




































Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AESR 

 

                      American Economic & Social Review; Vol. 5, No. 2; 2019 
                                       ISSN 2576-1269     E-ISSN 2576-1277 

Published by Centre for Research on Islamic Banking & Finance and Business, USA 
 

     45 
 

 

Dividend Decision and Economic Value Added of Quoted Nigeria 
Manufacturing Firms  

 
 

Agilebu Ogechi Michael  
Department of Banking and Finance 

 Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Nigeria 
E-mail: ogeberth2003@gmail.com 

 
Abstract 
This study examined the effect dividend decision and economic value added of quoted manufacturing firms in Nigeria. The 
objective is to examine if dividend decision have any effect on economic valued added of the Nigeria firms. Cross sectional data 
was sourced from financial statement of 15 quoted manufacturing firms. Economic valued added was proxy for dependent 
variables while dividend yield, dividend payout ratio, retention ratio and dividend per share were proxy for predictor variables. 
After cross examination of the validity of the pooled effect, fixed effect and the random effect, the study accepts the fixed effect 
model.  Findings revealed that75 percent variation from the fixed effect results on economic value added of the manufacturing 
firms. Beta coefficient of the predictor variables  found that dividend yield have negative effect on economic value added  while 
dividend per share, dividend payout ratio and retention ratio has positive and significant effect  on economic value added  of the 
quoted manufacturing firms.  It’s therefore recommend that constant dividend decision should be maintained among the quoted 
manufacturing firms and retention forms should be properly invested and the investment environment should be well managed 
to increase economic value added through the dividend decision channel. 
 
Keywords:  Dividend Decision, Economic Value Added, Quoted Nigeria Manufacturing Firms    
 
1. Introduction 
The accepted financial principle is that the role of managers is to maximize the wealth of shareholders by the efficient allocation 
of resources. In order to operationalise this objective, shareholder wealth is traditionally proxy by either standard accounting 
magnitudes such as profits, earnings and cash flows from operations or financial statement ratios including earnings per share 
and the returns on assets, investment and equity. This financial statement information is then used by managers, shareholders 
and other interested parties to assess current firm performance and also used by these same stakeholders to predict future 
performance. Further, under the semi-strong form of the efficient market hypothesis, the publicly available information 
contained in these variables is readily interpreted by the market and thereby incorporated into future stock prices (Damodaran, 
2006a). 

The conventional thought that dividend policy is relevant and matters on the performance of the firm can be traced to 
Graham and Dodd (1934) who were proponents of traditionalist schools of thought, later to Lintner (1956) and to Gordon 
(1960) while Miller and Modigliani (1961) argued that dividend policy is irrelevant under certain assumptions. Dividend policy 
decision is a finance management function (Ezirim, 2005). Dividend policy determines the proportion of company’s profit that 
can be distributed to the shareholders as return on investment and proportion that will be retained for the company’s 
reinvestment (Osegbu, Ifurueze and Ifurueze, 2014). It is one of the most important financial decisions that corporate managers’ 
encounter (M’rebetandBoujjat, 2016).Dividend policy is a micro determinant of firms’ profitability. Firms adopt dividend policy 
that will facilitate the achievement of the organizational goals such as maximization of shareholders wealth. Like investment and 
capital structure decision, dividend policy influences the value and cost capital in the firm. 

Unfortunately, the empirical literature to date suggests that there is no single finance based measure upon which one 
can rely to explain changes in shareholder wealth (Chen and Dodd, 1997; Riahi-Belkaoui, 1993; Rogerson, 1997; Lehn and 
Makhija, 1997; Akani and Lucky, 2015: Lucky, 2018; Anyamaobi and Lucky, 2018). This is despite the fact that such a 
measure would prove invaluable to the various parties interested in aspects of firm performance. Lee (1996) for example, argued 
that the search for a superior measure of firm valuation is not the, key feature of contemporary empirical finance. For years, 
investors and corporate managers have been seeking a timely and reliable measurement of shareholders’ wealth. With such a 
measure, investors could spot over or underpriced stocks, lenders could gauge the security of their loans and managers could 
monitor the profitability of their factories, divisions and firms (Gay, Lin and Smith, 2010). One professedly recent innovation 
in the field of finance on performance measurement is an economic value-added. Economic value added is the financial 
performance measure that comes closer than any other to capturing the true economic profit of an enterprise. It   is the 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AESR 

 

 www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aesr                              American Economic & Social Review                                Vol. 5, No. 2; 2019 
 

46 
                         
 

performance measure most directly linked to the creation of shareholder wealth over time.  From the above problems, this study 
examined the effect of corporate dividend decision on the economic value added of quoted firms in Nigeria.  
 
