Using a relatively large sample of European and US banks for the period 1998-2016, we investigate the determinants of bank dividend smoothing based on agency, asymmetric information and risk-shifting theories. We show that dividend payout ratio smoothing practices were implemented on both continents before and after the crisis of 2007 and were more strongly pronounced for EU banks. Our findings mostly support agency-based explanations of bank dividend behavior as evidenced by higher payout ratio smoothing for banks with higher (initial) dividend payouts, lower ownership concentration, public banks, and banks with lower growth opportunities and weaker investor protection. Evidence in favor of asymmetric information explanations is stronger for EU countries, where smaller (more opaque) banks appear to smooth more. In both continents, banks that rely more heavily on equity issuances are found to smooth dividend payout ratios more, suggesting that banks aim at improving access to equity markets. We also provide evidence in support of risk-shifting, as evidenced by the persistence of dividend payout ratio smoothing in the crisis years and higher dividend smoothing for banks under greater regulatory pressure.Additional analysis using a time series partial adjustment model for dividend levels provides evidence supporting the prevalence of dividend smoothing and the suggested theoretical explanations. K E Y W O R D Sagency, asymmetric information, bank dividend policy, bank regulation, legal origin, risk-shifting

We examine optimal liquidity (retained earnings) and dividend choice incorporating debt financing with risk of default and bankruptcy costs as well as growth options under revenue uncertainty. We revisit the conditions for dividend policy irrelevancy and the broader role of retained earnings and dividends.Retained earnings have a net positive impact on firm value in the presence of growth options, high external financing costs and low default risk. High levels of retained earnings enhance debt capacity but have a negative effect on equity value due to the likelihood of losing accumulated cash balances in case of default, unless offset by high external financing costs. Opposite directional effects of retained earnings on equity and debt create a U-shaped relation with firm value. The framework is extended to analyze management-shareholder conflicts, demonstrating that managers accumulate higher than optimal cash. JEL classification: G31, G13

We model R&D efforts to enhance the value of a product or technology before final development. Such efforts may be directed towards improving quality, adding new features, or adopting technological innovations. They are implemented as optional, costly and interacting control actions expected to enhance value but with uncertain outcome. We examine the interesting issues of the optimal timing of R&D, the impact of lags in the realization of the R&D outcome, and the choice between accelerated versus staged (sequential) R&D. These issues are also especially interesting since the history of decisions affects future decisions and the distributions of asset prices and induces path-dependency. We show that the existence of optional R&D efforts enhances the investment option value significantly. The impact of a dividend-like payout rate or of project volatility on optimal R&D decisions may be different with R&D timing flexibility than without. The attractiveness of sequential strategies is enhanced in the presence of learning-by-doing and decreasing marginal reversibility of capital effects.

No abstract

Building on the Mauer and Sarker (2005) model that captures both investment flexibility and optimal capital structure and risky debt, we study the impact of debt financing constraints on firm value, the optimal timing of investment and other important variables like the credit spreads. The importance of debt financing constraints on firm value and investment policy depends largely on the relative importance of investment timing flexibility and debt financing gains. In cases where investment flexibility has high relative importance the firm can mitigate the effects of debt financing constraints by adjusting its investment policy. We show that these adjustments are non-monotonic and may create a U shape of the investment trigger as a function of the degree that debt is constrained. We show that in a reduced investment horizon, constraints have a more significant impact on firm value. We also consider managerial pre-investment risky growth options (e.g. R&D, or pilot projects). We see that they reduce the maturity effect, and (in contrast to the Brownian volatility) they tend to reduce expected credit spreads.2