Influences on Dividend Payout Decisions

Influences on Dividend Payout Decisions CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The intricacies of Dividends and Dividend policy can leave even the most seasoned financial professional feeling a little uneasy. While conventional wisdom suggests that paying dividends affects both firms value and shareholder wealth to retain earnings to explore growth opportunities, much debate still surrounds this dynamic discipline; especially when it comes to how dividend decisions can lead to value maximization Kent (2003). Dividend policy is an important component of the corporate financial management policy. It is a policy used by the firm to decide as to how much cash it should reinvest in its business through expansion or share repurchases and how much to pay out to its shareholders in dividends. Dividend is a payment or return made by the firm to the shareholders, (owners of the company) out of its earnings in the form of cash. For a long time, the subject of corporate dividend policy has captivated the interests of many academicians and researchers, resulting in the emer gence of a number of theoretical explanations for dividend policy. For the investors, dividend serve as an important indicator of the strength and future prosperity of the business, thereby companies try to maintain a stable dividend because if they reduce their dividend payments, investors may suspect that the company is facing a cash flow problem. Investors prefer steady growth of dividends every year and are reluctant to investment to companies with fluctuating dividend policy. Over time, there has been a substantial increase in the number of factors identified in the literature as being important to be considered in making dividend decisions. Thus, extensive studies have been done to find out various factors affecting dividend payout ratio of a firm. However, there is no single explanation that can capture the puzzling reality of corporate dividend behavior. Ocean deep judgment is involved by decision makers to resolve this issue of dividend behavior. The decision of companies t o retain or pay out the earnings in form of dividends is important for the maximization of the value of the firm (Oyejide, 1976). Therefore, companies should set a constructive target dividend payout ratio, where it pays dividends to its shareholders and at the same time maintains sufficient retained earnings as to avoid having raise funds by borrowing money. A tough challenge was faced by financial practitioners and many academics, when Miller and Modigliani (MM) (1961) came with a proposition that, given perfect capital markets, the dividend decision does not affect the firm value and is, therefore, irrelevant. This proposition was greeted with surprise because at that time it was universally acknowledged by both theorists and corporate managers that the firm can enhance its business value by providing for a more generous dividend policy and that a properly managed dividend policy had an impact on share prices and shareholder wealth. Since the M M study, many researchers have relaxed the assumption of perfect capital markets and stated theories about how managers should formulate dividend policy decisions. Problem Statement Dividend policy has attracted a substantial amount of research by many researchers and theorists, who have provided theoretical as well as empirical observations, into the dividend puzzle (Black, 1976). Even though researchers and theorists have extended their studies in context to dividend decisions, the issue as to why corporations distribute a portion of their earnings as dividends is not yet resolved. The issue of dividend policy has stimulated much debate among financial analysts since Lintners (1956) seminal work. He measured major changes in earnings as the key determinant of the companies dividend decisions. There are many factors that affect dividend decisions of a firm as it is very difficult to lay down an optimum dividend policy which would maximize the long-run wealth of the shareholders resulting into increase or decrease of the firms value, but the primary indicator of the firms capacity to pay dividends has been Profits. Miller and Modigliani (1961), DeAngelo and DeAngelo (2006) gave their proposition on the dividend irrelevance, but the argument made by them was on assumptions that werent practical and in fact, the dividend payout decision does affect the shareholders value. The study focuses on identifying various determinants of dividend payout and whether these factors influence the dividend payout decision. Research Objective: There are many theories in the corporate finance literature addressing the dividend issue. The purpose of study is to understand the factors influencing the dividend decision of companies. The specific objectives of this study are: To analyze the financials of the company to draw a framework of factors such as Retained earnings, Age of the company, Debt to Equity, Cash, Net income, Earnings per share etc. responsible for dividend declaration. To understand the criticality of a companys profitability (in terms of Earnings per share) component in declaration of dividends. To measure each factor individually on how it affects the dividend decision. Research Questions: Q1. What is the relation between dividend payout and firms debt? Q2. What is the relation between dividend payout and Profitability? Q3. What is the relation between dividend payout and liquidity? Q4. What is the relation between dividend payout and Retained Earnings? Q5. What is the relation between dividend payout and Net Income? Scope of the Study: This study investigates areas of concern that are extensive thereby due to limitation of time; the scope of research will be limited as the period of study is only three years 2006-2008. The study is focused only on firms trading on NYSE and has considered only those firms who pay dividends. Organization of the paper: The remaining chapters will be organized as follows: Chapter Two: Literature Review This chapter discusses the Determinants of Dividend payout and the theories behind the research questions in context to the Dividend policy. Chapter Three: Research Methodology The chosen research design, data collection and statistical tests for analysis are described in the chapter. Chapter four: Data Analysis and Findings: To address the research questions, results obtained from the regression analysis will be presented and discussed. Chapter five: Recommendations and Conclusion. This chapter provides recommendations for the future research and a conclusion for all this research. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Dividend remains one of the greatest enigmas of modern finance. Corporate dividend policy is an important decision area in the field of financial management hence there is an extensive literature devoted to the subject. Dividends are defined as the distribution of earnings (present or past) in real assets among the shareholders of the firm in proportion to their ownership. Dividend policy refers to managements long-term decision on how to utilize cash flows from business activities-that is, how much to plow back into the business, and how much to return to shareholders (Khan and Jain, 2005). Lintner (1956) conducted a notable study on dividend distributions, his was the first empirical study of dividend policy through his interview with managers of 28 selected companies, he stated that most companies have clear cut target payout ratios and that managers concern themselves with change in the existing dividend payout rather than the amount of the newly established payout. He also states that, Dividend policy is set first and other policies are then adjusted and the market reacts positively to dividend increase announcements and negatively to announcements of dividend decreases. He measured major changes in earnings as the key determinant of the companies dividend decisions. Lintners study was expanded by Farrelly et al. (1988), who, mailed a questionnaire to 562 firms listed on the New York Stock Exchange and concluded that managers accept dividend policy to be relevant and important. Lintners view was also supported by the study results of Fama and Babiak (1968) and Fama (1974) who suggested that managers prefer a stable dividend policy, and are hesitant to increase dividends to a level that cannot be supported. Fama and Babiaks (1968) study also concludes that Net income appears to explain the dividend change decision better than a cash flow measure. The study by Adaoglu (2000), Amidu and Abor (2006) and Belans et al (2007) stated that net income shows positive and significant association with the dividend payout, therefore indicating that, the firms with the positive earnings pay more dividends. Merton Miller and Franco Modigliani (1961) made a proposition that the value of a firm is not affected by its dividend policy. Dividend policy is a way of dividing up operating cash flows among investors or just a financial decision. Financial theorists Martin, Petty, Keown, and Scott, 1991 supported this theory of irrelevance. Miller and Modiglianis conclusion on the irrelevance of dividend policy presented a tough challenge to the conventional wisdom of time up to that point, it was universally acknowledged by both theorists and corporate managers that the firm can enhance its business value by providing for a more generous dividend policy as investors seem to prefer dividends over capital gains (JM Samuels, FM.Wilkes and R.E Brayshaw). Benartzi et al. (1997) conducted an extensive study and concluded that Lintners model of dividends remains the finest description of the dividend setting process available. Baker et al. (2001) conducted a survey on 630 NASDAQ-listed firms and analyzed the responses from 188 CFOs about the importance of 22 different factors that influence their dividend policy, they found that the dividend decisions made by managers were consistent with Lintners (1956) survey results and model. Their results also suggest that managers pay particular attention to the dividend policy of the firm because the dividend decision can affect firm value and, in turn, the wealth of stockholders, thus dividend policy requires serious attention by the management. E.F Fama and K.R French (2001) investigated the characteristics of companies paying dividends and concluded that the top most characteristics that affect the decision to pay dividends are Firm size, Profitability, and Investment opportunities. They studied dividend payment in the United States and found that the proportion of dividend payers declined sharply from 66% in 1978 to 20.8% in 1999, and that only about a fifth of public companies paid dividends. Growth companies such as Microsoft, Cisco and Sun Microsystems were found to be non-dividend payers. They also explained that the probability that a firm would pay dividends was positively related to profitability and size and negatively related to growth. Their research concluded that larger firms are more profitable and are more likely to pay dividends, than firms with more investment opportunities. The relationship between firm size and dividend policy was studied by Jennifer J. Gaver and Kenneth M. Gaver (1993). They suggested t hat A firms dividend yield is inversely related to the extent of its growth opportunities. The inference here is that as cash flow increases, the coefficient of dividend decreases, indicating that smaller firms that have greater investment opportunities thus they tend not to make dividend payment while larger firms tend to have proactive dividends policy. Ho, H. (2003) undertook a comparative study of dividend policies in Japan