Dividend Payout Decision Making Process

Dividend Payout Decision Making Process CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background: 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 emergence 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 investm ent 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 to 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 MM 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: RQ1. What is the relation between dividend payout and firms debt? RQ2. What is the relation between dividend payout and Profitability? RQ3. What is the relation between dividend payout and liquidity? RQ4. What is the relation between dividend payout and Retained Earnings? RQ5. What is the relation between dividend payout and Net Income? Contribution of the Study: Dividend decision is an important financial decision made by firms, managers, and investors. This study aims to contribute to the corporate finance literature, by looking at the Dividend puzzle. An attempt is made to make a valuable contribution in two major ways: Theoretical and Empirical approach is taken to provide a comprehensive view on the subject. The empirical Approach taken in this study will definitely leave some promising future ideas. The empirical findings and conclusions contained in this study can be used by financial managers to inform dividend decisions. Limitations of Study: The areas of concern to investigate in this study are extensive. Due to the Time constraint and accessibility of data, the research will be limited to the following: The period of study is only three years 2006 to 2008. The research has considered only those firms who pay dividends. The study is focused only on firms trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Structure of the Paper: The remaining chapters will be organized as follows: Chapter Two: Literature Review This chapter discusses the different theories laid down in context to dividend policy and explains the relationship between dividend payout and its determinants as concluded by the study of different researchers and theorists. Chapter Three: Research Methodology This chapter explains the research hypothesis and gives a descriptive study of the techniques and the model used for data analysis. The application of the statistical tests used are explained thoroughly. Chapter four: Data Analysis and Findings To address the research questions, results obtained from the regression analysis will be evaluated and discussed in this chapter. Chapter five: Recommendations and Conclusion. This chapter Concludes the entire study and provides recommendations based on the findings and analysis done in the previous chapter and recommendations for future 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. For 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 a s 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 positi vely 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 Dividend Payout Decision Making Process Dividend Payout Decision Making Process CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background: 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 emergence 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 investm ent 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 to 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 MM 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: RQ1. What is the relation between dividend payout and firms debt? RQ2. What is the relation between dividend payout and Profitability? RQ3. What is the relation between dividend payout and liquidity? RQ4. What is the relation between dividend payout and Retained Earnings? RQ5. What is the relation between dividend payout and Net Income? Contribution of the Study: Dividend decision is an important financial decision made by firms, managers, and investors. This study aims to contribute to the corporate finance literature, by looking at the Dividend puzzle. An attempt is made to make a valuable contribution in two major ways: Theoretical and Empirical approach is taken to provide a comprehensive view on the subject. The empirical Approach taken in this study will definitely leave some promising future ideas. The empirical findings and conclusions contained in this study can be used by financial managers to inform dividend decisions. Limitations of Study: The areas of concern to investigate in this study are extensive. Due to the Time constraint and accessibility of data, the research will be limited to the following: The period of study is only three years 2006 to 2008. The research has considered only those firms who pay dividends. The study is focused only on firms trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Structure of the Paper: The remaining chapters will be organized as follows: Chapter Two: Literature Review This chapter discusses the different theories laid down in context to dividend policy and explains the relationship between dividend payout and its determinants as concluded by the study of different researchers and theorists. Chapter Three: Research Methodology This chapter explains the research hypothesis and gives a descriptive study of the techniques and the model used for data analysis. The application of the statistical tests used are explained thoroughly. Chapter four: Data Analysis and Findings To address the research questions, results obtained from the regression analysis will be evaluated and discussed in this chapter. Chapter five: Recommendations and Conclusion. This chapter Concludes the entire study and provides recommendations based on the findings and analysis done in the previous chapter and recommendations for future 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. For 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 a s 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 positi vely 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

