1987
DOI: 10.1086/296383
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dividend Behavior for the Aggregate Stock Market

Abstract: We develop and estimate a model of the dynamic behavior of aggregate corporate dividends as a function of the change in permanent earnings of firms.Although structured along the lines of the Lintner-Brittain-FamaBabiak models of individual-firm dividend behavior, the model uses changes in stock prices instead of accounting earnings to measure permanent earnings changes. The performance of the model is compared with both the accounting earnings-based models and the trend-autoregressive model associated with Shi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

10
152
0
2

Year Published

2000
2000
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 250 publications
(164 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
10
152
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This procedure implicitly assumes cross-sectional independence of firm statistics and may yield biased test statistics since the cross-section of investments, earnings, and payouts are correlated. An alternative approach is to aggregate firm-level data and examining the dynamics of the aggregate data (as do, for example, Lamont 1998 and 2000, who examines the relations between earnings, investments, and stock returns, and Marsh and Merton 1987, who examine the relation between dividends and prices). The advantage of examining aggregate data is that the aggregate series incorporate the cross-sectional correlation and retain the time-series rof415-03.tex; 23/08/2004; 12:09; p.4 dynamics.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This procedure implicitly assumes cross-sectional independence of firm statistics and may yield biased test statistics since the cross-section of investments, earnings, and payouts are correlated. An alternative approach is to aggregate firm-level data and examining the dynamics of the aggregate data (as do, for example, Lamont 1998 and 2000, who examines the relations between earnings, investments, and stock returns, and Marsh and Merton 1987, who examine the relation between dividends and prices). The advantage of examining aggregate data is that the aggregate series incorporate the cross-sectional correlation and retain the time-series rof415-03.tex; 23/08/2004; 12:09; p.4 dynamics.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Important studies that follow and extend MM (1961) are Allen et al (2000), Amihud et al (2009), Asquith and Mullins (1983), Bagwell and Shoven (1989), Baker et al (1985), Baker and Wurgler (2004b), Banerjee et al (2007), Benartzi et al (1997), Bhattacharya (1979), Black (1976, Black and Scholes (1974), Blau and Fuller (2008), Brav et al (2005), Dann (1981), DeAngelo et al (1996DeAngelo et al ( , 2008, Eades et al (1994), Eije and Magginson (2008), Fama and Babiak (1968), French (2001), Feenberg andCoutts (1993), Graham and Harvey (2001), Hakansson (1982), Healy and Palepu (1988), Hubbard and Michaely (1997), John and Williams (1985), Kothari and Shanken (1997), La Porta et al (2000), Lintner (1956), Liu et al (2008), Long (1978), Marsh and Merton (1987), Michaely et al (1995), Miller (1977, Miller and Rock (1985), Miller and Scholes (1978), Partington (2009), Peterson et al (1985), Poterba (1986), Shefrin and Statman (1984), and Watts (1973), for example. (2006), and Hoberg and Prabhala (2009).…”
Section: Notesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most important implications of the Lintner model given in Equation (1) and Equation (2) can be summarized as follows (based on Marsh and Merton, 1987;Bessler and Ellermann, 2004):…”
Section: The Model Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%