and Australia. Their study revealed that dividend policies in Australia and Japan are affected by different financial factors. Dividend policies are affected positively by size in Australia and liquidity in Japan. Naceur et al (2006) examined the dividend policy of 48 firms listed on the Tunisian Stock Exchange during the period 1996-2002. His research indicated that highly profitable firms with more stable earnings could afford larger free cash flows and thus paid larger dividends. Li and Lie (2006) reported that large and profitable firms are more likely to raise their dividends if the past dividend yield, debt ratio, cash ratio are low. A study was conducted by Norhayati Mohamed, Wee Shu Hui, Mormah Hj.Omar, and Rashidah Abdul Rahman on Malaysian companies over a 3 year period from 2003-2005. The sample was taken from the top 200 companies listed on the main board of Bursa Malaysia based on market capitaliza tion as at 31December 2005. Their study concluded that bigger firms pay higher dividends. or the purpose of finding out how companies arrive at their dividend decisions, many researchers and theorists have proposed several dividend theories. Gordon and Walter (1963) presented the Bird in Hand theory which suggested that to minimize risk the investors always prefer cash in hand rather than future promise of capital gain. This theory asserts that investors value dividends and high payout firms. As said by John D. Rockefeller (an American industrialist) The one thing that gives me contentment is to see my dividend coming in. For companies to communicate financial well-being and shareholder value the easiest way is to say the dividend check is in the mail. The bird-in-hand theory (a pre-Miller-Modigliani theory) asserts that dividends are valued differently to capital gains in a world of information asymmetry where due to uncertainty of future cash flow, investors will often tend to prefer dividends to retained earnings. As a result the value of the firm would be increased as a higher payout ratio will reduce the required rate of return (see, for example Gordon, 1959). This argument has not received any strong empirical support. Dividends, paid by companies to shareholders from earnings, serve as an important indicator of the strength and future prosperity of the business. This explanation is known as signaling hypothesis. Signaling is an example factor for the relevance of dividends to the value of the firm. It is based on the idea of information asymmetry between managers and investors, where managers have private information about the firm that is not available to the outsiders. This theory is supported by models put forward by Miller and Rock (1985), Bhattacharya (1979), John and Williams (1985). They stated that dividends can be used as a signaling device to influence share price. The share price reacts favorably when an announcement of dividend increase is made. Few researchers found limited support for the signaling hypothesis (see Gonedes, 1978, Watts, 1973) and there are other researchers, who supported the hypothesis, for example, in Michaely, Nissim and Ziv (2001), Pettit (1972) and Bali (2003). The tax-preference theory assumes that the market valuation of a firms stocks is increased when the dividend payout ratios is low which in turn lowers the required rate of return. Because of the relative tax liability of dividends compared to capital gains, investors need a large amount of before-tax risk adjusted return on stocks with higher dividend yields (Brennan, 1970). On one side studies by Lichtenberger and Ramaswamy (1979), Poterba and Summers, (1984), and Barclay (1987) have presented empirical evidence in support of the tax effect argument and on the other side Black and Scholes (1974), Miller and Scholes (1982), and Morgan and Thomas (1998) have either opposed such findings or provided completely different explanations. The study by Masulis and Trueman (1988) model dividend payments in form of cash as products of deferred dividend costs. Their model predicts that investors with differing tax liabilities will not be uniform in their ideal firm dividend policy. As the tax l iability on dividends increases (decreases), the dividend payment decreases (increases) while earnings reinvestment increases (decreases). According to Farrar and Selwyn (1967), in a partial equilibrium framework, individual investors choose the amount of personal and corporate leverage and also whether to receive corporate distributions as dividends or capital gains. Barclay (1987) has presented empirical evidence I support of the tax effect argument. Others, including Black and Scholes (1982), have opposed such findings or provided different explanations. Farrar and Selwyns model (1967) made an assumption that investors tend to increase their after tax income to the maximum. According to this model corporate earnings should be distributed by share repurchase rather than the use of dividends. Brennan (1970) has extended Farrar and Selwyns model into a general equilibrium framework. Under this, the expected usefulness of wealth as a system of barter is maximized. Despite being more robust both the models are similar as regards to their predictions. According to Auerbachs (1979) discrete-time, infinite-horizon model, the wealth of shareholders is maximized by the shareholders themselves and not by firm market value. If there does, infact, exist a difference between capital gains and dividends tax; firm market value maximization is no longer determined by wealth maximization. He states that the continued undervaluation of corporate capital leads to dividend distributions. The clientele effects hypothesis is another related theory. According to this theory the investors may be attracted to the types of stocks that fall in with their consumption/savings preferences. That is, investors (or clienteles) in high tax brackets may prefer non-dividend or low-dividend paying stocks if dividend income is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains. Also, certain clienteles may be created with the presence of transaction costs. There are several empirical studies on the clientele effects hypothesis but the findings are mixed. Studies by Pettit (1977), Scholz (1992), and Dhaliwal, Erickson and Trezevant (1999) presented evidence consistent with the existence of clientele effects hypothesis whereas studies by Lewellen et al. (1978), Richardson, Sefcik and Thomason (1986), Abrutyn and Turner (1990), found weak or contrary evidence. There is an assumption that the managers do not always take steps which would lead to maximizing an investors wealth. This gives rise to another favorable argument for hefty dividend payouts which shifts the reinvestment decision back on the owners. The main hitch would be the agency conflict (conflict between the principal and the agent) arising as a result of separate ownership and control. Therefore, a manager is expected to move the surplus funds from the high retained earnings into projects which are not feasible. This would be mainly due to his ill intention or his in competency. Thus, generous dividend payouts increase a firms value as it reduces the managements access to free cash flows and hence, controlling the problem of over investment. There are many more agency theories explaining how dividends can increase the value of a firm. One of them was by Easterbrook (1984); he proposed that dividend payments reduce agency problems in contrast to the transaction cost theory which is of the view that dividend payments reduce the value as it forces to raise costly finances from outside sources. His idea is that if the dividends are not paid, there is a problem of collective action that tends to lead to hap-hazard management of the firm. So, dividend payouts and raising external finance would attract auditory and regulatory measures by financial intermediaries like investment banks, respective stock exchange regulators and the potential investors as well. All this monitoring would lead to considerable reduction of agency costs and appreciate the market value of t he firm. Moreover, as defined by Jenson and Meckling (1976), Agency costs=monitoring costs+ bonding, costs+ residual loss i.e. sum of agency cost of equity and agency cost of debt. Hence, Easterbrook (1984) noted that dividend payments and raising new debt and its contract negotiations would reduce potential for wealth transfer. The realization for potential agency costs linked with separation of management and shareholders is not new. Adam Smith (1937) proposed that management of earlier companies is wayward. This problem was highly witnessed during at the time of British East Indian Companies and tracking managers was a failure due to inefficiencies and high costs of shareholder monitoring (Kindleberger, 1984). Scott (1912) and Carlos (1922) differ with this view point. They agree that although some fraud existed in the corporations, many of the activities of the managers were in line with those of the shareholders interests. An opportune and intelligent manager should always invest the surplus cash available into those opportunities which are well researched to be in the best interest of the shareholders. Berle and Means (1932) was the first to discover the insufficient utilization of funds which are surplus after other investment opportunities taken by the management. This thought was further promoted by Jensens (1986) free cash flow hypothesis. This hypothesis combined market information asymmetries with the agency theory. The surplus funds left after all the valuable projects are largely responsible for creation of the conflict of interest between the management and the shareholders. Payment of dividends and interest on other debt instruments reduce the cash flow with the management to invest in marginal net present value projects and for other perquisite consumptions. Therefore, the dividend theory is better explained by the combination of both the agency and the signaling theory rather than by any o ne of these alone. On the other hand, the free cash flow hypothesis rationalizes the corporate takeover frenzy of the 1980s Myers (1987 and 1990) rather than providing a clear and comprehensive dividend policy. The study by Baker et al. (2007) reports, that firms paying dividend in Canada are significantly larger and more profitable, having greater cash flows, ownership structure and some growth opportunities. The cash flow hypothesis proposes that insiders to a firm have more information about future cash flow than the outsiders, and they have incentivized motives to leak this to outsiders. Lang and Litzenberger (1989) check the cash flow signaling and free cash flow explanations of the effect of dividend declarations on the stock prices. This difference between permanent and temporary changes is also explored in Brook, Charlton, and Hendershott (1998). However, this study is based on the hypothesis that dividend changes contain cash flow information rather than information about earnings. This is the cash flow signaling hypothesis proposing that dividend changes signal expected cash flows changes. The dividend decisions are affected by a number of factors; many researchers have contributed in determining which determinant of dividend payout is the most significant in contributing to dividend decisions. It is said that the primary indicator of the firms capacity to pay dividends has been Profits. According to Lintner (1956) the dividend payment pattern of a firm is influenced by the current year earnings and previous year dividends. Pruitt and Gitmans (1991) survey of financial managers of 1000 largest U.S companies about the interplay among the investment and dividend decisions