**Examining Validity of Known Dividend
Models in Indian Companies**

**Dr. Shaveta Gupta**^{ 1}, **Dr. Balram Dogra**^{ 2}, **Dr. AK Vashisht**^{ 3}

^{1} Assistant Professor, AIMTC, Jalandhar

^{2}Vice Chancellor, Sri Sai University,Palampur

^{3}Professor,University Business
School, Punjab University,Chandigarh

**Abstract**-
*Dividend
declaration is considered as one of the key focus areas of the firm’s financial
policy. The core of dividend policy includes the decision like whether to
distribute profits to the shareholders in the form of dividend or to retain.
The dividend decision, one of the widely researched topics, yet named as
dividend puzzle, has been a center of attraction for the past number of
decades. The outcome of the past researches has resulted in development of
number of models trying to explain the dividend behavior of the companies. Some
of the well-known dividend models are: Lintner’s model, Brittain’s model,
Watt’s model and Aharony’s and Swary’s model. Considering the importance of the
models, an attempt has been made to study their applicability in Indian
conditions. This study investigates whether these models can be used to explain
Indian companies’ dividend payments or not. 172 companies listed with BSE with
continuous dividend payments from 2004-08 have been selected in four industrial
sectors: Engineering, FMCG, IT and Textiles. The study bring forth that out of
all the models, Lintner’s model does have a good fit in the selected Indian
companies.*

**Keywords-
***Dividend; Lintner’s model; Brittain,s model; Watts model;
Aharony and Swary’s model*

**1.
****INTRODUCTION**

Dividend
declaration is considered to be one of the most imperative tools for the
distribution of value to the shareholders. The core of dividend policy includes
the decision like whether to distribute profits to the shareholders in the form
of dividend or to retain it in the form of retained earnings, the payout ratio
etc. Dividend policy adopted by a firm has an inference in the practical life
for all whether it is manager or the organization’s stakeholders.

The
dividend decision, one of the widely researched topics, yet named as dividend
puzzle, has been a center of attraction for the past number of decades. The
outcome of the past researches has resulted in development of number of models
trying to explain the dividend behavior of the companies. Some of the
well-known dividend models are: Lintner’s model, Brittain’s model, Watt’s model
and Aharony’s and Swary’s model. The testing of these models has extensively
been undertaken in foreign researches. Considering the importance of these
models, an attempt has been made to study the applicability of well-known
dividend models in Indian conditions.

**Lintner’s
Dividend Model**

Lintner’s
model provides a good intuitive explanation of dividend payments. The essence
of Lintner’s dividend model is that, if a firm persisted with its target payout
ratio, then the dividend payment in the ensuing year (Div1) would equal a
constant proportion of earnings per share (EPS1). If a firm adhered to its
target payout ratio, it would change its dividend whenever its earnings
changed. However, the managers of the companies believed that shareholders
prefer a steady progression in dividends. As per Lintner (1956), the historical
rate of dividend is generally considered for the determination of current
dividends by many companies. In addition current earnings are invariably the
starting point in considering the change in dividend policy. Thus, dividend
payout is a function of net current earnings after tax and dividend paid in the
previous year (lagged dividend). This can be expressed as:

D_{t} = a + b_{1}P_{t
}+ b_{2} D_{t-1} + u_{t}

Where,

D_{t } = total equity
dividend in period‘t’

D_{t-1 }= total equity dividend in
period‘t-1’

P_{t}
= net current earnings after
tax in period‘t’

u_{t } = error term

The
net current earnings after tax, P_{t}, represent the capacity of a firm
to pay dividends. Lagged dividend, indicates a possible reluctance on the part
of the management to reduce the dividends already declared. The rationale of
this dividend function is that firms try to achieve a certain desired pay-out
norm in the long run. It is this preference for stability in the rate of
dividend; that the firms make only a partial adjustment to the rate of dividend
each year in response to any change in net current earnings. The rate of
dividend is thus stabilized with reference to the target level of dividends.
The absolute amount of dividend in a given year is changed by a function known
as speed-of-adjustment coefficient. It is the difference between the target
amount and actual dividend payment. Thus, the model suggests that the dividend
policy is related to a target level of dividends and to the speed of adjustment
of change in dividends. Lintner’s model till date is considered as widely
acknowledged and suitable model to study the dividend decision even today. In
the words of Myers (1984)

*“John Lintner’s model of how firms set dividends
dates back to1956 and it still seems to work…”*