2. Literature Review 
2.1 Dividend Decision  
Dividend decision refers to a company’s policy which determines the amount of dividend payments and the amounts of retained 
earnings for reinvesting in new projects. This decision is related to dividing the firm’s earning between payment to shareholders 
and reinvestment in new opportunities. Dividend decision involves the determination of the payout policy that management 
follows in determining the size and pattern of cash distributions to shareholders over time (Lease et al, 2000). 

Dividend decision was just concerned with selecting between payments of earnings to shareholder as cash dividend or 
retaining the profit in firm. It only determined the incidence of dividend payments and the amount dividends. However, in 
today’s corporate finance, dividend policy addresses more issues such as how firms can attract investors in different tax brackets 
and how firms can increase the market value of firm and share repurchase instead of cash dividends. 
 
2.2 Types of Dividend Decision  
2.2.1 Pure Residual Dividend Decision  
This states that when the corporation’s return on equity capital is greater than the rate of return the investor could obtain by 
reinvesting those dividends in another investment of equivalent risk, the investor would rather the corporation act on his behalf 
and reinvest the earnings rather than issue a dividend; the firm can determine which option is better suited to benefiting the 
investor by first identifying the firm’s optimal capital budget, thereby  noting the level of equity capital required, and then 
maintaining the  amount of earnings required to finance the equity capital in the capital budget and allowing “residual” funds 
(earnings not utilized in internal investment) after the mandated reinvestment to be issued as a dividend Droms (1990). 
Therefore, dividends are a function of earnings fluctuations, and this method allows for significant fluctuations in dividends 
with changes in earnings and corporate investment opportunities. In effect, all residual earnings are paid out which causes the 
dividend payout ratio to fluctuate. This policy also results in a dividend that varies from year to year, and when equity 
investment is greater than earnings, equity financing must be initiated to create a residual (Droms, 1990). 
 
2.2.2 Smoothed Residual Dividend Decision  
This suggests that dividend fluctuations are kept to a minimum. Dividend policy changes tend to lag behind earnings 
fluctuations according to Shapiro, as Dividends are set equal to the long-run residual between forecasted earnings and investment 
requirements. Dividend changes, in turn, are made only when this long run residual is expected to change; earnings fluctuations 
believed to be temporary are ignored in setting dividend payments, the clear preference is for a stable, but increasing, dividend 
per share (Shapiro, 1990). As such, the dividend payout ratio fluctuates significantly with this payment method, and dividends 
have the potential to exceed the residual if earnings are unexpectedly low. 
 
2.2.3 Constant or Fixed Decision  
The Company pays out a fixed amount of its profit after tax as dividend. Thus, the company maintains a fixed payout ratio of 
dividend. Pandey (2005) define payout as the ratio of dividend to earnings. A company may as a matter of policy, decide to 
constantly payout sixty percent of its after tax profit as dividend to its shareholders and retaining the remaining fraction. This 
type of policy allows the shareholders the opportunity to clearly know the amount of dividend to expect from their investments 
in the company. However as noted by Watson and Head (2004), the policy could be traumatic to companies experiencing a 
volatile or fluctuating profit earning. This is because of the uncertainty of its profit. If capital projects are to viable capital 
projects, the policy can be chaotic. 
 
2.2.4 Progressive Decision  
Payments on dividend are on a steady increase usually in line with inflation. This could result in increasing dividend in money 
terms. The firm uses the policy as a ratchet. Every effort is made to sustain the increase even though marginal. Seldom, the 
company may be constrained to cut down on dividend payout. This is to enable it sustain its operations. This though not a 
frequent action as it sends a wrong signal to investors. Firms operating this policy will opt to avoid paying dividends during the 
period rather than consistently cut down on the dividend (Kolb & Rodriguez, 1996). 
 
2.2.5 Zero Dividend Decision  
Some firms may decide not to pay dividend. This is especially common in newly formed companies that rather require capital to 
execute its projects. All the profit is thus retained for expansion of the business. Investors who prefer capital gains to dividends 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AESR 

 

 www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aesr                              American Economic & Social Review                                Vol. 5, No. 2; 2019 
 

47 
                         
 

because of taxation will naturally be lured by this kind of policy. This type of policy is quite easy to operate and avoids all the 
costs associated with payment of dividends Watson and Head (2004). 
 
2.2.6 Alternative Decision  
In order to give shareholders a choice between dividends or new shares, the company might choose to buy back shares. This is 
share or stock repurchase. This has a significant advantage in terms of tax to the shareholder. While the dividend is fully taxed 
just as ordinary income, the stock repurchase or buyback is not taxed until the shares are sold and the shareholder makes a profit 
or capital gain (Jordan, et al., 2001). There is also the policy of stock dividends and split. Shareholders are given additional 
shares in lieu of cash to the shareholders Brealey and Myers (2003). 
 