in their Firms reported that, current and past year profits are essential factors influencing dividend payments. The conclusion derived from Baker and Powells (2000) survey of NYSE-listed firms is that the major determinant is the anticipated level of future earnings and continuity of past dividends. The study of Aivazian, Booth, and Cleary (2003) concludes that profitability and return on equity positively correlate with the size of the dividend payout ratio. The study by Lv Chang-jiang and Wang Ke-min (1999) on 316 listed companies in China that paid cash dividends during 1997 and 1998 by using modified Lintner dividend model, suggested that the dividend payout ratio is due to the firms current earning level. Other researchers like Chen Guo-Hui and Zhao Chun-guang (2000), Liu Shu-lian and Hu Yan-hong (2003) also concluded their research on the above stated understanding about dividend policy of listed companies in China. A survey done by Baker, Farrelly, and Edelman (1985) and Farrelly, Baker, and Edelman (1986) on 562 New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) firms with normal kinds of dividend polices in 1983 suggested that the major determinants of dividend payments were the anticipated level of future earnings and the pattern of past dividends. DeAngelo et al. (2004) findings suggest that earnings do have some impact on dividend payment. He stated that the high/increasing dividend concentration may be the result of high/increasing earnings concentration. Goergen et al. (2005) study on 221 German firms shows that net earnings were the key determinants of dividend changes. Baker and Smith (2006) examined 309 sample firms exhibiting behavior consistent with a residual dividend policy and their matched counterparts to understand how they set their dividend policies. Their study showed that for the matched firms, the pattern of past dividends and desire to maintain a long-term dividend payout ratio elicit the highest level of agreement from respondents. The study by Ferris et al. (2006) found mixed results for the relation between a firms earnings and its ability to pay dividends. Kao and Wu (1994) used a time series regression analysis of 454 firms over the period of 1965 to1986, and showed that there was a positive relationshi p between unexpected dividends and earnings. Carroll (1995) used quarterly data of 854 firms over the period of 1975 to 1984, and examined whether quarterly dividend changes predicted future earnings. He found a significant positive relationship. Liquidity is also an important determinant of dividend payouts. A poor liquidity position would generate fewer dividends due to shortage of cash. Alli et.al (1993), reveal that dividend payments depend more on cash flows, which reflect the companys ability to pay dividends, than on current earnings, which are less heavily influenced by accounting practices. They claim current earnings do no really reflect the firms ability to pay dividends. A firm without the cash flow back up cannot choose to have a high dividend payout as it will ultimately have to either reduce its investment plans or turn to investors for additional debt. The study by Brook, Charlton and Hendershott (1998) states that, Firms expecting large permanent cash flow increases tend to increase their dividend. Managers do not increase dividends until they are positive that sufficient cash will flow in to pay them (Brealey-Myers-2002). Myers and Bacons (2001) study shows a negative relationship between the liquid ratio and dividend payout. For companies to enable them to enhance their dividend paying capacity, and thus, to generate higher dividend paying capacity, it is necessary to retain their earnings to finance investment in fixed assets. The study by Belans et al (2007) states that the relationship between the firms liquidity and dividend is positive which explains that firms with more market liquidity pay more dividends. Reddy (2006), Amidu and Abor (2006) find opposite evidence. Lintner (1956) posited that the level of retained earnings is a dividend decision by- product. Adaoglu (2000) study shows that the firms listed on Istanbul Stock Exchange follow unstable cash dividend policy and the main factor for determining the amount of dividend is earning of the firms. The same conclusion was drawn by Omet (2004) in case of firms listed on Amman Securities Market and he further states that the tax imposition on dividend does not have the significant impact on the dividend behavior of the listed firms. The study by Mick and Bacon (2003) concludes that future earnings are the most influential variable and that the past dividend patterns as well as current and expected levels are empirically relevant in explaining the dividend decision. Empirical support for Lintners findings, that dividends were indeed a function of current and past profit levels and were negatively correlated with the change in sales was found by Darling (1957), Fama and Babiak (1968). Benchman a nd Raaballe (2007) discovered that the propensity to pay out dividends is positively correlated to retained earnings. Also, the study by Denis and Osobov (2006) states that retained earnings are a significant dividend characteristic for non- US firms including UK, German, and French firms. One of the motives for dividend policy decision is maintaining a moderate share price as poor stock price performance mostly conveys negative information about firms reputation. An empirical research took by Zhao Chun-guang and Zhang Xue-li et al (2001) on all A shares listed companies listed in Shenzhen and Shanghai Stock Exchange, states that the more cash dividends is paid when the stock prices are high. Chen Guo-Hui and Zhao Chun-guang (2000) undertook a research on all A shares listed before 1996 and paid dividend into share capital in 1997 as their sampling, and employed single-factor analysis, multifactor regression analysis to analyze the data. Their research showed a positive stock price reaction to the cash dividend, stock dividend policy. Myers and Bacon (2001) discussed that the debt to equity ratio was positively correlated to the dividend yield. Therefore firms with relatively more investment opportunities would tend to be more geared and vice versa (Ross, 2000). The study by Hu and Liu, (2005) declares that there is a positive correlation between the cash dividend the companies pay and their current earnings, and a inverse relationship between the debt to total assets and dividends. Green et al. (1993) questioned the irrelevance argument and investigated the relationship between the dividends and investment and financing decisions .Their study showed that dividend payout levels are decided along with investment and financing decisions. The study results however do not support the views of Miller and Modigliani (1961). Partington (1983) declared that firms motives for paying dividends and extent to which dividends are decided are independent of investment policy. The study by Higgins (1981) declares a direct link between growths and financing needs, rapidly growing firms have external financing needs because working capital needs normally exceed the incremental cash flows from new sales. Higgins (1972) suggests that payout ratios are negatively related to firms need top fund finance growth opportunities. Other researchers like Rozeff (1982), Lloyd et al. (1985) and Collins et al. (1996) all show significantly negative relationship between historical sales growth and dividend payout whereas D, Souza (1999) however shows a positive but insignificant relationship in the case of growth and negative but insignificant relationship in case of market to book value. Jenson and Meckling (1976) find a strong relationship between dividends and investment opportunities. They explain, in some circumstances where firms have relative uptight disposable cash flow and a number of investment opportunities have, the shareholders are ready to accept low dividend payout ratio. From the investors point of view, the dividend payments represent definite evidence of a companys worth. A company that expects sufficient future cash flows, large enough to meet debt obligations and dividend payments, will increase dividend payout. Howe (1998) believed that the actions of the managers might convey information to the investors outside as they are more informed about the future prospects of their firms than the market. Reddy (2002) studied dividend behavior and expressed his views on the observed behavior with the help of signaling hypothesis. The undervalued firms (assessed by the price Influences on Dividend Payout Decisions Influences on Dividend Payout Decisions CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The intricacies of Dividends and Dividend policy can leave even the most seasoned financial professional feeling a little uneasy. While conventional wisdom suggests that paying dividends affects both firms value and shareholder wealth to retain earnings to explore growth opportunities, much debate still surrounds this dynamic discipline; especially when it comes to how dividend decisions can lead to value maximization Kent (2003). Dividend policy is an important component of the corporate financial management policy. It is a policy used by the firm to decide as to how much cash it should reinvest in its business through expansion or share repurchases and how much to pay out to its shareholders in dividends. Dividend is a payment or return made by the firm to the shareholders, (owners of the company) out of its earnings in the form of cash. For a long time, the subject of corporate dividend policy has captivated the interests of many academicians and researchers, resulting in the emer gence of a number of theoretical explanations for dividend policy. For the investors, dividend serve as an important indicator of the strength and future prosperity of the business, thereby companies try to maintain a stable dividend because if they reduce their dividend payments, investors may suspect that the company is facing a cash flow problem. Investors prefer steady growth of dividends every year and are reluctant to investment to companies with fluctuating dividend policy. Over time, there has been a substantial increase in the number of factors identified in the literature as being important to be considered in making dividend decisions. Thus, extensive studies have been done to find out various factors affecting dividend payout ratio of a firm. However, there is no single explanation that can capture the puzzling reality of corporate dividend behavior. Ocean deep judgment is involved by decision makers to resolve this issue of dividend behavior. The decision of companies t o retain or pay out the earnings in form of dividends is important for the maximization of the value of the firm (Oyejide, 1976). Therefore, companies should set a constructive target dividend payout ratio, where it pays dividends to its shareholders and at the same time maintains sufficient retained earnings as to avoid having raise funds by borrowing money. A tough challenge was faced by financial practitioners and many academics, when Miller and Modigliani (MM) (1961) came with a proposition that, given perfect capital markets, the dividend decision does not affect the firm value and is, therefore, irrelevant. This proposition was greeted with surprise because at that time it was universally acknowledged by both theorists and corporate managers that the firm can enhance its business value by providing for a more generous dividend policy and that a properly managed dividend policy had an impact on share prices and shareholder wealth. Since the M M study, many researchers have relaxed the assumption of