**Brittain’s
Model**

Brittain (1966) suggested that cash flow (net current earnings
after tax plus depreciation) is a better measure of a company’s capacity to pay
dividends. Dividend payment is considered a charge prior to depreciation and,
hence should be related to
earnings gross of depreciation. The regulation and accounting practices with
respect to depreciation allowance keep on changing, thus net current earnings
would fail to reflect the movement of true earnings that is the ultimate basis
of ability to pay dividends. He used the
cash flow version of Lintner’s model in his study entitled ‘Corporate Dividend
Policy’. This model can be algebraically expressed as:

D_{t} = a + b_{1}C_{t}
+ b_{2} D_{t-1 }+ u_{t }

Where,

D_{t}
= total equity dividend in
period‘t’.

C_{t }= cash flow in
period‘t’

D_{t-1
}= total equity
dividend in period‘t-1’.

u_{t }= error term

Brittain
also used depreciation, (A_{t}) as separate explanatory variable along
with net current earnings after tax and lagged dividends. Thus, one of his
regression equations was of the form:

D_{t }= a + b_{1}, P_{t}
+ b_{2} D_{t-1} + b_{3} A_{t} + u_{t}

Where,

D_{t}
= total equity dividend in
period‘t’.

P_{t}
= net current earnings after
tax in period‘t’

D_{t-1 } = total equity dividend in
period‘t-1’.

C_{t }= cash flow in
period‘t’

A_{t}
= depreciation charged in
period‘t’

u_{t }= error term

**Watt’s
Asymmetric Information Signaling and Earnings Expectation Model**

Asymmetric
information models of dividend payments have generally been termed as Signaling
Models. In these models, it is assumed that managers know more about the true
value of the firm’s stream of earnings than investors do. Managers of
undervalued firms are thus eager to convey information about the quality of the
firm to investors, using all the tools available to them. For these signals to
be credible, they need to represent a higher cost for firms with poor earnings than
to firms that actually have very optimistic earnings forecasts. Watts (1973)
was the first to test directly the relationship between future changes in
profitability and current and past dividend policy. The model proposed is:

D_{t} = a+b_{1 }D_{t-1}+b_{2}E_{t}+b_{3}
E_{t-1 }+e_{t}

Where,

D_{t}
= total equity dividend in
period‘t’.

D_{t-1 } = total equity dividend in
period‘t-1’.

E
_{t} = Earnings per
Share in period‘t’

E
_{t-1} = Earnings per
Share in period‘t-1’

e_{t }= error term

**Aharony
and Swary’s Dividend Expectation Model**

Aharony and Swary (1980)
forecasted that abnormal stock performance can be very well predicted by a
simple dividend forecasting model. The model is well applicable in the
situation where managers are reluctant to make changes in dividend unless they
firmly believe in the firm’s position. This model was assumed by them to be
more successful and reliable in predicting abnormal performance as compared to
Fama and Babiak (1968) model.

D_{t} =
a+b_{1 }D_{t-1}+b_{2}E_{t}+b_{3}
P_{t-1 }+e_{t}

Where,

D_{t}
= total equity dividend in
period‘t’.

D_{t-1 } = total equity dividend in
period‘t-1’.

E
_{t} = Earnings per
Share in period‘t’

P
_{t-1} = Share Price in
period‘t-1’

e_{t }= error term

**2.
**** ****REVIEW OF LITERATURE**

Dividend
is considered as an important facet of organisation’s financing decision and
has attracted the researchers all over the world to find its underlying
secrets. A lot many researchers had contributed in the dividend arena.

