Cash Dividend Announcements and Stock Return Volatility: Evidence from India

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia Economics and Finance 30 (2015) 38 – 49

3rd Economics & Finance Conference, Rome, Italy, April 14-17, 2015 and 4th Economics & Finance Conference, London, UK, August 25-28, 2015

Cash Dividend Announcements and Stock Return Volatility: Evidence from India Anwar, S.*, Singh, S., Jain, P. K. Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi 110016, India

Abstract It is generally accepted that cash dividend announcements are indicative of the future financial performance of the firm. Using ‘event study methodology’, the study has examined the effect of cash dividend announcements on stock returns (abnormal returns, if any) volatility that reflect investors’ expectations of risk and return. The results have provided strong support for ‘Signaling’ and ‘Risk Information’ hypotheses conveying that the volatility of stock returns increased post cash dividend announcement due to decline in firm’s risk; but no significant results were reported for stock returns volatility due to dividend announcements. These findings are consistent with ‘Maturity hypothesis’ requiring firms to pay more dividends on attaining maturity, as a result entering into slower growth period. An important implication of this study is that, managers may employ dividend policy to influence their stock’s risk and to the investors’ affecting their portfolios’ risk/return composition. This paper contributes to the deficient literature on cash dividend announcements and stock returns volatility in particular, in emerging economies such as India. ©©2015 by Elsevier B.V.byThis is an B.V. open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license 2015Published The Authors. Published Elsevier (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of IISES-International Institute for Social and Economics Sciences. Peer-review under responsibility of IISES-International Institute for Social and Economics Sciences. Keywords: India; Event study; Signaling hypothesis; Risk information hypothesis; Maturity hypothesis

1.

Introduction

A plethora of research in the past, by and large, has shown that the information content of cash dividend announcements can be assessed using different measures. The two most frequently used methods are the abnormal returns and the variability of stock returns. However, unlike abnormal returns calculated using event studies, stock

* Corresponding Author: tel.: +0-742-828-4784. E-mail address:[email protected]

2212-5671 © 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Peer-review under responsibility of IISES-International Institute for Social and Economics Sciences. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01253-8

S. Anwar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 30 (2015) 38 – 49

price volatility suffers from a lack of theory supporting the hypotheses on which tests and conclusions are based in literature (Acker, 1999). Uncertainty of information has been recognized as an important factor resulting in security price changes that reflect investors' expectations of risk and return. This paper has employed variability of returns as its measure to ascertain the risk associated with stock returns volatility (both short-term and long-term) on announcement of cash dividends using event study methodology. The ‘risk information hypothesis’ proposes that dividend announcement conveys news regarding a change in firm’s risk. The decrease in risk occurs because of reduction in firm’s volatility and earnings surprises (Dyl and Weigand, 1998). The greater is the volatility, the greater the chance of gain or loss in the short-run. Hence, the volatility of stock returns is known to increase around cash dividend announcement dates (Chari et al., 1988). As investors by nature are risk averse, volatility of stock returns is important to them because it is a measure of the level of risk they are exposed to (Guo, 2002). The focus of this paper is not to examine the abnormal returns associated with cash dividend announcements; instead, it investigates the important aspect of risk in terms of variability of returns. For better exposition, this paper has been divided into nine sections: Section 1 contains the introduction. Section 2 reviews the pertinent literature. Section 3 describes the rationale for the study. Section 4 covers objectives and research hypotheses. Section 5 discusses research methodology. Section 5 discusses rationale of the study. Section 6 covers the objectives and research hypotheses. Section 6 describes research methodology. Section 7 presents and analyses the results. Section 8 presents possible explanations or reasons for stock volatility and Section 9 contains the concluding observations. 2.