perfect capital markets and stated theories about how managers should formulate dividend policy decisions. Problem Statement Dividend policy has attracted a substantial amount of research by many researchers and theorists, who have provided theoretical as well as empirical observations, into the dividend puzzle (Black, 1976). Even though researchers and theorists have extended their studies in context to dividend decisions, the issue as to why corporations distribute a portion of their earnings as dividends is not yet resolved. The issue of dividend policy has stimulated much debate among financial analysts since Lintners (1956) seminal work. He measured major changes in earnings as the key determinant of the companies dividend decisions. There are many factors that affect dividend decisions of a firm as it is very difficult to lay down an optimum dividend policy which would maximize the long-run wealth of the shareholders resulting into increase or decrease of the firms value, but the primary indicator of the firms capacity to pay dividends has been Profits. Miller and Modigliani (1961), DeAngelo and DeAngelo (2006) gave their proposition on the dividend irrelevance, but the argument made by them was on assumptions that werent practical and in fact, the dividend payout decision does affect the shareholders value. The study focuses on identifying various determinants of dividend payout and whether these factors influence the dividend payout decision. Research Objective: There are many theories in the corporate finance literature addressing the dividend issue. The purpose of study is to understand the factors influencing the dividend decision of companies. The specific objectives of this study are: To analyze the financials of the company to draw a framework of factors such as Retained earnings, Age of the company, Debt to Equity, Cash, Net income, Earnings per share etc. responsible for dividend declaration. To understand the criticality of a companys profitability (in terms of Earnings per share) component in declaration of dividends. To measure each factor individually on how it affects the dividend decision. Research Questions: Q1. What is the relation between dividend payout and firms debt? Q2. What is the relation between dividend payout and Profitability? Q3. What is the relation between dividend payout and liquidity? Q4. What is the relation between dividend payout and Retained Earnings? Q5. What is the relation between dividend payout and Net Income? Scope of the Study: This study investigates areas of concern that are extensive thereby due to limitation of time; the scope of research will be limited as the period of study is only three years 2006-2008. The study is focused only on firms trading on NYSE and has considered only those firms who pay dividends. Organization of the paper: The remaining chapters will be organized as follows: Chapter Two: Literature Review This chapter discusses the Determinants of Dividend payout and the theories behind the research questions in context to the Dividend policy. Chapter Three: Research Methodology The chosen research design, data collection and statistical tests for analysis are described in the chapter. Chapter four: Data Analysis and Findings: To address the research questions, results obtained from the regression analysis will be presented and discussed. Chapter five: Recommendations and Conclusion. This chapter provides recommendations for the future research and a conclusion for all this research. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Dividend remains one of the greatest enigmas of modern finance. Corporate dividend policy is an important decision area in the field of financial management hence there is an extensive literature devoted to the subject. Dividends are defined as the distribution of earnings (present or past) in real assets among the shareholders of the firm in proportion to their ownership. Dividend policy refers to managements long-term decision on how to utilize cash flows from business activities-that is, how much to plow back into the business, and how much to return to shareholders (Khan and Jain, 2005). Lintner (1956) conducted a notable study on dividend distributions, his was the first empirical study of dividend policy through his interview with managers of 28 selected companies, he stated that most companies have clear cut target payout ratios and that managers concern themselves with change in the existing dividend payout rather than the amount of the newly established payout. He also states that, Dividend policy is set first and other policies are then adjusted and the market reacts positively to dividend increase announcements and negatively to announcements of dividend decreases. He measured major changes in earnings as the key determinant of the companies dividend decisions. Lintners study was expanded by Farrelly et al. (1988), who, mailed a questionnaire to 562 firms listed on the New York Stock Exchange and concluded that managers accept dividend policy to be relevant and important. Lintners view was also supported by the study results of Fama and Babiak (1968) and Fama (1974) who suggested that managers prefer a stable dividend policy, and are hesitant to increase dividends to a level that cannot be supported. Fama and Babiaks (1968) study also concludes that Net income appears to explain the dividend change decision better than a cash flow measure. The study by Adaoglu (2000), Amidu and Abor (2006) and Belans et al (2007) stated that net income shows positive and significant association with the dividend payout, therefore indicating that, the firms with the positive earnings pay more dividends. Merton Miller and Franco Modigliani (1961) made a proposition that the value of a firm is not affected by its dividend policy. Dividend policy is a way of dividing up operating cash flows among investors or just a financial decision. Financial theorists Martin, Petty, Keown, and Scott, 1991 supported this theory of irrelevance. Miller and Modiglianis conclusion on the irrelevance of dividend policy presented a tough challenge to the conventional wisdom of time up to that point, it was universally acknowledged by both theorists and corporate managers that the firm can enhance its business value by providing for a more generous dividend policy as investors seem to prefer dividends over capital gains (JM Samuels, FM.Wilkes and R.E Brayshaw). Benartzi et al. (1997) conducted an extensive study and concluded that Lintners model of dividends remains the finest description of the dividend setting process available. Baker et al. (2001) conducted a survey on 630 NASDAQ-listed firms and analyzed the responses from 188 CFOs about the importance of 22 different factors that influence their dividend policy, they found that the dividend decisions made by managers were consistent with Lintners (1956) survey results and model. Their results also suggest that managers pay particular attention to the dividend policy of the firm because the dividend decision can affect firm value and, in turn, the wealth of stockholders, thus dividend policy requires serious attention by the management. E.F Fama and K.R French (2001) investigated the characteristics of companies paying dividends and concluded that the top most characteristics that affect the decision to pay dividends are Firm size, Profitability, and Investment opportunities. They studied dividend payment in the United States and found that the proportion of dividend payers declined sharply from 66% in 1978 to 20.8% in 1999, and that only about a fifth of public companies paid dividends. Growth companies such as Microsoft, Cisco and Sun Microsystems were found to be non-dividend payers. They also explained that the probability that a firm would pay dividends was positively related to profitability and size and negatively related to growth. Their research concluded that larger firms are more profitable and are more likely to pay dividends, than firms with more investment opportunities. The relationship between firm size and dividend policy was studied by Jennifer J. Gaver and Kenneth M. Gaver (1993). They suggested t hat A firms dividend yield is inversely related to the extent of its growth opportunities. The inference here is that as cash flow increases, the coefficient of dividend decreases, indicating that smaller firms that have greater investment opportunities thus they tend not to make dividend payment while larger firms tend to have proactive dividends policy. Ho, H. (2003) undertook a comparative study of dividend policies in Japan and Australia. Their study revealed that dividend policies in Australia and Japan are affected by different financial factors. Dividend policies are affected positively by size in Australia and liquidity in Japan. Naceur et al (2006) examined the dividend policy of 48 firms listed on the Tunisian Stock Exchange during the period 1996-2002. His research indicated that highly profitable firms with more stable earnings could afford larger free cash flows and thus paid larger dividends. Li and Lie (2006) reported that large and profitable firms are more likely to raise their dividends if the past dividend yield, debt ratio, cash ratio are low. A study was conducted by Norhayati Mohamed, Wee Shu Hui, Mormah Hj.Omar, and Rashidah Abdul Rahman on Malaysian companies over a 3 year period from 2003-2005. The sample was taken from the top 200 companies listed on the main board of Bursa Malaysia based on market capitaliza tion as at 31December 2005. Their study concluded that bigger firms pay higher dividends. or the purpose of finding out how companies arrive at their dividend decisions, many researchers and theorists have proposed several dividend theories. Gordon and Walter (1963) presented the Bird in Hand theory which suggested that to minimize risk the investors always prefer cash in hand rather than future promise of capital gain. This theory asserts that investors value dividends and high payout firms. As said by John D. Rockefeller (an American industrialist) The one thing that gives me contentment is to see my dividend coming in. For companies to communicate financial well-being and shareholder value the easiest way is to say the dividend check is in the mail. The bird-in-hand theory (a pre-Miller-Modigliani theory) asserts that dividends are valued differently to capital gains in a world of information asymmetry where due to uncertainty of future cash flow, investors will often tend to prefer dividends to retained earnings. As a result the value of the firm would be increased as a higher payout ratio will reduce the required rate of return (see, for example Gordon, 1959). This argument has not received any strong empirical support. Dividends, paid by companies to shareholders from earnings, serve as an important indicator of the strength and future prosperity of the business. This explanation is known as signaling hypothesis. Signaling is an example factor for the relevance of dividends to the value of the firm. It is based on the idea of information asymmetry between managers and investors, where managers have private information about the firm that is not available to the outsiders. This theory is supported by models put forward by Miller and Rock (1985), Bhattacharya (1979), John and Williams (1985). They stated that dividends can be used as a signaling device to influence share price. The share price reacts favorably when an announcement of dividend increase is made. Few researchers found limited support for the signaling hypothesis (see Gonedes, 1978, Watts, 1973) and there are other researchers, who supported the hypothesis, for example, in Michaely, Nissim and Ziv (2001), Pettit (1972) and