2.3 Economic Value-Added  
Despite the relatively recent adoption of economic value added as an internal and external financial performance measure, its  
conceptual underpinnings derive from a well-established microeconomic literature regarding the link between firm earnings and 
wealth creation (Bell, 1998). For much of this history, at least since Alfred Marshall’s Principles of Economics, the focus of 
analysis has been on adjustments to accounting earnings to reflect the opportunity cost of capital, primarily because the 
unadjusted measure can be a misleading indicator of performance in both theory and practice.  

The desirability of quantifying economic profit as a measure of wealth creation was operationalised by David Solomon 
(1965) as the difference between two quantities, net earnings and the cost of capital. This measure of ‘residual income’ is then 
defined in terms of after-tax operating profits less a charge for invested capital which reflects the firm’s weighted average cost of 
capital. Close parallels are thereby found in the related (non-trademarked) concepts of ‘abnormal earnings excess earnings excess 
income excess realizable profits’ and ‘super profits’ (Biddle et al., 1997).  

The Economic Value Added (EVA) approach is a widely used excess return model. The cash flows, generated by an 
investment projects, that are smaller or larger than the required return (cost of capital) are called excess returns, and can be both 
negative and positive. Cash flows of investments that exactly yield the required rate of return are considered as normal returns.  

The EVA of a project is obtained by multiplying the excess return of an investment by the amount of money invested 
(Damodaran, 2006a; Titman & Martin, 2008). The calculation of firm value with the EVA model brings along some troubles. 
For example, to obtain the capital invested, often book values are used, which often do not reflect the proper (market) value of 
an asset and which could yield inaccurate valuations. In addition, Imam et al. (2008) found that, although the standard DCF 
model has the same structure of discounting cash flows and similar inputs, the EVA model was considered to be of very little 
importance by the interviewed analysts, whereas the standard DCF model was considered as highly important. 
 
2.4 Dividend Irrelevance Theory 
Modigliani and Miller (1961) dividend-irrelevance theory says that investors can affect their return on a stock regardless of the 
stock's dividend. Investor could then buy more stock with the dividend that is over the investor's expectations. As such, the 
dividend is irrelevant to investors, meaning investors care little about a company's dividend policy since they can simulate their 
own. 

Their theory was built on a range of key assumptions, similar to those on which they based their theory of capital 
structure irrelevancy. Modigliani and Miller (1961) argue that the value of the firm in a perfect capital market depends only on 
the income produced by its assets not on how this income is split between dividends and the retained earnings. Assumed that in 
a perfect Capital markets, that is there are no taxes both corporate and personal taxes, no transaction costs on securities, investors 
are rational, information is symmetrical hence all investors have access to the same information and share the same expectations 
about the firm's future as its managers. According to M&M's irrelevancy theory, if therefore does not matter how a firm divides 
its earnings between dividend payments to shareholders and internal retentions. Dividend irrelevancy theory asserts that a firm's 
dividend policy has no effect on its market value or its cost of capital. 
 
2.5 Bird in Hand Theory 
Gordon and Lintner (1959) the bird-in-the-hand theory states that dividends are relevant. The bird-in-the-hand may sound 
familiar as it is taken from an old saying; a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. In this theory the bird in the hand' is 
referring to dividends and the bush is referring to capital gains. They argued that investors value dividends more than capital 
gains when making decisions related to stocks. As a company increases its payout ratio, investors become concerned that the 
company's future capital gains will dissipate since the retained earnings that the company reinvests into the business will be less. 
The essence of the bird-in-the-hand theory of dividend policy is that shareholders are risk-averse and prefer to receive dividend 
payments rather than future capital gains. Shareholders consider dividend payments to be more certain that future capital gains 
thus a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush. Gordon contended that the payment of current dividends resolves 
investor uncertainty. Investors have a preference for a certain level of income now rather that the prospect of a higher, but less 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AESR 

 

 www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aesr                              American Economic & Social Review                                Vol. 5, No. 2; 2019 
 

48 
                         
 

certain, income at some time in the future. Investors’ value a dollar expected dividend more highly than a dollar expected capital 
gain because the dividend yields component is less risky than the expected return hence, believed that investors require and prefer 
high dividends to capital gains resulting to a generous dividend policy by a firm. 
 
2.6 Information Asymmetry and Dividend Signaling 
Given information asymmetry as a market imperfection, the signaling concept of financial capital structure can be readily applied 
to dividend policy. According to the dividend signaling theory, a firm that increases its dividend payouts is signaling that it has 
expected future cash flows sufficient to meet expenses without increasing the probability of bankruptcy. Managers signal 
investors because financial managers have privileged information about the firm’s expected cash flows that outside investors 
cannot know. Bhattacharya (1979) proposes a dividend signaling model to explain why firms pay dividends despite the apparent 
tax disadvantage. In Bhattacharya’s (1979) dividend signaling model, investors believe that an unexpected dividend increase is a 
favorable signal. This assumes that the dividend contains information regarding firm value not conveyed in other public 
information, and that the dividend is a valid signal since it is expensive for less valuable firms to mimic. Then the signaling value 
of dividends is positive and can be traded off against the tax costs. The implication of such a dividend signaling model is that it 
suggests an optimal dividend policy where the signaling benefits of paying dividends offsets the tax disadvantages of paying 
dividends. 
 