Acknowledging Female Stereotypes in Much Ado About Nothing Essay

Women in the Elizabethan age were extremely repressed and discriminated against. Most would not have gone to school or received any type of formal education. They were not allowed to vote, own property, or freely voice their opinions. They were seen as the property of a man, subject to his wants, needs, and not allowed to have their own; men held extremely stereotypical views of their female counterparts that helped them justify the way they treated them. Shakespeare exposes many of these injustices and biases in his stage plays, which are still commonly read and performed today. In Much Ado About Nothing, Claudio moves from seeing women (specifically Hero) as goddesses and wives to adulterers, and then back again to his original views. Claudio initially views Hero according to the established stereotypes, in Act 1, Scene 1 as property. When first speaking of Hero, he refers to her as the â€Å"daughter of Signor Leonato;† while this appears to be simply for identification purposes, he actually relinquishes the power of her name to her guardian (1. 1. 119). Instead of calling her by her given name, Hero, Claudio names her in relation to her more powerful male owner. He goes on to ask Benedick if she is a â€Å"modest young lady,† not wondering only if she is sweet, but if she is literally a virgin (1. 1. 121). A woman’s virginity was extremely valuable in Elizabethan England, and determined her worth as a potential wife. This outright inquiry into her purity foreshadows the later scandal surrounding it. Benedick asks Claudio if he would buy her, and Claudio responds with a seemingly noble hypothetical question: â€Å"Can the world buy such a jewel?† (1 1 134). While his question seems to imply that she is so valuable that the entire world’s money could not purchase her, it still perpetuates the stereotype that women are pieces of property, albeit very beautiful and expensive ones. Later in the same scene, Claudio demonstrates Elizabethan men’s views of women through Shakespeare’s thematic messages. He remarks that â€Å"in mine eye, [Hero] is the sweetest lady that ever I looked on† (1 1 139). This introduces a reoccurring theme of Much Ado About Nothing of seeing and perception. Here, and later on in the play, Claudio bases his opinions of Hero on her outward beauty and appearance of piety. In addition, the words â€Å"mine† and â€Å"I† stress the importance of Claudio himself, the important, powerful male in the situation. One notes Shakespeare’s wordplay in the pun implied when â€Å"eye† and â€Å"I† sound interchangeable when spoken aloud. Another theme surfaces in the use of the word â€Å"sworn† in line 144 of Act 1, Scene 1, whereby Claudio makes evident that his honor depends on people’s perception of him and, by proxy, his future wife, Hero. Also notable is the hope he expresses that Hero would â€Å"be [his] wife†, in that he uses language again pertaining to himself; where he could have wished that Hero would â€Å"marry him† or something similar, he instead wishes her to become his property. Claudio reveals that he has had an interest in Hero for a while before their present conversation about her. He admired her before he went away to war, but more pressing, important, masculine issues took his mind off her. This implies that matters of the heart were less valued by men than duty and honor, and that his current infatuation with Hero is sort of an afterthought, something to pursue as he is now bored. This distant, material admiration for Hero quickly turns to contempt when he thinks that Don Pedro has taken her for himself in Act 2, Scene 1. When Don John and Borachio tell him about his friend’s betrayal, Claudio seems to be angrier with Hero than with the man who stole his prospective bride. He claims â€Å"beauty is a witch, against whose charms faith meltheth into blood† (2 1 135-6). This demonstrates the stereotype that Elizabethan men held of women being easily turned to adulterers – it seems to be her evil beauty that lured Don Pedro into supposedly winning her over for his own. This is again an insult to Claudio’s pride; Don John and Borachio use forms of the word â€Å"swear† when recounting Don Pedro’s supposed conquest of Hero, calling to mind how Claudio swore to marry her in the first act. Claudio denounces Hero, and wishes Don Pedro â€Å"joy of her,† once again suggesting women to be objects of personal property, solely existing to fulfill the desires of man. When it is confirmed that Don Pedro was indeed just performing his friendly duties, Claudio instantly reverts to his view of Hero as a perfect, virginal, almost goddess-like potential wife. He says to Hero: â€Å"Lady, as you are mine, I am yours: I give away myself for you, and dote upon the exchange† (2 1 233-4). Claudio acknowledges that Hero is now his property, and as that is an accepted custom in Elizabethan