Bali (2003). The tax-preference theory assumes that the market valuation of a firms stocks is increased when the dividend payout ratios is low which in turn lowers the required rate of return. Because of the relative tax liability of dividends compared to capital gains, investors need a large amount of before-tax risk adjusted return on stocks with higher dividend yields (Brennan, 1970). On one side studies by Lichtenberger and Ramaswamy (1979), Poterba and Summers, (1984), and Barclay (1987) have presented empirical evidence in support of the tax effect argument and on the other side Black and Scholes (1974), Miller and Scholes (1982), and Morgan and Thomas (1998) have either opposed such findings or provided completely different explanations. The study by Masulis and Trueman (1988) model dividend payments in form of cash as products of deferred dividend costs. Their model predicts that investors with differing tax liabilities will not be uniform in their ideal firm dividend policy. As the tax l iability on dividends increases (decreases), the dividend payment decreases (increases) while earnings reinvestment increases (decreases). According to Farrar and Selwyn (1967), in a partial equilibrium framework, individual investors choose the amount of personal and corporate leverage and also whether to receive corporate distributions as dividends or capital gains. Barclay (1987) has presented empirical evidence I support of the tax effect argument. Others, including Black and Scholes (1982), have opposed such findings or provided different explanations. Farrar and Selwyns model (1967) made an assumption that investors tend to increase their after tax income to the maximum. According to this model corporate earnings should be distributed by share repurchase rather than the use of dividends. Brennan (1970) has extended Farrar and Selwyns model into a general equilibrium framework. Under this, the expected usefulness of wealth as a system of barter is maximized. Despite being more robust both the models are similar as regards to their predictions. According to Auerbachs (1979) discrete-time, infinite-horizon model, the wealth of shareholders is maximized by the shareholders themselves and not by firm market value. If there does, infact, exist a difference between capital gains and dividends tax; firm market value maximization is no longer determined by wealth maximization. He states that the continued undervaluation of corporate capital leads to dividend distributions. The clientele effects hypothesis is another related theory. According to this theory the investors may be attracted to the types of stocks that fall in with their consumption/savings preferences. That is, investors (or clienteles) in high tax brackets may prefer non-dividend or low-dividend paying stocks if dividend income is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains. Also, certain clienteles may be created with the presence of transaction costs. There are several empirical studies on the clientele effects hypothesis but the findings are mixed. Studies by Pettit (1977), Scholz (1992), and Dhaliwal, Erickson and Trezevant (1999) presented evidence consistent with the existence of clientele effects hypothesis whereas studies by Lewellen et al. (1978), Richardson, Sefcik and Thomason (1986), Abrutyn and Turner (1990), found weak or contrary evidence. There is an assumption that the managers do not always take steps which would lead to maximizing an investors wealth. This gives rise to another favorable argument for hefty dividend payouts which shifts the reinvestment decision back on the owners. The main hitch would be the agency conflict (conflict between the principal and the agent) arising as a result of separate ownership and control. Therefore, a manager is expected to move the surplus funds from the high retained earnings into projects which are not feasible. This would be mainly due to his ill intention or his in competency. Thus, generous dividend payouts increase a firms value as it reduces the managements access to free cash flows and hence, controlling the problem of over investment. There are many more agency theories explaining how dividends can increase the value of a firm. One of them was by Easterbrook (1984); he proposed that dividend payments reduce agency problems in contrast to the transaction cost theory which is of the view that dividend payments reduce the value as it forces to raise costly finances from outside sources. His idea is that if the dividends are not paid, there is a problem of collective action that tends to lead to hap-hazard management of the firm. So, dividend payouts and raising external finance would attract auditory and regulatory measures by financial intermediaries like investment banks, respective stock exchange regulators and the potential investors as well. All this monitoring would lead to considerable reduction of agency costs and appreciate the market value of t he firm. Moreover, as defined by Jenson and Meckling (1976), Agency costs=monitoring costs+ bonding, costs+ residual loss i.e. sum of agency cost of equity and agency cost of debt. Hence, Easterbrook (1984) noted that dividend payments and raising new debt and its contract negotiations would reduce potential for wealth transfer. The realization for potential agency costs linked with separation of management and shareholders is not new. Adam Smith (1937) proposed that management of earlier companies is wayward. This problem was highly witnessed during at the time of British East Indian Companies and tracking managers was a failure due to inefficiencies and high costs of shareholder monitoring (Kindleberger, 1984). Scott (1912) and Carlos (1922) differ with this view point. They agree that although some fraud existed in the corporations, many of the activities of the managers were in line with those of the shareholders interests. An opportune and intelligent manager should always invest the surplus cash available into those opportunities which are well researched to be in the best interest of the shareholders. Berle and Means (1932) was the first to discover the insufficient utilization of funds which are surplus after other investment opportunities taken by the management. This thought was further promoted by Jensens (1986) free cash flow hypothesis. This hypothesis combined market information asymmetries with the agency theory. The surplus funds left after all the valuable projects are largely responsible for creation of the conflict of interest between the management and the shareholders. Payment of dividends and interest on other debt instruments reduce the cash flow with the management to invest in marginal net present value projects and for other perquisite consumptions. Therefore, the dividend theory is better explained by the combination of both the agency and the signaling theory rather than by any o ne of these alone. On the other hand, the free cash flow hypothesis rationalizes the corporate takeover frenzy of the 1980s Myers (1987 and 1990) rather than providing a clear and comprehensive dividend policy. The study by Baker et al. (2007) reports, that firms paying dividend in Canada are significantly larger and more profitable, having greater cash flows, ownership structure and some growth opportunities. The cash flow hypothesis proposes that insiders to a firm have more information about future cash flow than the outsiders, and they have incentivized motives to leak this to outsiders. Lang and Litzenberger (1989) check the cash flow signaling and free cash flow explanations of the effect of dividend declarations on the stock prices. This difference between permanent and temporary changes is also explored in Brook, Charlton, and Hendershott (1998). However, this study is based on the hypothesis that dividend changes contain cash flow information rather than information about earnings. This is the cash flow signaling hypothesis proposing that dividend changes signal expected cash flows changes. The dividend decisions are affected by a number of factors; many researchers have contributed in determining which determinant of dividend payout is the most significant in contributing to dividend decisions. It is said that the primary indicator of the firms capacity to pay dividends has been Profits. According to Lintner (1956) the dividend payment pattern of a firm is influenced by the current year earnings and previous year dividends. Pruitt and Gitmans (1991) survey of financial managers of 1000 largest U.S companies about the interplay among the investment and dividend decisions in their Firms reported that, current and past year profits are essential factors influencing dividend payments. The conclusion derived from Baker and Powells (2000) survey of NYSE-listed firms is that the major determinant is the anticipated level of future earnings and continuity of past dividends. The study of Aivazian, Booth, and Cleary (2003) concludes that profitability and return on equity positively correlate with the size of the dividend payout ratio. The study by Lv Chang-jiang and Wang Ke-min (1999) on 316 listed companies in China that paid cash dividends during 1997 and 1998 by using modified Lintner dividend model, suggested that the dividend payout ratio is due to the firms current earning level. Other researchers like Chen Guo-Hui and Zhao Chun-guang (2000), Liu Shu-lian and Hu Yan-hong (2003) also concluded their research on the above stated understanding about dividend policy of listed companies in China. A survey done by Baker, Farrelly, and Edelman (1985) and Farrelly, Baker, and Edelman (1986) on 562 New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) firms with normal kinds of dividend polices in 1983 suggested that the major determinants of dividend payments were the anticipated level of future earnings and the pattern of past dividends. DeAngelo et al. (2004) findings suggest that earnings do have some impact on dividend payment. He stated that the high/increasing dividend concentration may be the result of high/increasing earnings concentration. Goergen et al. (2005) study on 221 German firms shows that net earnings were the key determinants of dividend changes. Baker and Smith (2006) examined 309 sample firms exhibiting behavior consistent with a residual dividend policy and their matched counterparts to understand how they set their dividend policies. Their study showed that for the matched firms, the pattern of past dividends and desire to maintain a long-term dividend payout ratio elicit the highest level of agreement from respondents. The study by Ferris et al. (2006) found mixed results for the relation between a firms earnings and its ability to pay dividends. Kao and Wu (1994) used a time series regression analysis of 454 firms over the period of 1965 to1986, and showed that there was a positive relationshi p between unexpected dividends and earnings. Carroll (1995) used quarterly data of 854 firms over the period of 1975 to 1984, and examined whether quarterly dividend changes predicted future earnings. He found a significant positive relationship. Liquidity is also an important determinant of dividend payouts. A poor liquidity position would generate fewer dividends due to shortage of cash. Alli et.al (1993), reveal that dividend payments depend more on cash flows, which reflect the companys ability to pay dividends, than on current earnings, which are less heavily influenced by accounting practices. They claim current earnings do no really reflect the firms ability to pay dividends. A firm without the cash flow back up cannot choose to have a high dividend payout as it will ultimately have to either reduce its investment plans or turn to investors