2.7 Empirical Review 
Eniola and Akinselure (2016) examined the impact of Dividend policy and Earnings on selected quoted companies in Nigeria. 
The secondary data were obtained through the internet from stock broking firm’s online database. Multiple regression and 
Durbin Watson in testing was used in the hypothesis considered in this study, and the statistical analysis was done using 
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 20).The findings revealed that there was a significant relationship between 
dividend and market value but, this relationship can only be established between earning per share and divide and yield, because, 
it is the only proxies of divide and polices that had a P-value (0.020) which is less than the alpha value of (0.05) which implies 
that there is relationship with market value proxy (earnings per share) while the other proxies of dividend policy did not show 
any relationship.  

Momgbe and Ibrahim (2014) ascertained the relationship between dividend policy and corporate profitability, 
Investment and Earning per shares. Data for the study were extracted from annual report and accounts of twenty five quoted 
companies in Nigeria. The study found positive and significant association between the firm performance and dividend policy of 
the sampled firm. Richard and Thomas (2014) ascertained the impact of dividend payout on the financial performance of 
manufacturing firms which trade on the Ghana Stock Exchange. Panel data extracted from audited financial statements of 
sampled firms from 2004 to 2011 financial years were analyzed within the framework of the fixed effects model after carrying 
out Hausman specification test. The descriptive statistics show that the average dividend payout is 32.93% while the mean 
performance (return on assets) is 1.08% during the study period. The regression results reveal that dividend payout significantly 
but negatively impacts on quoted manufacturing firms’ financial performance in Ghana. For the control variables, size and 
leverage were inversely related to performance whiles sales growth positively correlated with performance. Except size, all the 
control variables were found to be statistically significant.  

M’rbet and Boujjat(2016)examined the relationship between dividend policies and financial performance of selected 
listed firms in Morocco. Data were sourced through secondary means from the annual reports of the sampled quoted firms and 
was analyzed using panel data regression model. Two models were developed in an attempt to provide a theoretical explanation 
on the birds-in-hand dividend relevance theory and the Modigliani and Miller’s (MM) dividend irrelevance theory. The findings 
indicated that Dividend policy is an important factor affecting firm performance. Their relationship was also strong and positive. 
This therefore showed that dividend policy was relevant. It can be concluded, based on the findings of this research that 
dividend policy is relevant and that managers should devote adequate time in designing a dividend policy that will enhance firm 
performance and therefore shareholder value.  

Sunday et. al (2015) are examining the relationship between dividend policy and financial performance of non-
financial firms in Nigeria. They had selected 25 listed non-financial firms in Nigeria with supported by the below theoretical 
empirical studies and secondary data sources, the audited report of the firms had chosen. Panel data methodology was employed 
and pooled Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) was used to estimate the coefficients of explanatory and control variables where the 
return on assets (ROA) served as the dependent variable, profitability, while dividend payout ratio proxies for dividend policy 
and was the only explanatory variable. Result reveals a positive and significant relationship between dividend pay-out policy 
(DPO) and firm performance (ROA). This finding is consistent with some prior empirical studies and provides evidence in 
support of both Signaling and Bird –in- hand hypotheses of dividend policy theory. 

Barman (2008) did a survey designed to achieve an independent analysis of the dividend function used by companies 
in South Africa. The study consisted of a sample of 42 companies both listed and private in South Africa which paid a cash 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AESR 

 

 www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aesr                              American Economic & Social Review                                Vol. 5, No. 2; 2019 
 

49 
                         
 

dividend during the previous financial year (2007). Questionnaires were sent out to the Chief Financial Officer (CFO’s) of both 
listed and private firms to get managers’ view on dividend payments and the effect it has on firm value. Barman study was based 
on questionnaires that aimed to get managers view on dividend policy and its impact on firm value in South Africa. However the 
samples of 42 listed and private companies that selected relatively small. Therefore, the results of the study are only indicative 
and not conclusive. According to his findings, managements are of the view that optimal policy strike a balance between 
dividend payment and the growth of a firm; about half of managers interviewed are neutral when asked if they think dividends 
policy has an impact on firm value. It appears that management do view dividend policy as being important, however majority of 
the managers do not think dividend policy have an effect on the intrinsic value of shares. 