Literature review

The extant literature available has shown that dividend announcements are value altering events and can alter the risk and expected returns of firms (Brown et al., 1988 &1993; Brennan and Copeland, 1988; Otchere, 2004). The relationship between cash dividend announcements and the volatility of their stock returns has been explored at different times by different researchers. The stock’s volatility is a benchmark for measuring risk and is affected by the variation in the frequencies of information arrival (Ross, 1989). The earlier studies related to dividends and stock price-volatility were mostly conducted in US (namely Harkavy (1953); Friend and Puckett, (1964); Litzenberger and Ramaswamy (1982); Fama and French (1988); Baskin (1989) and Ohlson (1995)). These studies provided mixed results and were non-conclusive. For example, the study by Friend and Puckett (1964) observed a positive effect of dividend on share price movements whereas; Baskin (1989) noted an inverse relationship between dividend yield and stock price volatility. Later on, several studies were conducted in different developed and emerging economies. Kalay and Lowenstein (1985) documented substantial increase in the volatility of security returns for the days surrounding the dividend announcement. Venkatesh (1989) found that volatility of daily returns was lower in the post-dividend period. Kim and Verrecchia (1991) concluded that the volatility of stock price around dividend announcements was higher in view of more private information gathering and uncertainty. Similar results were observed by Mitra and Owers (1995). However, differing results were reported by Allen and Rachim (1996) with no evidence supporting the fact that dividend yield influenced stock price volatility in Australia. In a recent study by Rashid and Rahman (2008), dividend policy had no role to influence stock’s risk in Bangladesh. Similarly, Manakyan and Carroll (1991) reported no significant change in systematic risk around the dividend change announcement. In contrast, Acker (1999) reported that the volatility was at peak on the day of final announcements. Mestel and Gurgul (2003) concluded that the volatility of stock returns increased more with the announcement of bad news and increase in uncertainty among the investors. Similar results were reported by Gurgul et al. (2003) and Docking and Koch (2005) where the variance of abnormal returns led to sharp hike in response to the bad news. Fargher and Weigand (2009) reported decrease in systematic risk following the initiation of regular cash dividends. Fracassi (2008) summarized the findings as implied by maturity hypothesis of the firm, that is, the transition from a mature life-cycle stage to a decline stage resulting in higher systematic risk. Since, dividend decisions involves a drastic policy change, it is expected that the change in risk, if any, will be substantial. Therefore, dividend announcements can lead to increased uncertainty both in earnings stability as well as future cash dividend prospects. Jensen et al. (1992) results showed greater business risk with lower dividend payments.

39

40

S. Anwar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 30 (2015) 38 – 49

Dyl and Weigand (1998) finding supported the hypothesis that the decision to pay dividends revealed managers' knowledge regarding the risk of the firm. Juma’h A.H. (2008) reported that the investors considered companies paying cash dividends as less risky than companies that did not pay dividends. In an empirical study by Zhou (2010) between market structure, risk and dividend policy, it was observed that firms with higher market power lower had low business risk; whereas competitive firms were riskier and less likely to pay dividends than firms with high market power. Hussainey et al. (2011) found payout ratio to be the main determinant of the volatility of stock price and found significant negative relationship between the payout ratio of a firm and the volatility of its stock price, and a negative relationship between dividend yield and the volatility of stock price. Kurniasih et al. (2011) results were consistent with the “high risk, high returns theory”. Similarly, Asghar et al. (2011) observed strong positive correlation between price volatility and dividend yield; whereas Bergeron (2011) concluded that riskier firms reinvested their earnings and pay lower dividends. Habib et al. (2012) examined the relationship between dividend policy and share price volatility in Pakistan and noted that payout ratio and price volatility were significantly positively related. On the basis of literature reviewed, it was observed that the studies in Indian context to ascertain the variability in returns were missing. This makes the study significant in Indian context for the researchers. 3.

Rationale for the study

Numerous studies have been conducted in the area of dividend policy all across the globe. However, the study of the impact of cash dividend announcements and stock return volatility in is almost absent an emerging economy like India is. This study seeks to examine the influence of such announcements (both short-term and long-term) using event study methodology by considering India as a case study. Hence, the study contributes to the finance literature. Above all, it has evaluated the impact of only ‘pure’ events. This makes the study exclusive compared to other studies cited in literature. 4.

Objectives and research hypotheses

To fill the identified gaps regarding the impact of cash dividend announcement decisions on stock returns volatility, the paper has measured the magnitude and direction of change in risk (both short-term and long-term) upon the announcement of cash dividends in India. The following null hypotheses were formulated: H1: There is no significant difference in short-term risk before and after the announcement date of cash dividends. H2: There is no significant difference in long-term risk before the announcement date and after the ex-date of cash dividends. 5.

Research methodology

5.1. Data description and sample size

The present study has covered a period of ten years from 1st April 2003 to 31st March 2013. The secondary data for cash dividend announcements was collected from Prowess database maintained by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) and Bombay Stock BSE website. There were 2675 cash dividend announcements of the BSE 500 companies listed on BSE (Bombay Stock Exchange) 500 index as on November 7, 2012. Out of the 500 companies listed, 78 companies were the financial companies and hence were excluded from the sample. Further, cash dividend announcement data was not available for 37 companies reducing the sample size to 385 companies.