for additional debt. The study by Brook, Charlton and Hendershott (1998) states that, Firms expecting large permanent cash flow increases tend to increase their dividend. Managers do not increase dividends until they are positive that sufficient cash will flow in to pay them (Brealey-Myers-2002). Myers and Bacons (2001) study shows a negative relationship between the liquid ratio and dividend payout. For companies to enable them to enhance their dividend paying capacity, and thus, to generate higher dividend paying capacity, it is necessary to retain their earnings to finance investment in fixed assets. The study by Belans et al (2007) states that the relationship between the firms liquidity and dividend is positive which explains that firms with more market liquidity pay more dividends. Reddy (2006), Amidu and Abor (2006) find opposite evidence. Lintner (1956) posited that the level of retained earnings is a dividend decision by- product. Adaoglu (2000) study shows that the firms listed on Istanbul Stock Exchange follow unstable cash dividend policy and the main factor for determining the amount of dividend is earning of the firms. The same conclusion was drawn by Omet (2004) in case of firms listed on Amman Securities Market and he further states that the tax imposition on dividend does not have the significant impact on the dividend behavior of the listed firms. The study by Mick and Bacon (2003) concludes that future earnings are the most influential variable and that the past dividend patterns as well as current and expected levels are empirically relevant in explaining the dividend decision. Empirical support for Lintners findings, that dividends were indeed a function of current and past profit levels and were negatively correlated with the change in sales was found by Darling (1957), Fama and Babiak (1968). Benchman a nd Raaballe (2007) discovered that the propensity to pay out dividends is positively correlated to retained earnings. Also, the study by Denis and Osobov (2006) states that retained earnings are a significant dividend characteristic for non- US firms including UK, German, and French firms. One of the motives for dividend policy decision is maintaining a moderate share price as poor stock price performance mostly conveys negative information about firms reputation. An empirical research took by Zhao Chun-guang and Zhang Xue-li et al (2001) on all A shares listed companies listed in Shenzhen and Shanghai Stock Exchange, states that the more cash dividends is paid when the stock prices are high. Chen Guo-Hui and Zhao Chun-guang (2000) undertook a research on all A shares listed before 1996 and paid dividend into share capital in 1997 as their sampling, and employed single-factor analysis, multifactor regression analysis to analyze the data. Their research showed a positive stock price reaction to the cash dividend, stock dividend policy. Myers and Bacon (2001) discussed that the debt to equity ratio was positively correlated to the dividend yield. Therefore firms with relatively more investment opportunities would tend to be more geared and vice versa (Ross, 2000). The study by Hu and Liu, (2005) declares that there is a positive correlation between the cash dividend the companies pay and their current earnings, and a inverse relationship between the debt to total assets and dividends. Green et al. (1993) questioned the irrelevance argument and investigated the relationship between the dividends and investment and financing decisions .Their study showed that dividend payout levels are decided along with investment and financing decisions. The study results however do not support the views of Miller and Modigliani (1961). Partington (1983) declared that firms motives for paying dividends and extent to which dividends are decided are independent of investment policy. The study by Higgins (1981) declares a direct link between growths and financing needs, rapidly growing firms have external financing needs because working capital needs normally exceed the incremental cash flows from new sales. Higgins (1972) suggests that payout ratios are negatively related to firms need top fund finance growth opportunities. Other researchers like Rozeff (1982), Lloyd et al. (1985) and Collins et al. (1996) all show significantly negative relationship between historical sales growth and dividend payout whereas D, Souza (1999) however shows a positive but insignificant relationship in the case of growth and negative but insignificant relationship in case of market to book value. Jenson and Meckling (1976) find a strong relationship between dividends and investment opportunities. They explain, in some circumstances where firms have relative uptight disposable cash flow and a number of investment opportunities have, the shareholders are ready to accept low dividend payout ratio. From the investors point of view, the dividend payments represent definite evidence of a companys worth. A company that expects sufficient future cash flows, large enough to meet debt obligations and dividend payments, will increase dividend payout. Howe (1998) believed that the actions of the managers might convey information to the investors outside as they are more informed about the future prospects of their firms than the market. Reddy (2002) studied dividend behavior and expressed his views on the observed behavior with the help of signaling hypothesis. The undervalued firms (assessed by the price

Analysis of Anne Moodys Coming of Age in Mississippi Essay -- Anne Mo

Analysis of Anne Moody's Coming of Age in Mississippi Anne Moody’s Coming of Age in Mississippi is a narrated autobiography depicting what it was like to grow up in the South as a poor African American female. Her autobiography takes us through her life journey beginning with her at the age of four all the way through to her adult years and her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. The book is divided into four periods: Childhood, High School, College and The Movement. Each of these periods represents the process by which she â€Å"came of age† with each stage and its experiences having an effect on her enlightenment. She illustrates how important the Civil Rights Movement was by detailing the economic, social, and racial injustices against African Americans she experienced. Moody’s childhood lacked any positive influences; she was the child of poor sharecroppers who worked for a white farmer and her father deserted the family for another woman. She attended segregated schools and was forced to start working from the fourth grade on in order to help support her poor family. After her father left them, her mother moved them off the plantation and closer to Centreville, Mississippi in order to try and support the family. Her mother eventually married a man whose family did not get along with her and as a teenager Moody felt sexually harassed by her stepfather thus causing Moody to move out while she was still in high school. There were many acts of violence that took place during Moody’s childhood that helped prove to her that interracial relationships were unacceptable. For example, white people burned down the Taplin family home, killing everyone inside. Moody recalls being in shock and everyone in the car sitting still in dead silence, â€Å"We sat in the car for about an hour, silently looking at this debris and the ashes that covered the nine charcoal-burned bodies . . . I shall never forget the expressions on the faces of the Negroes. There was almost unanimous hopelessness in them.† It wasn’t until highschool when she came to her first realization about the racial problems and violence that have been plaguing her when a fourteen-year-old African American boy is murdered for having whistled at a white woman. Before this, Moody was under the impression that â€Å"Evil Spirits† were to blame for the mysterious deaths of African Americans, â€Å"Up ... ...nspired to make a change that she knew that nothing could stop her, not even her family. In a way, she seemed to want to prove that she could rise above the rest. She refused to let fear eat at her and inflict in her the weakness that poisoned her family. As a child she was a witness to too much violence and pain and much too often she could feel the hopelessness that many African Americans felt. She was set in her beliefs to make choices freely and help others like herself do so as well. Toward the end of Moody’s autobiography, it is obvious that all her experiences and challenges in life had deeply affected her. In a way, she seemed tired and frustrated of fighting and struggling, â€Å"I sat there listening to ‘We Shall Overcome,’ looking out of the window and the passing Mississippi landscape. Images of all that had happened kept crossing my mind: The Taplin burning, the Birmingham church bombing, Medgar Evers’ murder, the blood gushing out of McKinley’s head, and all the other murders.† In the background people were singing We Shall Overcome and she wondered to herself how true those three words could be. All she thought to herself was, â€Å"I wonder. I really WONDER.† Analysis of Anne Moody's Coming of Age in Mississippi Essay -- Anne Mo Analysis of Anne Moody's Coming of Age in Mississippi Anne Moody’s Coming of Age in Mississippi is a narrated autobiography depicting what it was like to grow up in the South as a poor African American female. Her autobiography takes us through her life journey beginning with her at the age of four all the way through to her adult years and her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. The book is divided into four periods: Childhood, High School, College and The Movement. Each of these periods represents the process by which she â€Å"came of age† with each stage and its experiences having an effect on her enlightenment. She illustrates how important the Civil Rights Movement was by detailing the economic, social, and racial injustices against African Americans she experienced. Moody’s childhood lacked any positive influences; she was the child of poor sharecroppers who worked for a white farmer and her father deserted the family for another woman. She attended segregated schools and was forced to start working from the fourth grade on in order to help support her poor family. After her father left them, her mother moved them off the plantation and closer to Centreville, Mississippi in order to try and support the family. Her mother eventually married a man whose family did not get along with her and as a teenager Moody felt sexually harassed by her stepfather thus causing Moody to move out while she was still in high school. There were many acts of violence that took place during Moody’s childhood that helped prove to her that interracial relationships were unacceptable. For example, white people burned down the Taplin family home, killing everyone inside. Moody recalls being in shock and everyone in the car sitting still in dead silence, â€Å"We sat in the car for about an hour, silently looking at this debris and the ashes that covered the nine charcoal-burned bodies . . . I shall never forget the expressions on the faces of the Negroes. There was almost unanimous hopelessness in them.† It wasn’t until highschool when she came to her first realization about the racial problems and violence that have been plaguing her when a fourteen-year-old African American boy is murdered for having whistled at a white woman. Before this, Moody was under the impression that â€Å"Evil Spirits† were to blame for the mysterious deaths of African Americans, â€Å"Up ... ...nspired to make a change that she knew that nothing could stop her, not even her family. In a way, she seemed to want to prove that she could rise above the rest. She refused to let fear eat at her and inflict in her the weakness that poisoned her family. As a child she was a witness to too much violence and pain and much too often she could feel the hopelessness that many African Americans felt. She was set in her beliefs to make choices freely and help others like herself do so as well. Toward the end of Moody’s autobiography, it is obvious that all her experiences and challenges in life had deeply affected her. In a way, she seemed tired and frustrated of fighting and struggling, â€Å"I sat there listening to ‘We Shall Overcome,’ looking out of the window and the passing Mississippi landscape. Images of all that had happened kept crossing my mind: The Taplin burning, the Birmingham church bombing, Medgar Evers’ murder, the blood gushing out of McKinley’s head, and all the other murders.† In the background people were singing We Shall Overcome and she wondered to herself how true those three words could be. All she thought to herself was, â€Å"I wonder. I really WONDER.†