Azhagaiah and Priya (2008) did a study which aimed at analyzing the impact of dividend policy on shareholders’ 
wealth in organic and chemical Companies in India. In order to measure the impact of dividend policy on shareholders’ wealth, 
they used multiple regression models and stepwise regression models. They used Market Price per Share as the dependent 
variable and Dividend per share, Retained Earnings per Share, Lagged Price Earning Ration and Lagged Market Price as the 
independent variable. In comparing dividend and non-dividend paying firms they found that in the long-run, the wealth of 
shareholders in dividend paying chemical companies had increased significantly. This indicated the impact of dividend policy on 
wealth creation. The regression analysis indicates that dividend payments by organic and chemical companies have a positive and 
significant impact on their shareholders’ wealth. The authors indicated that shareholders prefer current dividend to future 
income, as dividends are considered as an important factor which determines shareholders ‘wealth. 

Agyei and Marfo-Yiadom (2011) studied the relationship between dividend policy and performance of 16 commercial 
banks in Ghana for a period of 5 years (1993-2003). Result shows a positive relationship between dividend policy and 
performance. It further reveals that leverage, size of bank and growth, enhance the performance of banks. 
Uwuigbe, Jafaru and Ajayi (2012) investigate the relationship between the financial performance and dividend payout among 50 
listed firms in Nigeria for 2006 to 2010. Result shows a significant and positive association between the performance of firms 
and the dividend pay-out. The study also reveals that ownership structure and firm’s size has a significant impact on dividend 
pay-out of firms. 

Merekefu and Ouma (2012) examined the relationship between dividend pay-out and firm performance. The study 
was based on 41 companies listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange from 2002-2010. They did a regression analysis to 
determine the relationship between dividend payout and firm performance. Net profit margin was the dependent variable, while 
dividends paid; total assets and revenue were the independent variables. The results indicated that about 80.7%of net profit after 
tax was influenced by dividends paid, total assets and revenue. They found a positive strong relationship between Net profit after 
tax and dividends.  

Gul (2012) examined in Pakistan testing the relationship between dividend policy and shareholders’ wealth. The study 
was based on a sample of 72 companies listed on the Karachi Stock Exchange from 2005-2010. The authors used multiple 
regression and stepwise regression method to study the impact of dividend policy on shareholders’ wealth. Market value of 
equity is the depended variable and was used as a proxy for measuring shareholders’ wealth. The independent variables include 
dividend per share, retained earnings, lagged price to earnings ratio and lagged market value of equity. Dividend per share was 
used as a proxy for measuring the dividend policy of a firm. 

Gul (2012) found that the market value of companies that pay dividends is well above the book value as compared to 
companies that do not pay dividends. They reported that there is a significant difference between shareholders’ wealth in 
companies that pay dividends than those that do not pay dividends. Their findings also indicate that the wealth of dividend 
payers increased significantly as compared to non- payers, which shows the impact of dividend policy on shareholders ‘wealth. 
The regression analysis on the 4 models are significant at a 1% level and the results indicate that dividend per share has a 
significant positive influence on the dependent variable in all models except model 3. These suggest that the higher the 
companies pay dividend per share the higher shareholders wealth will be. 

Timothy and Peter (2012) sought to establish the relationship between dividend payout and firm performance among 
listed firms on the Nairobi Securities Exchange during the period of 2002 -2010. They employed regression analysis to establish 
the relationship between dividend payout and firm performance. Their findings indicated that dividend payout was a major 
factor affecting firm profitability measured by net profit after tax. Their relationship was also strong and positive. This therefore 
showed that dividend policy was relevant. 

Salehnezhad (2013) investigates corporate governance and dividend policy in firms listed in Tehran Stock Exchange 
for the period 2010 to 2012. Using fuzzy regression analysis, the result shows that a positive relationship exists between 
financial performance (stock returns) and dividend policy. Dwita AyuRizqia, SitiAisjahSimiati (2013) study the effect of 
managerial ownership, financial leverage, profitability, firm size and investment opportunity on dividend policy and effect of all 
that variables on firm value on manufacturing firms that go-public and listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange during 2006-2011. 
During 2006-2009, the manufacturing sector growth is declining which will hinder goal to increase firm value. There were 15 
firms committed to distribute dividends for 5consecutive years during 2007-2011 and most of 15 firms decided large 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AESR 

 

 www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aesr                              American Economic & Social Review                                Vol. 5, No. 2; 2019 
 

50 
                         
 

percentage of retained earnings. This also shows management decisions making influenced by distribution and growth of firm 
profitable investment opportunities. The sample was decided by census method. They had tested that most of the firms tend to 
pay dividend to the investors that believe will increase the firm share price as shareholder believe only a firm with good profit is 
able to payout dividend.  

Ajanthan (2013) did a study in Sri Lanka on the relationship between dividend payout and profitability among listed 
hotels and restaurant companies on the Colombo Stock Exchange. A than did a regression and correlation analysis to test the 
relationship between dividend payout and firm profitability. Conclusion is that based on the results “dividend policy is relevant 
and that managers should pay attention and devote adequate time in designing a dividend policy that will enhance firm 
profitability and therefore shareholder value. 