41

S. Anwar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 30 (2015) 38 – 49

5.2. Event study methodology 5.2.1. Analysis of returns: The event study methodology was used to examine the stock price reactions (Brown and Warner, 1985). This methodology has proved to be very useful in a variety of finance related fields such as corporate finance, accounting, management, etc. It is also being widely used as a tool to study the impact of mergers and acquisitions, stock splits, new legislations, earning announcements, and other finance related events, on the profitability of firms. A vast literature on the theory of event study methods also exists (Bowman, 1983; Brown and Warner, 1985). Bowman (1983) identified the following 5 steps in conducting an event study: x Identify the event of interest. x Model the security price reaction. x Estimate the excess returns. x Organize and group the excess returns. x Analyze the results. The abnormal return is the difference between the observed return and the expected return on a particular day, calculates by the market model as per Equation 1: (1) R i,t = α i + βi R m,t + E i,t Where α and β are the estimated parameters, R i,t is the expected return on stock i at time t, Rm,t is the corresponding return on the BSE 500 index and Ei,t is the error term. The abnormal return (AR) for each day for each firm is then obtained as per Equation 2: (2) ARi,t = Ri,t – (αi + βi Rm,t ) The event window examined was 31 days i.e. 15 days prior to the announcement date to 15 days after the announcement date along with the announcement day itself. The announcement day was denoted as day zero (when cash dividend is announced for the first time in the public newspapers). The estimation window was from the day 166 to the day -16 (from 16 to 166 days prior to the event window), thus comprising of 150 trading days. Figure 1 depicts the event window and estimation window. Event date

-166

-16

Estimation window (in days)

-15

0

+15

Event window (in days)

Fig. 1. Time line for event study (in days)

5.2.2. Clean event window period To ensure that the event window was not contaminated with any other type of announcement, only ‘pure’ cash dividend announcements were considered. Hence, the announcements like stock dividends and stock splits, bonus issue and share repurchase mergers, acquisitions, amalgamation, joint venture, capital investment, substantial orders from prestigious customers or any other such financial events during the event window were not considered as a part of the sample (McWilliams and Seigel, 1997). Based on the above criteria, the number of announcements eligible for study was 891. 5.2.3 Analysis of volatility Variance was used as the measure of risk because it is an indicator of the level of risk and captures the uncertainty

42

S. Anwar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 30 (2015) 38 – 49

as well as the changes in systematic risk. It thus affects the accuracy of our statistical inferences (Pawlukiewicz et al., 2000). It has been a well accepted measure used by earlier studies as well (Dravid, 1984; Dubofsky, 1991). For each event i (cash dividend announcement), variance (denoted as σ2) was computed as per the Equation 3: N σ2 = ∑ (Rt - R) 2 (3) i=1 N Where Rt = returns over period t, R = the average return over period t (given by ∑ Ri/N) and N= the number of observations. 5.3. Research design for short -term and long-term variance analysis The change in the volatility of the returns was measured using one-group pre-test post-test experimental research design. This was conducted by examining the variability of returns at two points in time; one before and after the announcement and the other before the announcement and after the ex-date of cash dividends (Wulff, 2002). The short-term analysis was based on evaluating the changes in variance over a period of 5 and 15 days, before and after the announcement date. For long-term analysis, the period considered was 60 and 120 days, before the preannouncement event window and 60 and 120 days after the post-ex-date event window. To assess the significant differences, the pre-announcement and post-announcement means of the measure (for the specified time periods) have been compared using paired sample t-test (Mehta, 2011). The fifteen-day period surrounding the ex-date has been excluded to avoid potential distortions of the estimates due to a higher trading activity during this period (Wulff, 2002). Figure 2 exhibits the time period examined for evaluating the short-term and long-term impact of cash dividend announcements on risk using variance as a measure. Event date

-135

-15

0

Ex-date

+15

+15

135

Short-term analysis

Long-term analysis

Fig. 2. Variance analysis (in days) time line for one-group pre-test post-test research design

6.

Empirical findings

The objective of this section is to enumerate ways in which the volatility manifests in the sample companies due to announcement of cash dividends. The aim is to understand the probable underlying causes to which the sample companies were vulnerable in terms of volatility and the resultant risk. Tables 1 and 2 present the results of the paired t-test to compare the mean variance before and after the announcement of cash dividends.

