiations and omissions:
overreaction or drift? J Finance 50:573608
Miller MH, Modigliani F (1961) Dividend policy, growth, and the valuation of shares. J Bus 34:411433
Nissim D, Ziv A (2001) Dividend changes and future profitability. J Finance 56:2111
2133Opler T, Pinkowitz L, Stulz R, Williamson R (1999) The determinants and implications of corporate cash
holdings. J Financ Econ 52:346
Shirvani H, Wilbratte B (1997) An empirical investigation of asymmetric behavior in corporate dividend
policy. Econ Inq 35:847857
Skinner DJ (2004) What do dividends tell us about earnings quality? Working paper, University of
Michigan
12 J Econ Finan (2009) 33:112
-
8/9/2019 Do Liquidity Induced Changes in Aggregate Dividends Signal Aggregate Future Earnings Growth - Wann and Long
13/13