Oyinlola and Ajeigbe (2013) examined the impact of dividend policy on the stock prices of 22quoted firms in Nigeria 
during the period 2009 to 2013. Regression analysis, correlation analysisandGranger Causality Test was used to test research 
hypothesis on 110 observations. Findings reveal that both dividend payout and retained earnings are significantly relevant to the 
market per share of the firms.  Oyinlola, Oyinlola and Adeniran (2014) investigated the impact of performance on the dividend 
policy of two major brewery firms quoted on the Nigerian Stock Exchange for the period 2002-2010. Findings reveal that 
dividend policy is relevant and that a firm’s dividend policy is seen as a major determinant for a firm’s performance. Positive 
relationship exists between the dividend policy and performance. 

Osegbuet al (2014) analyses the extent of relationships between dividend payment and corporate performance in the 
Nigerian banking industry between 1990 and 2010. Using regression models, the result shows no significant relation between 
dividend policy and performance. Interestingly, insignificant relationship occurs between dividend policy and other four 
explanatory variables (free cash flow, financial leverage, business risk and tax paid on dividend payment ratio). 
Charles et al (2014) conducted a study to ascertaining the relationship between dividend policy and firm’s profitability, 
investment per shares. The data of this study were extracted from annual report and accounts of 2013 and 9 manufacturing firm 
is selected in Nairobi Stock Exchange of Kenya and other empirical study. It was discovered that the dividend policies of 
organizations have a significant positive relationship with profitability, investments and earnings per share of corporate 
organization. They proved that dividend policies of organizations are vital in enhancing the profitability and investment of 
manufacturing sector in Kenya. 

Fathima et al (2014), sought the impact of dividend payout on corporate profitability in the Manufacturing 
Companies listed on Colombo Stock Exchange in Sri Lanka. For this purpose, the data were extracted from the annual reports 
of the 21 manufacturing companies during the period from 2007-2011. Regression model is used to study and estimate the 
relationship between dividend payout and corporate profitability. The study also employed a subsample in order to arrive at a 
profound conclusion with regard to the impact of dividend policy on corporate profitability. The results of the study revealed 
that there was a significant relationship between dividend payout and corporate profitability in terms of return on assets, return 
on equity and earnings per share. A positive significant relation is found between dividend payout and return on assets and 
return on equity for the whole sample while significant negative relationship is found between dividend payout and earnings per 
share as far as the dividend paying sample is concerned. 

Ifueroet al. (2016) conducted a study of effect of dividend policy on firm’s returns using data of seventeen (17) 
manufacturing firms listed on the Nigerian stock Exchange by using descriptive statistics, correlation analysis and panel 
regression technique, where the fixed effect regression. The finding reveal that current dividend payout, growth opportunity of 
firms and dividend per share has positive and significant effect on earnings per share, with that of growth having an 
overwhelming influence. Current dividend payout and dividend per share are both significant at the 5% level. One lagged 
dividend payout (previous dividend payout), cash flow and leverage have positive but not significant influence on EPS, while the 
impact of size is negative and not significant. Tax Preference theory stated that tax treatment may influence on the distributed 
income of a firm. An example given in the article, if the investors in high tax bracket might require higher pre-tax risk adjusted 
premium returns to hold stocks with higher dividend yield.  

Farsio et al. (2004) argue that there is no significant relationship between dividends and earnings hold in the long run 
and studies that support this relationship are based on short periods and therefore misleading to investors. As it point out that 
an increase in dividends many lead to a decline in funds that are to be reinvested and pay high dividend without considering 
investment needs may lead to lower future earnings. Thus is a negative relationship between dividend payout and future earnings. 
Grullanet al. (2005)revealed that dividends changes are very poor indicators of both earnings and profitability levels hence 
concluded that there is no evidence supporting the idea that dividend increases signal better prospects for firm profitability. 

Yusuf (2015) examined the impact of performance on dividend payout ratio of some selected commercial banks in 
Nigeria spanning the periods between 2004 and 2013. Guided by explanatory research design, four commercial banks were 
selected and data relating to relevant variables of leverage and profitability and dividend payout ratio were gathered. Correlation 
analysis and multiple regressions were carried out to analyses the data. The findings revealed that dividend payout ratio is 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AESR 

 

 www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aesr                              American Economic & Social Review                                Vol. 5, No. 2; 2019 
 

51 
                         
 

negatively related to banks’ leverage and profitability. The study concludes that dividend payout ratio is inversely related to 
performance of commercial banks in Nigeria.  