S. Anwar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 30 (2015) 38 – 49

6.1. Short-term effect It is evident from Table 1 that there has been an increase in variance for 5-day as well as for 15-day periods. The mean variance of stock prices increased during the post-announcement period vis-a-vis the pre-announcement period, though such patterns of variance were not statistically significant for the sample companies. Apparently, there seems to be substantial noise across events that limit the statistical significance of these results (Docking and Koch, 2005). The results were, however, consistent with the fact that the variance of abnormal returns did indeed change in a certain pattern during the event period (Beaver, 1968). The increased variance was in tune with the study of Christie (1983), where the event period variance was roughly two times greater than the non-information period. Likewise, the value of standard deviation had shown an increase for 15-day period. This increase in variance was due to positive average abnormal returns on and around the announcement of cash dividend with the return of 1.02 per cent accumulating in 5-days (for results of returns analysis, refer Appendix A). Further, the increased excess returns may also be due to decrease in the systematic risk of firms initiating dividends (Fargher and Weigand, 2009). The decline in systematic risk could also be interpreted as the transition of a firm to the mature stage of its life-cycle, where it has fewer growth opportunities in determining its value (Fracassi, 2008). Thus, investors consider companies paying cash dividends as less risky than companies that do not pay dividends (Juma’h, 2008). The theoretical as well as empirical research suggests that the flow of information is also related to the variance of returns (Ross, 1989). Therefore, the probable reason for an increase in ‘event-period’ returns volatility may be due to ‘low information environment’ in terms of the amount of publicly available information and higher levels of investor uncertainty (Mestel and Gurgul, 2003). These findings are in accordance with the conclusions of Kalay and Lowenstein (1985) and Chari et al. (1988) who reported substantial increase in the volatility of security returns for the days surrounding the dividend announcement. All in one, the results also reveal that the announcing companies’ share gain popularity, leading to an increase in trading activity and hence higher measured volatility in returns after the announcement. These results indicated that the short-term risk profile of the sample companies had changed after the announcement of cash dividends for these firms.

43

44

S. Anwar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 30 (2015) 38 – 49

Table 1: Short-term risk analysis for the sample companies H0 = μ1 (Variance before) = μ2 (Variance after) (D=15 days) Ratio Measure

Variance

Before (Mean)

0.000640

After (Mean)

0.010671

Difference of Means

Calculated tValue

Sig. (2-tailed)

Decision at 5% Level of Significance

-0.001873

-1.067

0.314

H0-Not Rejected

0.327

H0-Not Rejected

H0 = μ1 (Variance before) = μ2 (Variance after) (D=5 days) Variance

0.000630

0.029875

-0.029245

-1.037

6.2. Long-term effect Table 2 shows the long-term impact of cash dividends on return volatility and subsequently the risk profile of the sample companies. The mean variance for 60-day had shown a marginal decrease; while it increased for 120-day period (the results though being statistically insignificant for the sample companies). Apparently, there seems to be substantial noise across events that limit the statistical significance of these results (Docking and Koch, 2005). Likewise, the value of standard deviation had shown a marginal decrease for 60-day period and a marginal increase for 120-day period. A possible explanation for this is that there is shift in investors’ focus on information content of dividend announcements that could have induced price reactions in the pre-dividend period. Hence, there may be fewer large price changes (in magnitude) in the post-dividend period, and observed volatility may be lower. This evidence supports the notion that investors view dividends as an information-transmission mechanism. These findings are in conformity with the findings of Venkatesh (1989). Also the stocks seem to be less volatile due to the less intensity at which information arrives and is incorporated into security prices when stock exchanges are open. Further, the results also suggest that the lower measured volatility may be explained by a corresponding decline in trading volume in the stock. Thus lower observed return variance may be due to an associated decline in costs of trading of the underlying stocks (Skinner, 1987). An increase in variance post 120-day period has been reported because cash dividends announcement elicits greater positive abnormal returns when the market direction is normal (assuming due to positive returns as reported in Appendix A) and volatility is high (Docking and Koch, 2005). Also an increase in volatility reported was likely to be high due to 'low information environment' and relatively higher levels of investor uncertainty that might have existed at that point in time as reported by Kalay and Lowenstein (1985). Hence, it may be interpreted, that in long-run the variance of return had changed due to a change in the flow of information to the market (Ross, 1989). These results justify the signaling ability of cash dividends announcements as variance was reported the most on the days surrounding the event. In sum, the existence of variance in returns (though reported marginal), also signifies the existence of semi-strong efficiency of Indian stock market.