*Lintner (1956)* undertook one
of the classic studies on how managers in USA made dividend decisions. For
conducting the study, he constructed a model comprising of variables like size
of firm, expenditure on plant and equipment, willingness to use external
financing, use of stock dividends, earnings stability and ownership by control
groups. A sample of 600 industrial listed companies was taken. In his study, he
uncovered the fact for the first time that firms in USA maintained a target
dividend payout ratio and adjusted their dividend policy to this target. The
long-term sustainable investment and growth objectives determined the firms’
target payout ratios. Further, he also found that firms pursued a stable
dividend policy and gradually increased dividends given the target payout
ratio. *Mookerjee (1992)* made an
attempt to apply the Lintner model to developing countries, focusing on
India. For this purpose, the data of
aggregate Indian corporate sector for the time period 1949-81 was taken. The
study concluded that the model applies well in Indian conditions. *Mahapatra
and Sahu (1993)* analysed the determinants of dividend policy using the
models developed by Lintner (1956), Darling (1957) and Brittain (1966). The
sample size for the study was 90 companies covering the period 1977-78 to
1988-89. The study exposed the fact that cash flow was the major determinant
followed by net earnings. Further, the study concluded that only past dividend
was a major factor in influencing the dividend decision of a firm. *Lee (1996)* tried to test the existence
of long-term relationship between earnings and dividend. For this purpose, the
data was taken from S&P Index for the year 1871-1992 and bivariate
time-series model has been used. The study concluded that earnings determine
dividends. Further, the study also concluded that Lintner’s model performed
well when target pay-out ratio is a function of permanent earnings. *Kaur
(1997)*** **conducted the
doctoral research on determinants of corporate dividend policy in India. The
sample for the study consisted of 29 companies in Chemical industry, 20
companies in Metals and Alloys, 17 companies in Electrical industry and 34 in
Engineering industry, totaling 100 companies. The data was analysed using
multiple linear regression model. The validity of known dividend models was
also examined. The study concluded that Lintner’s model is well applicable in
the selected companies. *Olatundun (nd)*
conducted a 882 firm-year study on a sample of 63 quoted firms in Nigeria over
a wider testing period from 1984 to 1997. Dividend behavior was tested using
the Lintner-Brittain model and its variants on the pooled cross sectional /
time series data for the full sample of observations from 1984-1994. The models
were estimated using the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) method. The result showed
that there was no significant interaction between the conventional Lintner /
Brittain model and dividend decisions of Nigerian firms.

*Ben
et al. (2002)*
conducted a study on the determinants and dynamics of dividend policy. The
study was conducted on 48 firms listed on Tunisian Stock Exchange during
1996-2002. The study was carried out with a view to find out whether the
managers smooth out the dividends or not along with finding out the
determinants that drives the dividend policy. In order to study the former,
Lintner’s model was applied and for the latter, panel regression was performed.
The study demonstrated that Tunisian firms relied on both the current earnings
and past dividends but the weight age was more for current earnings. *Kumar
(2003)* conducted a study to explore the association between the corporate
governance and the dividend payout policy for a panel of Indian corporate firms
over the period 1994- 2000. The study made an attempt to explain the observed
behavior with the help of well-established dividend models of Linter (1956) and
Fama and Babiak (1968). The study brought out the existence of a positive
association of dividends with earnings and dividends trend. *Pandey (2003)*
conducted a study on corporate dividend policy and behavior of Malaysian
companies. The study was conducted using financial data of 248 companies listed
on the KLSE (Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange) Main Board as at 31 December 2000.
The results showed the influence of industry on payout ratios. Further, using
Lintner’s framework and panel regression methodology, he found evidence of less
stable dividend policies being pursued by the Malaysian companies. *Anand
(2004)* undertook a study to analyze the factors influencing the dividend
policy decisions of corporates in India. For conducting the study, the results
of 2001 survey of 81 CFOs of bt-500 companies had been used. The study
concluded that most of the firms had target dividend payout ratio and dividend
changes followed shift in the long-term sustainable earnings. Further, the
findings on dividend policy were in agreement with Lintner's study on dividend
policy and concluded that it was used as a signaling mechanism to convey
information on the present and future prospects of the firm and thus affect its
market value. *Benzinho et al. (2004)* made an attempt to study how the
corporations that trade in the Lisbon Stock Exchange set their dividend
policies in a different institutional environment and research empirically
whether the corporations followed stable cash dividend policies as in developed
markets where dividend smoothing is a management tendency. For this purpose,
the dividend policy model of Lintner (1956) was used. The Lintner model was
estimated by using panel data regressions. The empirical results showed that
the Euronext Lisbon corporations followed a relatively stable cash dividend
policies and the main factors that determined the dividends was the earnings of
the firm in that year and the lagged dividends.

*Pandey and Bhatt
(2004)*
conducted a study on dividend behavior of Indian companies under monetary
policy restrictions. The final sample of the study consisted of 571
manufacturing firms and the observations were taken from 1989-1997. The
Lintner’s model was used to test the dividend stability in Indian firms. The
results reflected that the Indian firms had lower target ratios and higher
adjustment factors. *Sarma and Kuin (2004)* examined the corporate
dividend behavior of Malaysian companies listed on Kuala Lumpur stock exchange
through the application of Lintner’s stock adjustment model from 1998-2001. The
results of the study were found to be consistent with the Lintner’s model. The
empirical results showed that the main determinants of dividend policy were
lagged dividends and current earnings. The study also concluded that the
companies’ dividend policy was guided by the twin concepts of target payout
ratio and adjustment factor as enunciated by Lintner.