Simon-Oke and Ologdinwa (2016) evaluated the effect of dividend policy on corporate performance in Nigeria, using 
time series data generated from secondary sources through the publications of Nigeria Stock Exchange and financial statements 
of the companies under review. The study also employed OLS multiple regression analytical techniques to establish the 
relationships among the variables of dividend policy and the corporate performance of firms in Nigeria. The findings reveal that 
dividend policy in Nigeria still remains a function of strong dynamic variables such as return on investment (ROI), earnings per 
share (EPS) and dividend per share (DPS).  

Osegbu,Ifurueze and Ifurueze(2014) analyzed the extent of relationships between dividend payment and corporate 
performance in the Nigerian banking industry. The study uses a panel data set of banks listed on the Nigeria stock exchange 
between the year 1990 and 2010. The five hypotheses were applied to examine the extent and the level of significance of the 
relationship between the amount of dividend payment and corporate performance using regression models. The research 
indicated that there is no significant relationship between dividend payout of banks in Nigeria and the explanatory variables.  

Uwuigbe (2012) investigated the relationship between the financial performance and dividend payout among listed 
firms’ in Nigeria. It also looks at the relationship between ownership structure, size of firms and the dividend payouts. The 
annual reports for the period2006-2010 were utilized as the main source of data collection for the50 sampled firms. The 
regression analysis method was employed as a statistical technique for analyzing the data collected. The study found that that 
there is a significant positive association between the performance of firms and the dividend payout of the sampled firms in 
Nigeria. The study also revealed that ownership structure and firm’s size has a significant impact of the dividend payout of firms 
too. 

Nwannamka and Ezeabsili (2017) examined the effects of dividend policy on firm value. The study covers 10 quoted 
companies studied for the period of 1995-2015. The methodology adopted is the ordinary least square regression analysis for 
primary data analyses and multiple regression analysis for the secondary data analyses with models MPS (Market Price per 
Share) as dependent variable, EPS (Earnings per Share) and DPS (Dividend Per Share) as independent variables. The study 
shows the relevance of dividend, dividend as a signaling model and proves that firm value is greatly influenced by dividend policy 
as far as public limited companies are concerned. 

Peter and Lyndon (2016) this study investigated the relationship between dividend payout policyand firm 
performance in Nigeria, using a sample of some listed firms in the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE) for the period 2002 to 
2012. The study adopted comparative/descriptive research designs as a set of time series dimension of panel data estimation 
techniques were utilized. The result shows a positive and significant relationship between dividend payout policy and profit after 
tax (PAT). This result indicates that dividend payout policy enhances firm performance in Nigeria. While earning per share 
(EPS) had a negative influence on dividend payout policy of firms in Nigeria for the period the study covered.  

Rheman and Hussain(2017) tried to find out the key indicators that do impact the performance of the firm and are 
also incorporated in the dividend policy of the firm. Ratios have been computed of all the companies that basically determine 
the dividend policy and then the correlation tests have been run to see the whether the results are significant or not. In the 
conclusion we have mentioned the variables that play a key role in determining the performance of the firms 

Ojeme, Mamid and Ojo, (2015) examined empirically the implications of adopted dividend policies on the value of 
shareholders’ wealth and the extent to which dividend policy affects the market value of shares in quoted banks in Nigeria. The 
paper focuses on the situation before and after the financial meltdown. Correlation results of dividend paid in 2007-2010 and 
their corresponding market value showed that payment of dividend by quoted banks is relevant to their market value and the 
amount paid as dividend affects the value of their share. Findings revealed the effects of policy decisions as it affects dividend 
payout and dividend retained for further growth on shareholders ‘wealth. 
 
3. Research Methodology 
Descriptive and longitudinal design was employed with a view to making statistical inferences on the effect leverage on corporate 
financial distress of manufacturing firms. A  Sampling frame of 15 quoted manufacturing firms was selected using random 
sampling techniques. The required cross-sectional data were sourced from annual reports of the firms and stock exchange 
factbook from 2008-2017. 
 
3.1 Analytical Framework and Empirical Model Specification 
This analysis is carried out within a panel data estimation framework. The preference of this estimation method is not only 
because it enables a cross-sectional time series analysis which usually makes provision for broader set of data points, but also 
because of its ability to control for heterogeneity and endogencity issues. Hence panel data estimation allows for the control of  



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AESR 

 

 www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aesr                              American Economic & Social Review                                Vol. 5, No. 2; 2019 
 

52 
                         
 

individual-specific effects usually unobservable which may be correlated with other explanatory variables included in the 
specification of the relationship between dependent and explanatory variables (Hausman and Taylor, 1981). The basic 
framework for panel data regression takes the form: 

 
                  1 

 
Where: 
           Y = dependent variable 
D = independent variable 

o  = intercept 

i  = coefficient of the explanatory variable 

e = error term 
I = cross-sectional variable 
T = time series variable 
 

In the equation above, the heterogeneity or individual effect is 
iZ  which may represent a constant term and a set of observable 

and unobservable variables. When the individual effect iZ ,
contains only a constant term, OLS estimation provides a consistent 

and efficient estimates of the underlying parameters (Kyereboah-Coleman, 2007); hut if iZ
,

 is un-observable and correlated 

with itX , then emerges the need to use other estimation method because OLS will give rise to biased and inconsistent estimates. 