45

S. Anwar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 30 (2015) 38 – 49

Table 2. Long-term risk analysis for the sample companies H0 = μ1 (Variance before) = μ2 (Variance after) (D=60 days) Ratio Measure Variance

Before (Mean) 0.0008

After (Mean) 0.0007

Difference of Means

Calculated tValue

Sig. (2-tailed)

Decision at 5% Level of Significance

0.0001

0.530

0.609

H0-Not Rejected

0.283

H0-Not Rejected

H0 = μ1 (Variance before) = μ2 (Variance after) (D=120 days) Variance

7.

0.0009

0.0027

-0.0019

-1.142

Reasons for stock volatility

There is a paucity of studies in literature reviewed explaining the probable reasons for changes in stock variance on and around cash dividend announcements. An attempt has been made in the following section to corroborate and justify the reasons for the results. 7.1 Changes in trading activity and changes in variance In a study by French and Roll (1986), it has been documented that stock returns tend to me more volatile during stock exchange trading hours in comparison to non-trading hours. Thus, the results seem to indicate that the shares of the sample companies might have gained popularity during trading hours; leading to an increase in trading activity and hence higher measured volatility in returns after the announcement. These results were consistent with the findings of French and Richarct (1986) and Schwert (1987). 7.2 Trading noise According to Black (1986), the difference between a security’s intrinsic value and its observed price at any point in time is the result of noise. It comes from two primary sources. First, it is the outcome of the activities of so-called noise traders (Black, 1986), and second, it brings into surface the nature of the process by which trading takes place in the stock market (Amihud and Mendelson, 1987). This implies that the inadequacies in the trading process affect the amount of noise implicit in observed security prices. Hence, variance of the stock prices seems to be an increasing function of the costs of trading these securities. Thus, return variance was low probably due to an associated decline in costs of trading of the underlying stocks (Skinner, 1987). Also an increase in volatility reported was likely to be high due to 'low information environment' and relatively higher levels of investor uncertainty that might have existed at that point in time as reported by Kalay and Lowenstein (1985). The results provide evidence that the cash dividends announcements change the trading noise. 7.3. Selection bias There might be a possibility that stock exchanges choose those stocks for trading that scale high on attributes such as investor interest, trading activity, and price volatility. Thus, if a stock is labelled as volatile, its price would vary, to a marked extent, over time, and it is more difficult to say with certainty what its future price will be. In other words, the lesser the volatility of a given stock, the greater is its chance to be in investor’s portfolio (Hussainey et. al, 2011).

46

S. Anwar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 30 (2015) 38 – 49

7.4. Market efficiency, volatility and the speed of adjustment According to Ederington and Lee (1993), volatility may remain high for some period after the announcement of cash dividends. The volatility will remain high even if the information arrives gradually and prices adjust immediately. The efficiency and volatility aspects of the adjustment process are examined by Patell and Mark (1984) in their study of earnings and dividend announcements. This study reports that variance remains high for both short-term and longterm except for 60-day period. 8.

Conclusion

This paper has examined the impact of cash dividends announcements on short-term and long-term risk, i.e. variability of returns. Some of the key findings are described as under: 1. In short-run, an increase in variance was reported which was roughly two times greater than the non-information period. These results are consistent with the findings of Beaver (1968) and Christie (1983). Also it was observed that the decline in systematic risk could be due to the transition of a firm to a mature stage of its life-cycle, where it has fewer growth opportunities in determining its value as observed by Fracassi (2008). Thus, it seems that the Indian investors consider companies paying cash dividends as less risky than companies that do not pay dividends (Juma’h, 2008). 2. The findings also document that the probable reason for an increase in event-period returns volatility in shortrun may be due to ‘low information environment’ as described by Ross (1989). These results are in accordance with the conclusions of Kalay and Lowenstein (1985) and Chari et al. (1988) who reported substantial increase in the volatility of security returns for the days surrounding the dividend announcement. All in one, the results also reveal that the announcing companies’ share gain popularity, leading to an increase in trading activity and hence higher measured volatility in returns after the announcement 3. In long-run, the stocks seem to be less volatile due to the less intensity at which information arrives and is incorporated into security prices when stock exchanges are open. Further, the results also suggest that the lower measured volatility may be explained by a corresponding decline in trading volume in the stock. Thus lower observed return variance may be due to an associated decline in costs of trading of the underlying stocks. These results support the findings of Skinner (1987). 4. There seems to be a shift in investors’ focus in long-run on information content of dividend announcements leading to a marginal decrease in 60-day variance as compared to 120-day period. These results justify the signaling ability of cash dividends announcements. In sum, the existence of variance in returns (though reported marginal), also signifies the existence of semi-strong efficiency of Indian stock market. 5. Perhaps, the findings reveal that the announcement of cash dividends in India increases stock returns volatility and changes the risk profile of the sample companies. The results help draw inferences about the value of investments to the investors’ (in particular, long-run investments). It has also provided us the clues about the factors which are affected and are most important to observe volatility changes through time. These parameters are likely to be very useful inputs to the individual investors in their investment decisions and to the managers in formulating their investment portfolios. 9.