**3. ****NEED AND OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY**

After
a deep insight into the literature, it was found that ample research is
required in the field of Dividends and the known dividend models with special
emphasis on Lintner’s model in Indian companies. The present paper focused on
the primary objective of examining the applicability and validity of Lintner’s
model in Indian companies.

**HYPOTHESIS**

In order to empirically verify
the above objectives the following null hypothesis was framed and tested:

Mookerjee (1992) in the study
concluded that Lintner’s model, a well-known dividend model, fits into Indian
conditions. The results were further supported by the study of Mahapatra and
Sahu (1993). Kaur (1997) has also examined the validity of some known dividend
models like Lintner’s model, Pettit model, Watts’s model, Charest model and
Aharony and Swary’s model and has concluded that Lintner’s model is the best
among all the models and fits very well in Indian conditions. Besides these,
the validity of Lintner’s model has been made in context of foreign countries.
On the basis of findings of the previous studies, the hypothesis has been
framed.

**H _{0}**: Number of
studies has been conducted on Lintner’s dividend model and its applicability.
However, the validity of the said model varies with the scope in various
studies. Thus, in order to examine the validity, the null hypothesis has been
framed that

**4.
****DATA
BASE AND METHODOLOGY**

**Data
Base**

This paper focuses on the
applicability and validity of well-known dividend models: Lintner’s,
Brittain’s, Watt’s and Aharony and Swary’s, in Indian companies. For this
purpose, the study was carried out on secondary data of 172 companies in
Engineering, FMCG, IT and Textiles industry, listed on Bombay Stock Exchange.
The data has been collected from Prowess database. The companies have been
selected on the basis of the following criteria:

- The
companies must be listed with Bombay Stock Exchange.
- The
companies must have paid dividend from 2004-08.

**Statistical
Tools & Techniques**

The
present study had been analyzed using Multiple Regression Analysis. Multiple
Regression analysis was used to test the validity of known dividend models in
Indian industries under study. The variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to
assess the multi-collinearity. Threshold values of tolerance above .10 (Hair et
al., 1998) and VIF scores of less than 10 suggest minimal multi-collinearity and
stability of the parameter estimates (Neter et al., 1985; Dielman, 1991). For carrying out the analysis, SPSS software
has been meticulously used.

**5.
****ANALYSIS
AND INTERPRETATIONS**

The validity of known dividend
models in India has also been studied on grouped data basis where different
models have been applied to grouped data of different industries for all the
four years, that is, 2005-08.

**A)
Year 2005**

The
variance inflation factor (VIF) scores, as shown in Table 1 and the VIF ranged
between 1.038 and 5.181.

The regression results of various
models for the year 2005 are presented in table 2. The table shows that in
2005, only Lintner’s model significantly explained the dividend decision of the
companies under study. Further analysis of the regression coefficients
indicates that values of R^{2 }(coefficient of multiple
determination), R ^{2 }(adjusted
coefficient of determination) and F value of the coefficients, all signified
the influence of explanatory variables on the dependent variable DPS_{t} in all the 4 years under study.

^{2 }and R^{2 }remained higher than 0.8 for all the
three models . The t-values of regression coefficients of two explanatory
variables in Lintner’s model, P_{t} and D_{t-1} were
significant at 10% and 1% level of significance respectively. However, another
well-known model of dividend, Brittain’s model, deemed to be inapplicable in
Indian companies as only one explanatory variable D_{t-1 }was
significant at 1% level. In case of Watt’s model, it offered only partial explanation
for the dividend decision of Indian companies as only two explanatory variables
viz. D_{t-1 }and E_{t}** **were significant at** **10% and 1% level of significance
respectively. The t-value of the third explanatory variable of Watt’s model, E_{t-1},
showed insignificant results. Similar was the case with Aharony and Swary’s
model of dividend as in this case also significant influence was exerted by two
explanatory variables D_{t-1 }and
E_{t }that were significant at 10% and 1% level of significance.
The third variable P_{t-1 }showed
insignificant results. It can, thus, be concluded that of all the models,
Lintner’s model showed best validity in explaining the dividend decision of
Indian companies in terms of dividend per share in the year 2005 while other
three models were only partially applicable.