England, it is therefore deemed heroic that he gives himself to her, as well. Using the word â€Å"exchange† suggests a formal transaction of property, which is what is really transpiring between Claudio and Leonato. Claudio expresses his anticipation for the wedding, as time moves slowly â€Å"till love have all his rites† (2 1 269-70); the two meanings of rites as the actual ceremony and rights as a husband provide insight into this. He feels a necessity for their union to be official, as legally marrying Hero will give him legal ownership of her, and her property. Though he claims to love her, his affection could ultimately be seen as a want of her dowry. Claudio shows his opinions of women in his comical description of Beatrice’s love for Benedick in Act 2, Scene 3. He describes her grief over her unrequited love in a ridiculous way, saying that she threw a savage fit. This implies Beatrice, and by extension all women, to be controlled and weakened by their emotions. Claudio says that Hero had told him that Beatrice would surely die if her situation with Benedick progresses in any direction, again poking fun at women’s irrationality. He suggests she wear herself out by talking to someone about her love, as though she were a small child throwing a temper tantrum. Like most men of his time, Claudio appears to believe that women’s perceived lack of control of their emotions made them less worthy of esteem. His view of women again turns cynical again when he receives news in Act 3, Scene 2 that leads him to believe that Hero has had an affair with another man. Don John uses the word â€Å"disloyal† to describe her actions, and Claudio repeats that word in outrage and confusion about this blow to his honor (3 2 76). Being â€Å"disloyal† seems worse than most other things, in that it has wounded Claudio’s pride and reputation. The prefix â€Å"dis† is extremely negative and poignant. He emphasizes that if he sees anything with his own eyes, he will believe these accusations. He describes the issue as â€Å"mischief strangely thwarting,† and extends that description to all women in general; here he shows that he has moved from seeing women as wives and goddesses to adulterers and shrews. At their wedding ceremony in Act 4, Scene 1, Claudio spitefully and ironically addresses Hero with all sorts of virginal, innocent, pure language like â€Å"maid† (4 1 19). He again describes her as property in calling her a â€Å"rich and precious gift,† yet this time it is with an air of contempt and scorn (4 1 23). Continuing the theme of perception and sight, he calls Hero â€Å"but the sign and semblance of her honor,† implying that she merely put on a facade of virginity and purity (4 1 28). He asks the attendees of the wedding and, by extension, the audience, to acknowledge that her innocence is merely a show. Claudio accuses her girlish blush to be truly that of guilt and shame. Where previously he has referred to Hero as a maid, here he calls her only â€Å"like† a maid; this literal comparison emphasizes his change of feeling toward her and her sex. He facetiously describes her as the goddess of chastity and the moon, Diana, and of an unopened flower bud – virgin in appearance only. Then he compares her to Venus, goddess of sexuality, and even to mindless beasts that act only on impulse and instinct. In the line â€Å"Marry that Hero, Hero itself can blot out Hero’s virtue,† he proclaims that women are the source of their own downfall (4 1 75). Where her outward appearance was that of a virtuous young lady, her perceived actions lead Claudio to believe her to be a whore. Although one could argue that Claudio’s view of women was that of all Elizabethan men, including Shakespeare himself, the development of Benedick’s opinions show that this is not true. He begins the play disliking the idea of marriage and especially marriage to Beatrice, yet, through the dramatic action, he learns to love and appreciate her for her previously detested intelligence and wit. Benedick learns to value women for the humans they are, and yet Claudio still sees them as property at the end of the play. This suggests that Shakespeare realizes that, although he can bring attention to the issue of gender equality in his works, he cannot expect the audience to fully accept his ideas. Claudio constantly moves between stereotypes in his views of women in this play: he alternatively sees Hero as wife, goddess, adulterer, and everything in between. Shakespeare’s specific word choice and themes revealed in Much Ado About Nothing provide insight into how women were actually thought of and treated in Elizabethan England, and how the author himself believed they should be. Today, the centuries-old fight for gender equality is far from over. But, like Shakespeare, we can hope that all women will eventually be respected as equals, like Beatrice. Works Cited McDonald, Russ. The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford, 2010. Shakespeare, William. Much Ado about Nothing. Ed. Mary Berry and Michael Clamp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Apollo The Moon Landing Which Triumphed Above All Others - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 849 Downloads: 5 Date added: 2019/08/15 Category History Essay Level High school Topics: Apollo 11 Essay Did you like this example? At about 3000 feet above the moons surface, Neil Armstrong noticed that all across the landing site there were many scattered clumps of craters and boulders. At 300 feet, and descending the superb pilot managed to quickly maneuver his spacecraft slightly left in order to avoid the debris and gently landed his spacecraft among an area of smooth land. Upon arrival, Neil Armstrong recited the first words ever spoken on the moon.   