Implications

An important implication of this study is that, managers may employ dividend policy to influence their stock’s risk. Indeed, it may be possible for them to use dividend policy as a device for controlling their share price volatility. These results can also help an investor to decide whether to invest for short-term in maximizing prices fluctuation or longterm according to the company’s prospects. For short-term investment, this study guides an investor in providing an insight as to which period generates best return for trading. Investor should consider about the time period around the cash dividend announcement date so that he could maximize his capital gain according to the return and price fluctuation. The research indicates that around the time observed (15 days before and 15 days after the event), significant abnormal returns occurred due to market sentiments for the sample companies. For long-term investment, an investor should consider about company’s

47

S. Anwar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 30 (2015) 38 – 49

prospects. Thus, investments differ in the way they produce returns to investors’ affecting their portfolios’ risk/return composition. Appendix A. Average abnormal return (AAR), median abnormal return (MAR) and cumulative average abnormal return (CAAR) and their corresponding t-statistic values on and around cash dividend announcements during the period 2003-2013.

Days -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

(AAR) (%) -0.09 -0.01 0.02 -0.02 0.03 0.22 -0.07 0.21 -0.10 -0.07 0.15 0.37 0.11 0.04 0.11 -0.01 0.13 0.07 -0.06 -0.07 0.07 0.13 -0.21 -0.18 -0.51 -0.20 0.01 -0.02 -0.04 -0.14 -0.12

t –statistic -0.5012 -0.0484 0.1076 -0.1295 0.1933 1.2162 -0.3904 1.1686 -0.5488 -0.3684 0.8450 2.0543** 0.6157 0.2138 0.6460 -0.0408 0.7104 0.3905 -0.3618 -0.3994 0.3762 0.7349 -1.1826 -0.9891 -2.8410* -1.1342 0.0377 -0.1370 -0.1983 -0.7968 -0.6942

CAAR (%) -0.09 -0.10 -0.08 -0.10 -0.07 0.15 0.08 0.29 0.19 0.12 0.27 0.64 0.75 0.79 0.90 0.90 1.02 1.09 1.03 0.96 1.02 1.15 0.94 0.77 0.26 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.01 -0.13 -0.26

t-statistic -0.0900 -0.0987 -0.0794 -0.1026 -0.0679 0.1505 0.0804 0.2903 0.1917 0.1256 0.2773 0.6463 0.7569 0.7953 0.9113 0.9040 1.0316 1.1017 1.0367 0.9650 1.0326 1.1645 0.9521 0.7745 0.2642 0.0605 0.0673 0.0427 0.0071 -0.1360 -0.2607

Kurtosis 5.45 0.87 -0.99 -0.67 -0.34 8.07 -0.74 6.27 7.04 -1.48 -1.18 7.90 -1.04 0.35 0.08 1.45 3.50 3.27 2.80 3.48 0.58 1.46 6.32 3.99 8.64 -0.11 -0.31 1.52 -0.57 -0.81 2.82

Skewness -2.07 -1.19 -0.37 -0.18 -0.23 2.69 0.22 2.44 -2.52 -0.34 0.54 2.69 -0.34 -0.92 -0.11 -0.25 1.53 1.57 -1.57 1.51 0.30 0.39 -2.13 -1.36 -2.87 -1.01 -0.03 -1.09 0.30 0.07 -1.48

*Significant at 1% per cent ** Significant at 5% per cent Note: These findings were presented partially in Indian Finance Conference (IFC) 2014 held at Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, India (26-28 December, 2014).