**B)
Year 2006**

The
variance inflation factor (VIF) scores, as shown in Table 3 ranged between
1.002 and 6.412. The regression results of various models for the year 2006 are
presented in table 4. The table shows that in 2006, only Lintner’s and Watt’s
model significantly explained the dividend decision of the companies under
study. The analysis of the regression coefficients indicates that values of R^{2 }(coefficient
of multiple determination), R ^{2 }(adjusted
coefficient of determination) and F value of the coefficients were moderately
significant. _{t} and D_{t-1} were significant at 1% level of
significance. Another well-known model of dividend, Brittain’s model, deemed to
be inapplicable in Indian companies as only one explanatory variable D_{t-1 }was
significant at 1% level. In case of Watt’s model, it offered best explanation
for the dividend decision of Indian companies as all the three explanatory
variables viz. D_{t-1,} E_{t}** **and** **E_{t-1 }were significant at** **1% level of significance respectively. In case of Aharony and
Swary’s model of dividend, significant influence was exerted by only one
explanatory variable E_{t }that was significant at 1% level of
significance. The other two variables D_{t-1}
and P_{t-1 }showed
insignificant results. It can, thus, be concluded that of all the models,
Lintner’s model and Watt’s model showed best validity in explaining the
dividend decision of Indian companies in terms of dividend per share in the
year 2006 while Brittain’s model was only partially applicable and Aharony and
Swary’s model was inapplicable in Indian companies.

**C)
Year 2007**

The
variance inflation factor (VIF) scores, as shown in Table 5 ranged between
1.033 and 2.358. The regression results of various models for the year 2007 are
presented in table 6. The table shows that in 2007, only Lintner’s model
significantly explained the dividend decision of the companies under study.
Further analysis of the regression coefficients indicates that values of R^{2 }(coefficient
of multiple determination), R ^{2 }(adjusted
coefficient of determination) and F value of the coefficients were moderately
significant. The t-values of regression
coefficients of two explanatory variables in Lintner’s model, P_{t} and
D_{t-1} were significant at 5% and 1% level of significance
respectively. _{t-1 }was
significant at 1% level. In case of Watt’s model, it offered best explanation
for the dividend decision of Indian companies as two explanatory variables viz.
D_{t-1 }and E_{t}** **were
significant at** **5% and 10% level of
significance respectively while in case of third variable E_{t-1}, the
results were insignificant. In case of
Aharony and Swary’s model of dividend, significant influence was exerted by
only one explanatory variable D_{t-1}
and E_{t }that were significant at 1% and 10% level of significance.
The other variable P_{t-1 }showed
insignificant results. It can, thus, be concluded that of all the models,
Lintner’s model showed best validity in explaining the dividend decision of
Indian companies in terms of dividend per share in the year 2007 while
Brittain’s model, Watt’s model and Aharony and Swary’s model were partially
applicable in Indian companies.

**D)
Year 2008**

The
variance inflation factor (VIF) scores, as shown in Table 7 ranged between
1.002 and 1.560.

.
The table shows that in 2008, Lintner’s model, Brittain’s model and Aharony and
Swary’s model significantly explained the dividend decision of the companies
under study. The analysis of the regression coefficients indicates that values
of R^{2} (coefficient of
multiple determination), R ^{2}
(adjusted coefficient of determination) and F value of the coefficients
were moderately significant. The t-values of regression coefficients of two
explanatory variables in Lintner’s model, Pt and Dt-1 were significant at 1%
level of significance. Another well-known model of dividend, Brittain’s model,
deemed to be applicable in Indian companies as the explanatory variables Ct and
Dt-1 were significant at 10% and 1% level respectively.In case of Watt’s model,
it offered best explanation for the dividend decision of Indian companies as
the two explanatory variables viz. Dt-1 and Et
were significant at 1% while in case of third variable Et-1, the results
were insignificant.

In case of Aharony and Swary’s
model of dividend, significant influence was exerted by all the three
explanatory variables Dt-1, Et that were significant at 1% level of significance
and Pt-1 that was significant at 10% level of significance. It can, thus, be
concluded that of all the models, Lintner’s model, Brittain’s model and Aharony and Swary’s showed best validity in
explaining the dividend decision of Indian companies in terms of dividend per
share in the year 2008 while Brittain’s model was partially applicable in
Indian companies.

**6. ****CONCLUSION**** **

Due
to lack of research on validity of dividend models in India, an attempt to test
the same in Indian industries has been made in this chapter. The analysis
brings forth the fact that Lintner’s model of dividend is the best among all
the models analysed in this chapter. The dividend behavior of Indian industries
under study has well been explained by Lintner’s model for the study period
2004-08. The model states that dividend is governed by two financial variables
viz. current earnings and lagged dividends. The same holds true for all the
industries under study. The other three models, viz. Brittain’s model, Watt’s
model and Aharony and Swary’s model do not offer satisfactory explanation of
dividend behavior of Indian industries in all the four years under study.
Further, it was revealed that lagged dividend is considered more important and
influential for determining the dividend followed by current earnings. Cash
flow and share prices have little influence on the dividend decision of the
companies during the period under study.