Is Addiction a Brain Disease? Essay

Addiction, it is all around us, affecting people from all walks of life, it is not limited to certain social classes or lifestyles. It is found in every ethnic group, regardless of gender or age. It affects our neighbors, our friends, and our family either directly or indirectly. Although substances such as alcohol and illegal drugs are two of the most common addictions we hear about, there is a wide range of substances and even activities such as gambling and shopping. There is some debate whether addiction is a brain disease or a choice. This controversy has been going on for years and a decision whether or not addiction is a brain disease has yet to be reached. According to a publication Is Addiction a Brain Disease? (1998) , by two psychiatrists, Sally Satel, M.D., and Frederick K. Goodwin, M.D., both argue â€Å"the virtues of thinking about addiction as a primary, though modifiable, behavioral phenomenon, rather than simply as a brain disease†. That is, addiction is a function of a person, rather than simply a physical state† (Satel, Goodwin, 1998, p. 3). According to a publication by the National Institution of Drug Abuse (NIDA, 2007), â€Å"addiction is a chronic, relapsing disease characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use despite harmful consequences as well as neurochemical and molecular changes in the brain† (NIDA, 2007). For the purpose of this paper the focus will be on the substance of drugs of abuse when discussing ‘addiction’, but before getting into the two controversial sides another definition we can look at outside of these two opinions is taken from textbook, Psychology 10th Ed, by David G. Myers: â€Å"Addiction is a compulsive drug craving and use, despite adverse consequences† (Myers, 113). PRO: Drug Addiction is a Brain Disease. The National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) explains that addiction is a brain disease. The initial decision to take drugs is a person’s voluntary choice. However, once a person takes that drug of abuse it can effect â€Å"the pleasurable area of the brain† (NIDA, 2007), in which, addiction takes over the person’s capability of self control, which can result in harmful actions. Thus, when a person uses drugs over a long period of time the brain structure and the way it operates changes resulting in harmful effects and actions. Addiction is tied to changes in brain structure and function, basically making it a brain disease. Furthermore, all drugs of abuse have common affects one way or another within the brain, which activates â€Å"the pleasurable area of the brain† (NIDA, 2007). Drugs of abuse reward our normal actions, therefore, if the brain gets a lot of stimulation it produces pleasant feelings, which drives a person to continually use drugs over and over. NIDA also points out that from science research â€Å"brain-imaging studies from drug-addicted individuals have shown physical changes in areas of the brain that are critical for judgment, decision making, learning and memory, and behavior control† (NIDA, 2007) which indicates that once those areas of the brain are disturbed so is a person’s capability of freely choosing not to take drugs, leading to negative actions. Additionally, science research shows that these changes alter the way the brain functions, which may explain the uncontrollable and negative actions of a person. Furthermore, according to NIDA addiction can be treated and managed successfully since it is a chronic disease and research has shown that combining behavioral therapy with medications is the best way to ensure success for most patients with this chronic disease indicating that it is a treatable and manageable similar to other brain diseases. CON: Addiction is not a Brain Disease. According to a publication retrieved from Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) â€Å"Is Addiction a Brain Disease?† two psychiatrists, Sally Satel, M.D., and Frederick K. Goodwin, M.D., they do not agree with NIDA’s claim that â€Å"addiction† means compulsive drug-taking driven by drug-induced brain changes. They believe â€Å"addiction is a function of a person rather than simply a physical state and a person is in voluntary control of their decision and actions† (Satel, Goodwin 3). If a person can make the choice to take drugs then they can also make the choice to stop taking drugs, especially during those times in between when they are not taking drugs. For a person to voluntarily continue taking drugs of their own accord then they should be held accountable for their addictive behavior and not use brain disease as an excuse. Further, circumstances such as economical, health, or personal issues resulting in a person’s choice to take drugs ironically can be the same reasons for them to either change their pattern, stop taking drugs, or get help versus the unavoidable, involuntary effect of a diseased brain. Additionally, those that choose to continue being addicted over a long period of time illustrates that by making that choice they are not helpless compared to a person who has a chronic disease. â€Å"Rather than being the inevitable, involuntary product of a diseased brain, these actions represent the essence of voluntariness. The addict’s behavior can be modified by knowledge of the consequences. Involuntary behavior cannot (Satel, Goodwin, 1998, pg. 5). As a result of that knowledge the addicted person is in control and can take be in charge of their actions to change the cycle and make a deliberate effort to change. My Position: My position is optimistic on the subject Is Addiction a Brain Disease? Addiction is a primary, progressive, and chronic disease of the brain, which creates physical, emotional, and spiritual impairments. I have seen this disease affect people close to me and can only have hope that someday there will be a treatment. First hand, I have seen three families, with different backgrounds, affected by addiction. Two lost a loved one to the overdose of drugs and the other is struggling along with their loved one, who is addicted, to defeat it. One mother wanted to know how this could have happened to her son, how he could lose control of his life and eventually lost the battle of addiction. I do not believe that a person voluntarily WANTS to be addicted, or that they even realize what addiction truly is prior to becoming addicted. However, I do agree with both sides that a person does voluntarily make the choice to take a drug of abuse. But have given more thought into it about why a person can’t just stop taking the drug when they know it is harmful and changes their behavior. My conclusion is that addiction is caused by drugs that are induced with one or more certain types of chemicals that travel through the brain and have an effect on the area of the brain where we feel pleasure and joyful feelings. Also, some people are more susceptible than others to becoming addicted to drugs of abuse than others because their brain reacts differently to the chemical(s) in a drug. Furthermore, addiction has signs and symptoms and a predictable progression and it is apparent that the characteristics of the disease and the approaches to treatment is not any different from other chronic brain diseases. Addiction is a brain disease since its causes are complex but its results are clear. I’m in agreement with NIDA that an 6 addicting substance changes the way the brain works over a long period of time, which leads to the activities of what we recognize as addiction and like most other brain diseases, addiction can be treated. Although treatment can be long and diff icult and there are often relapses, it can be successful if people acknowledge it as such and treat it accordingly. Multicultural Application Addiction affects, if not to all, most countries and cultures. According to the annual report of the UN International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), the estimated number of drug abusers worldwide in 2009 was between 172 million and 250 million people. Varying by different narcotics, the 2007 report national rates range from 0.8% to 11% overall with the highest rates in Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom and the lowest rates recorded in Romania, Malta, followed by Bulgaria, Greece and Sweden (INCB, 2007, pg. 98). Although we come from different cultures, most of the world shares common diseases and since most countries are affected by addiction the sharing of awareness, knowledge, and research information between cultures could have a huge positive impact on the world. Critical Literacy NIDA’s position of â€Å"Yes, Addiction is a brain disease† is based on their commitment of continued studies and research into drugs of abuse, addiction, backing up their argument that addiction is within the brain not the individual. Satel and Goodwood’s position of â€Å"No, Addiction is not a Brain Disease† is based on their conclusion, according to their research into other’s researches and their knowledge in the positions they hold as psychiatrists that addiction is an individual’s choice not a disease within the brain. Both are able to support their claims by information provided through research. Civic Literacy Besides the known fact that millions of people around the world are directly or indirectly affected by addiction, it has a huge impact on our society. Not only with the economical costs involved for medical and healthcare, there is the cost of crime as a result of consequences from addiction, loss of productivity in the workforce, and many deaths that result from complications of addiction and overdose. By being aware and informed of addiction, citizens can be supportive and helpful to those battling addiction and help prevent others from getting the disease. They can also help by being understanding and supportive to those who are addicted and encourage them get the treatment they need to battle it. Another way to lend a hand is citizens can get involved within their community and promote physical and social activities for all age groups. Citizens can make a difference just by starting somewhere instead of doing nothing and thinking â€Å"oh that’s their problem† or â€Å"it will never affect me† or worse â€Å"it is their fault they are addicted†. It is happening, it can happen to anyone directly or indirectly, and it isn’t anyone’s fault. We need stricter laws on drug making and trafficking to help our society, otherwise we will become an addictive society. Our leaders can invest in continued and advanced scientific research for prevention and treatment. Values Literacy Clearly with as much research as there has been on this topic there is a huge interest