References: Acker, D., 1999. Stock Return Volatility and Dividend Announcements. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 12(3), 221–242. Allen D.E., Rachim V. S., 1996. Dividend Policy and Stock Price Volatility: Australian Evidence. Journal of Applied Economics 6(2), 175-188. Amihud, Y., Mendelson, H., 1987. Trading Mechanisms and Stock Returns: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Finance 42(3), 533-55. Asghar, M., Shah, S.Z.A., Hamid, K., 2011. Impact of Dividend Policy on Stock Price Risk: Empirical Evidence from Equity Market of Pakistan. Far East Journal of Psychology and Business 4(1), 45-52. Baskin, J., 1989. Dividend Policy and the Volatility of Common Stock. The Journal of Portfolio Management 15(3), 19-25. Beaver, W., 1968. The Information Content of Annual Earnings Announcements, Empirical Research in Accounting: Selected Studies. The Journal of Accounting Research 6, 67-92. Bergeron, C., 2011. Dividend Growth, Stock Valuation, and Long-run Risk. Journal of Economics and Finance (in press)

48

S. Anwar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 30 (2015) 38 – 49 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12197-011-9196-5. Black, F., 1986. Noise. Journal of Finance 41(3), 529-543. Bowman, R.G., 1983. Understanding and Conducting Event Studies. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 10(4), 561-584. Brennan, M.J., Copeland, T.E., 1988a. Beta changes around Stock Split: A Note. Journal of Finance 43(4), 1009-1013. Brown, S.J. and Warner, J.B., 1985. Using Daily Stock Returns: The Case of Event Studies. Journal of Financial Economics 14(1), 3-31. Brown, K.C., Harlow, W.V., Tinic, S.M., 1993. The Risk and Return of Common Stock following Major Price Innovations. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 28(1), 101- 116. Brown, K.C., Harlow, W.V., Tinic, S.M., 1988. Risk Aversion, Uncertain Information and Market Efficiency. Journal of Financial Economics 22(2), 355-385. Chari, V.V., Jagannathan, R., Ofer, A.R., 1988. Seasonality in Security Returns: The Case of Earnings Announcements. Journal of Financial Economics 21(1), 101-121. Christie, A., 1983. On Information Arrival and Hypothesis Testing in Event Studies. Working Paper University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. Docking, D.S., Koch, P.D., 2005. Sensitivity of Investor Reaction to Market Direction and Volatility: Dividend Change Announcements. The Journal of Financial Research 28(1), 21–40. Dubofsky, D.A., 1991.Volatility increase subsequent to NYSE and AMEX Stock Split. Journal of Finance 46(1), 421-431. Dravid, A.R., 1987. A Note on the Behaviour of Stock Returns around Ex-dates of Stock Distributions. Journal of Finance 42(1), 163-168. Dyl, E.A., Weigand, R.A., 1998. The Information Content of Dividend Initiations: Additional Evidence. Financial Management 27(3), 27-35. Ederington, L.H., Lee, J.H., 1993. How Markets Process Information: News Releases and Volatility. The Journal of Finance 48(4), 1161-1191. Fama, E.F., French, K.R., 1988. Dividend Yield and Expected Stock Returns. The Journal of Financial Economics 22(1), 3-25. Fargher, N.L., Weigand, R.A., 2009. Cross-sectional Differences in the Profits, Returns and Risk of firms initiating Dividends. Managerial Finance 35(6), 509-530. Fracassi, C., 2008. Stock Price Sensitivity to Dividend Changes, Department of Finance - UCLA Anderson School of Management. Working Paper 1-39, Email: Address: [email protected] French, K.R., Richarct, R., 1986. Stock Return Variances: The Arrival of Information and the reaction of Traders. Journal of Financial Economics 17, 5-26. Friend, I., Puckett, M., 1964. Dividends and Stock Prices. The American Economic Review 54 (5), 656-682. Guo, H., 2002. Stock Market Returns, Volatility and Future Output. Available at: http://www.research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/02/09/7586Guo.pdf, Accessed 22- April-2015, 10:08 PM. Gurgul, H., Mestel, R., Schleicher, C., 2003. Stock Market Reactions to Dividend Announcements: Empirical Evidence from the Austrian Stock Market. Financial Markets and Portfolio Management 17(3), 332-350. Habib, Y., Kiani, Z.I., Khan, M.A., 2012. Dividend Policy and Share Price Volatility: Evidence from Pakistan. Global Journal of Management and Business Research 12(5), 79-83. Harkavy, O., 1953. The Relation between Retained Earnings and Common Stock Prices for Large Listed Corporations. Journal of Finance 8 (3), 283-297. Hussainey, K., Mgbame, C.O., Mgbame, A.M.C., 2011.Dividend Policy and Share Price Volatility: UK Evidence. The Journal of Risk Finance 12(1), 57-68. Jensen, G.R., Solberg, D.P., Zorn, T.S., 1992. Simultaneous Determination of Insider Ownership, Debt and Dividend Policies. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 27(2), 247 - 263. Juma’h, A.H., 2008.The Financial Factors Influencing Cash Dividend Policy: A Sample of U.S. Manufacturing Companies. Inter Metro Business Journal 4(2), 23-43. Kalay, A. and Lowenstein, U., 1985. Predictable Events and Excess Returns: The Case of Dividend Announcements. Journal of Financial Economics 14(3), 423-44. Kim, O. and Verrecchia, R.E., 1991. Market Reaction to Anticipated Announcements. Journal of Financial Economics 30, 273–309. Kurniasih, A., Siregar, H., Sembel, R., 2011. Market Reaction to the Cash Dividend Announcement: An Empirical Study from the Indonesia Stock Exchange 2004 – 2009. European Journal of Economics Finance and Administrative Science 40, 92-100. Litzenberger, R.H., Ramaswamy, K., 1982. The Effects of Dividends on Common Stock Prices: Tax Effects of Information Effects. The Journal of Finance 37 (2), 429-443. Manakyan, H.,Carroll, C., 1991. Dividend Change Announcements and Structural Change. Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics 30(1), 62-86. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., 1997. Event Studies in Management Research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues. The Academy of Management Journal 40(3), 626-657. Mehta, C., 2011. Impact of Stock Dividends and Stock Splits on Returns, Liquidity and Risk: An Empirical Study in Indian Context. A Dissertation, 1 -213. Mestel, R., Gurgul, H., 2003. ARIMA Modeling of Event induced Stock Price Reactions in Austria. Central European Journal of Operations Research 11, 17-333. Mitra, D., Owers, J.E., 1995. Dividend Initiation Announcement Effects and the Firm's Information Environment. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 22(4), 551-573. Ohlson, J.A., 1995. Earnings, Book Values, and Dividends in Equity Valuation. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (2), 661-687. Otchere, I., 2004. Risk Changes and Information Effects Following Dividend Initiation Announcements: Evidence Based on Seemingly Unrelated Regression Method. Investment Management and Financial Innovations 3, 98-117. Patell, J., Mark, W., 1984. The Intraday Speed of Adjustment of Stock Prices to Earnings and Dividend Announcements. Journal of Financial