It can further be concluded that applicability of
these models differ on time and industry basis. And out of all the four models
considered under study, only Lintner’s model of dividend has emerged as best
model having applicability in Indian industries for the time period under
study.

**7.
****REFERENCES**

[1]
Aharony, J., and Swary, I.
(1980), “Quarterly Dividend and Earnings Announcements and Stockholders'
Returns: An Empirical Analysis”, Journal of Finance, 35, No. 1, pp.1-12

[2]
Anand, M. (2004), “Factors
Influencing Dividend Policy Decisions of Corporate India”, ICFAI Journal of
Applied Finance, Vol. 10, Issue-2, pp. 5-16

[3]
Ben, N. S. and Mohamed G. (2002),
“The Relationship between Dividend Policy, Financial Structure, Profitability
and Firm Value”, Applied Financial Economics, 12(12), 843-49.

[4]
Benzinho, J. M., ISCA, I.P.
(2004), “The Dividend Policy of the Portuguese corporations: Evidence from
Euronext Lisbon”, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA Paper No. 1137

[5]
Brittain, J. A. 1966. Corporate
Dividend Policy, Washington, D.C., The Brooking Institution.

[6]
Dielman, T.E. 1991. Applied
Regression Analysis for Business and Economics, Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publishing
Company.

[7]
Fama, E. F. and Babiak, H.
(1968), “Dividend Policy: An Empirical Analysis”, Journal of American
Statistical Association LXIII, pp. 1132-1161

[8]
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R., Tatham,
R. and Black, W. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. New Delhi: Pearson
Education, p. 165

[9]
Kaur, J. (1997), “Determinants of
Corporate Dividend Policy in India”, PhD Thesis, University Business School,
Punjab University, Chandigarh, India

[10]
Kumar, J. (2003), “Ownership
Structure and Dividend Payout Policy in India”, available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=474103 (last accessed on May 18, 2009)

[11]
Lee, B.S., (1996), “Time-series
Implications of Aggregate Dividend Behavior”, Review of Financial Studies,
Vol.9, pp. 589-618

[12]
Lintner J. (1956), “Distribution
of Incomer of Corporation among Dividends Retained Earning and Taxes”, American
Economic Review, Vol.46, pp. 97-133

[13]
Mahapatra, R.P. and Sahu, P.K.
(1993), “A Note on Determinants of Corporate Dividend Behaviour in India – An
Econometric Analysis”, Decision, Vol.
20, No. 1, January-March, pp. 1- 22

[14]
Mookerjee, R., (1992), “An
Empirical Investigation of Corporate Dividend Pay-Out Behaviour in an Emerging
Market”, Applied Financial Economics, Vol. 2, 243-246

[15]
Myers, S.C. (1984), “The Capital Structure
Puzzle”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 39, Issue-3, pp. 575-592

[16]
Neter, J., Wasserman, W. and
Kutner, M.H. 1985. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL:
Richard D.

[17]
Olatundun, A. (nd), “The Impact
Of Growth Prospect, Leverage And Firm Size on Dividend Behaviour Of Corporate
Firms In Nigeria”, available at

[18]
http://www.csae.ox.ac.uk/conferences/2000-OiA/pdfpapers/adelegan.PDF

[19]
Pandey, I.M. (2003), “Corporate
Dividend Policy and Behavior: The Malaysian Evidence”, Asian Academy of
Management Journal, Vol.8, No. 1, pp. 17-32

[20]
Pandey, I. M., and Bhat R.,
(2004), “Dividend Behaviour of Indian Companies Under Monetary Policy
Restrictions”, Working Paper No. 2004-05-6, Indian Institute of Management,
Ahmedabad, available at http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/publications/data/2004-05-07impandey.pdf

[21]
Sarma, L.V.L.N. and Kuin, K. L.
(2004), “Corporate Dividend Behavior in the Emerging Markets: A Study of the
Malaysian Corporate Sector”, The Icfai Journal of Applied Finance, Vol.10,
Issue-7, pp. 56-70

[22]
Watts, R. (1973), “The
Information Content of Dividends”, Journal of Business, Vol.47, pp. 191-211