Houston, Tranquility base here. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Apollo: The Moon Landing Which Triumphed Above All Others" essay for you Create order The Eagle has landed (Spangenburg 60). On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong accomplished what John F. Kennedy had dreamed of only 8 years earlier. To land a man on the moon, by the end of the decade (NASA). Apollo 11 was a great technological triumph in space. This historic mission caused massive boosts in the patriotism and confidence of Americans, received support from political figures, showcased American superiority in space, and provided mankind with many new technologies, and a wealth of information on multiple scientific fields. There were many events taking place at the time of the moon landing which affected the Apollo 11 flight. After World War 2, relationships between the Soviet Union and America grew tense. Since the Soviet Union was under communist rule, nearby countries such as Vietnam were afraid that the Soviets would force their rule upon them (Spangenburg 13). This difference in way of life was what sparked the Cold War which was a tragic war which consisted of the U.S and the soviet union fighting for influence and prestige (Cole, 11). This war sparked a more peaceful competition known as the space race. By 1957 the Soviets developed a rocket which could carry a small satellite into earths orbit, and by means of this technology, they launched Sputnik 1, the first satellite in space (Riper 14). In response the US created its own space program, NASA in October of 1958. On April 12, 1961, Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space after his Vostok spacecraft first reached earths orbit (Spangenburg 1 7). Till this point the Soviet Union were defeating the Americans in space, but John F. Kennedys historic speech to congress was a major turning point. John. F Kennedys speech led to many successful endeavors in space for the United states, such as project Mercury, and project Gemini, but never had anyone reached the moon. This is why project Apollo was created (Enghland,137) Apollo 11 was a major triumph from a technological standpoint providing humans with many new technologies, and providing data in multiple scientific fields. To fit the needs of the Apollo mission many technologies had to be created many of which eventually made it to the consumers market, such as nonstick coating, dehydrated foods, miniaturized electronics and many more (Riper 17). The Apollo mission actually did provide taxpayers with tangible results and had a major impact on technologies today. Apollo 11 also created the foundation for the phone since, the phone is made is made of miniaturized electronics. When the astronauts reached the moon they set up seismic experiments, to check for lunar quakes, and meteor strikes. These experiments also sent data about the inner structure of the moon. The Apollo 11 astronauts set up laser reflectors to find the exact distance of the moon from earth, and they brought a solar wind panel to trap atomic particles from the sun to study solar rad iation (Green 21). This shows how landing on the moon, impacted our knowledge in multiple scientific fields, but also completed its main purpose of giving mankind information about the moon. In short Apollo 11 triumphed from a technological standpoint by giving humans access to many new technologies, and opening up a wealth of information about many scientific fields. Apollo 11 received support from major political figures, showcased American superiority in space, and was a great political triumph in the eyes of the United States. The United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in the Cold war which sparked the Apollo project (Green 11). This shows the main reason for reaching the moon was to tend to a rivalry between the two nations. On may 25 1961 John.F Kennedy announced, I believe that this nation should commit itself, to achieving the goal that before this decades out of the landing, a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth (Spangenburg 18). This shows that John. F Kennedy, the president of the United States, set the goal to reach the moon, and helped NASA, achieve what we thought to be impossible at the time.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Apollo 11 was also a social triumph, which boosted the patriotism, and confidence of Americans. 1968 was a very turbulent during which American forces suffered major setbacks in vietnam, Lyndon Johnson ended his bid for reelection, Martin Luther King was assassinated, so the moon landing was a triumph against bad news for everyone. Apollo 11   boosted the confidence of Americans to solve societys problems (Millions Around Globe Hung on Every Word from Astros). Although the space race started because of a rivalry between the nations, it culminated in triumph for the entire human race. For example the plaque, left on the moon states we came in peace for all mankind   (Chaikin 11). Apollo 11 was a triumph for all mankind, even though it started as a rivalry.