S. Anwar et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 30 (2015) 38 – 49

49

Economics 13(2), 223-252. Pawlukiewicz, J.E., Cagle, J.A.B., Webb, S.E., 2000. The Temporal Behavior of Risk and required Return following Announcements of LeverageChanging Security Transactions. Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions 13(1), 45-56. Rashid, A., Rahman, A.Z.M., 2008. Dividend Policy and Stock Price Volatility: Evidence from Bangladesh. Journal of Applied Business and Economics 8 (4), 71-81. Ross, S., 1989. Information and Volatility: The No-Arbitrage Martingale Approach to Timing and Resolution Irrelevancy. Journal of Finance 44(1), 1-17. Schwert, G.W., 1987. Why does Stock Market Volatility change over Time?, Unpublished Manuscript (University of Rochester, Rochester, New York). Skinner, D.J., 1987. Option Market and Stock Return Volatility. Journal of Financial Economics23(2), 61-78. Venkatesh, P.C., 1989.The Impact of Dividend Initiation on the Information Content of Earnings Announcements and Returns Volatility. The Journal of Business 62(2), No. 2, 175-197. Wulff, C., 2002. The Market Reaction to Stock Splits- Evidence from Germany. Schmalenbach Business Review 54(3), 270-297. Zhou, J., 2010. Industry Influences on Corporate Financial Policies (Chapter name): Market Power and Dividend Policy: A Risk-Based Perspective. A Dissertation, University of Toronto, 1-38.