and concern of what is happening in our society. By upholding moral values we can consider others opinions with an open mind on topics such as this knowing that while we carry our own values, we must encourage those values as a society to help combat addiction and by being open to the opinions of others we can all come together to battle this disease. With NIDA’s investment into research and treatment it shows they have a special interest and concern on the value of life and  our society. It appears the opposing side would rather dispute the issue and disregard it as a disease, but rather the behavior of a person. Scientific Literacy NIDA is known as being one of the largest supporter’s of the world’s research on drug abuse and addiction. Government funds are used for scientific research by tracking emerging drug use trends, understanding how drugs work in the brain and body, developing and testing new drug treatment and prevention approaches, and disseminating findings to the general public and special populations (NIDA, 2007). They claim that the Science of Addiction has evidence backing up their argument that addiction is a disease of the brain. Psychiatrists Satel and Goodwin, claim that based off biological studies and scientific findings there are not sufficient facts to back up NIDA’s claim that addiction is a brain disease, supporting their argument that addiction is not a brain disease. Conclusion After completing my research, it was not a surprise to find there are differences of opinion on this topic and understandably so. This research and my experience of having observed the affects of addiction first hand have not only driven my passion to understand addiction and the brain, but strengthen my position that addiction is a brain disease. By keeping an open mind allows me to learn and recognize the views of others. Addiction is a common disease we all share directly or indirectly, it is an International problem. The more people know and understand addiction the chances they will be open to looking at it differently. Knowledge and understanding are two biggest parts of moving forward in taking this disease more seriously. It does no good to blame the abuser My hope is that people will look at addiction and take it more seriously if it is considered a brain disease and put more time and money into further research to find out what is actually causing the addiction in the brain and why some people are more susceptible than others. One may lean more toward the idea of addicts choosing to be addicts and that they have complete control over their actions; however, if the addict chooses a path to moderation, they face medical complications associated with withdrawal. The physical effects of withdrawal can become severe enough to cause death and require medical treatment, thus suggesting addiction is a form of disease. No matter what side you choose on this debate, you should expect to run across supportive evidence of the alternate side while arguing your point. It is a choice to try a substance, but it is not a choice to become addicted. Although this brain disease does not remove an addict from their responsibility for their behavior it does explain why many addicts cannot stop using drugs by strength alone. References 1. Satel, S., & Goodwin, F.K. (1998). Is Drug Addiction a Brain Disease?, (9th edition). Upper Saddle River, N.J. Pearson Prentice Hall. Retrieved from http://www.eppc.org/publications/bookID.19,filterID./book_detail.asp 2. National Institute of Drug Abuse. (2007). Is Drug Addiction a Disease? Unknown. Retrieved from http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/topics-in-brief/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction 3. Myers, D.G. (2011).Psychology. (10th edition). New York: Worth Publishers 4. International Narcotics Control Boars (2011). Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2011 Unknown. Retrieved from http://www.incb.org/incb/en/publications/annual-reports/annual-report-2011.html

Manager Is A For A Manager - 1220 Words

Manager A manager is a person whose job it is to command one or more members, to assure that they do their duties. A manager’s role is to actually manage people to do multiple things. Most importantly, the main point of a manager is to make a group better. According to the article of What is a Manager, A manager is â€Å"often called upon to act as the outward face of the people he or she supervises. It is often the case that leaders need to drum up support for their team’s work, often by building connections with outsiders. This sometimes comes in the form of fundraising but can also concern publicity or political support†. A Manager plays a big role in businesses and they have a very responsible duty. For example, they operate everything.†¦show more content†¦the key qualities of leadership are task oriented, mentorship, influencing other, motivating others, take responsibility and take initiative and lead team to be successful.there are many qualities to prove a good leadership but to be great leadership the emotional intelligence is the top quality that leads to success in individual career A emotional intelligence is defined as ability Self-awareness, Emotional Resilience, Motivation, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Influence, Intuitiveness and Conscientiousness (Delmatoff Lazarus 2014). self awareness is very important to maintain a emotional competence. All leaders have average qualities to lead and create a successful team but due to stress and workload can decrease the performance of leader. emotional awareness is very highly important quality in leadership. Case Study:chapter 8 (8-1) In case study 8-1 of chapter eight, the overall quality of Hospital Housekeeping Care of the Jewish hospital of Philadelphia is discussed. The quality of housekeeping lies in the hands of the executive housekeeper, Mrs. Ethel Greenburg, and the assistant head Mr. Iglesiada. Under their management, the overall moral among the housekeeping staff has deteriorated. This is because Mrs. Greenburg and Mr. Iglesiada do not have a solid relationship when collaborating and managing together. They have different approaches on how to provide quality care within hospital housekeeping. Mrs. GreenburgShow MoreRelatedManager2293 Words   |  10 Pagesâ€Å"All managers should be leaders, but not all leaders should be managers.† Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Support your position. Yes, I agree about that. Let’s talk about what is manager and what is leader first? Manager is someone who coordinates and oversees the work of other people so that organization goals can be accomplished. Leader is someone who can influence others and who has managerial authority. There is difference between leaders and managers. Managing is about efficiencyRead MoreManager1838 Words   |  8 Pages | |independently. |   38.             |The marketing manager would like to cut the selling price by $13 and increase the advertising budget by $21,000 per month. The marketing | |manager predicts that these two changes would increase monthly sales by 900 units. What should be the overall effect on the companys | |monthly net operating income of this change? Read MoreWestern Managers And Chinese Managers Essay1729 Words   |  7 Pageswestern managers and Chinese managers to show that reality is different from the myths. The examples were from their working experiences in China. For the myth of collectivism, the reality of individualism came from a Chinese manager working in Paris, a western city. For long-term deliberation, the reality of real-time reaction came from an expat manager in China, and for risk aversion, the reality of risk tolerance came from observations in China by expat managers and a Chinese manager. On theRead MoreSales Manager and a Finance Manager4199 Words   |  17 PagesINTRODUCTION Purpose of Report and Intended Audience The purpose of this report is to evaluate the everyday job requirements, prerequisites, and benefits of a sales manager and a finance manager. Also, the work environment and growth of the each industry will be analyzed. Background Currently attending Santa Fe Community College for the past year, will be earning his Associative Arts degree at the end of spring semester in 2008. After graduating from Santa Fe Community College he will beRead MoreRole Of Manager : The Role Of Manager872 Words   |  4 PagesRole of Manager. Conflicts. I remember a conflict in which I were involved during my adult nursing II (med-surge) rotation at Northside Hospital. One of my colleague nurse student shared with me her concern about a procedure performed by her preceptor which was different than the procedure technique taught to us in class from the nursing book. She realized that the required steps were not fallowed, but she was afraid to make any comment to her preceptor because we were warned not to do so (conflictRead MoreRelationship Between Managers And Managers1733 Words   |  7 PagesRelationships amongst employees and their managers dictate the level of happiness each derives from the workplace. Communication plays a key role in the success of these relationships. Relations between managers and their subordinates are known as downward relationships. Relations between subordinates and managers are known as upward relationships. Relations between peers are known as lateral relationships. All of these relationships and the communication flowing between them are capable of contributingRead MoreAll Managers Are Hr Managers3083 Words   |  13 Pages â€Å"All Managers are HR Managers?† Executive summary: In this paper the relationship between managers and HR managers will be discussed with regard to some of the primary HRM practices, such as recruitment, performance appraisal, compensation and benefits, and training development. The importance of HR to organizational success is discussed highlighting the importance of HR and its use as a strategic tool. Both HRM and management are reviewed and the interrelationship between the two is establishedRead MoreManager3278 Words   |  14 PagesBARILLA SpA (A), (C) and (D) 1. Draw a flow diagram for Barilla dry products sold through distributors. Your diagram will have four major sections: Barilla production, Barilla Finished Goods Inventory, Distribution Centers, and grocers. Indicate the flows of both physical goods and information. At appropriate places on your diagram, collect any relevant statistics mentioned in the case, for example on inventories, lead-times, etc. Please refer to the following page (page 2 of this document)Read MoreAll Manager Are Human Resource Managers938 Words   |  4 Pagesâ€Å"All managers are Human Resource (HR) manager† If I want to give any comments about this at first I have to give the answer whether it is true or false? Whenever we will go for answering this question we may not able to give it straightly. We have to study it and then after a certain period we must able to give the answer whether it is true or false. So for answering this question I have analyzed it and afterward I have reached a decision and my decision is that the statement is totally true.Read MoreGood Managers versus Bad Managers963 Words   |  4 PagesGood Managers versus Bad Managers Good Managers versus Bad Managers Why is it that some individual develop into good managers while other don’t? The dispute is that they fail to develop required dexterities and characteristics due to the lack of proper management coaching. In many instances, people receive promotions into positions of management but do not get proper backing and training to be able to adequately perform their duties. A good manager has expertise in organization, professionalism