Similarly for endogeneity issues, it is generally assumed that the explanatory variables located on the right hand side of the 

regression equation are statistically independent of the disturbance it  such that the disturbance term it  is assumed to be 

uncorrelated with columns of’ the parameters itX  and itZ  as stated in equation (1), and has zero mean and constant variance 

 2
(Hausman and Taylor, 198). If this assumption is violated, then OLS estimation will yield biased estimates of the 

underlying parameters of  (Mayston, 2002).Hence, endogeneitv problems arise when the explanatory variables are correlated 

with the disturbance term it (Mayston, 2002; Hausman and Taylor, 1981). In order to circumvent these problems, panel 

estimation techniques of fixed and random effects will be adopted in this study, in addition to the traditional pooled regression 
estimation. Decisions will be made between the fixed and random effect models using the Hausman specification test. The panel 
model for the study is specified base on the modified model of Lucky (2018). 
 
Model Specification 
Pooled regression specification 


ititiii DPSDYRRDDPRoEVA 4332211  µ                             2 

 
Fixed Effect Model Specification 

itiiititiiit idumDPSDYRRDPRoEVA 119

4332211       

3 
Random effect model specification  

itititiiit iDPSDYRRDPRoEVA 143322111        
4 

Where 
EVA = Economic Value added of the quoted firms   
DPR       =     Dividend payout rate   
RR = Retention Rate  
DY = Dividend yield  
DPS = dividend per share   
µ =  Stochastic or disturbance/error term.  
t  =  Time dimension of the variables  

α 0  =  Constant or intercept.  
 

itiitit ZXY   ,,



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AESR 

 

 www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aesr                              American Economic & Social Review                                Vol. 5, No. 2; 2019 
 

53 
                         
 

Estimation Techniques  
Panel unit root test result 
The data were checked for the presence of unit root using the ADF Fisher Chi-Square andPhiliperon Fisher Chi-Square, which 
is based on the well-known Dickey–Fuller procedure. The null hypothesis for these tests is that there is a presence of non-
stationary series against the alternative hypothesis of stationary series. The unit root test is important because non-stationary 
series regression estimation leads to spurious regression estimations with the wrong magnitude and sign of the parameter of the 
regressors, with wrongly inferred implications. The study assumes an absence of a time trend; hence it is tested for stationarity 
allowing for constant only. Stationarity denotes the non existence of unit root. We shall therefore subject all the variables to unit 
root test using the augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) test specified in Gujarati (2004) as follows. 

Etyiyy t

m

i
tt  


 1

1
121          5 

Where:  

ty   = change time t 

1 ty  = the lagged value of the dependent variables  

t   = White noise error term  

If in the above  =0, then we conclude that there is a unit root. Otherwise there is no unit root, meaning that it is stationary. 
The choice of lag will be determined by Akaike information criteria. 
 
Decision Rule 
t-ADF (absolute value) > t-ADF (critical value) : Reject Ho (otherwise accept H1) 
Note that each variable will have its own ADF test value. If the variables are stationary at level, then they are integrated of order 
zero i.e 1(0). The unit root problem earlier mentioned can be explained using the model: 

Y= Yt-1 + I                                                                                           6 

Where Yt is the variable in question; i is stochastic error term. Equation (a) is termed first order regression because we regress 
the value Y at time “t” on its value at time (t- 1). If the coefficient of Yt-i is equal to 1, then we have a unit root problem (non 
stationary situation). This means that if the regression. 

Y= Yt-1 + I                                                                                                      7 

Is run and L is found to be equal to 1 then the variable Yt has a unit root (random work in time series econometrics). 

If a time series has a unit root, the first difference of such time series are usually stationary. Therefore to salve the problem, take 

the first difference of the time series. The first difference operation is shown in the following model: 

Y= (L-1) Yt-1 + I                                                                                                                                       8 

Yt-1 + I           9 

(Note:  =1-1= 0; where L =1; Yt = Yt - Yt-i) 

            10 

Integrated Of Order 1 Or I(I) 

Given that the original (random walk) series is differenced once and the differenced series becomes stationary, then the original 

series is said to be integrated of order I or I (1). 

 
Integrated of Order 2 Or I (2) 

Given that the original series is differenced twice before it becomes stationary (the first difference of the first difference), then 

the original series is integrated of order 2 or 1(2). 

Therefore, given a time series has to be differenced Q times before becoming stationary it said to be integrated of order Q or I 

(q). Hence, non-stationary time series are those that are integrated of order 1 or greater. 

The null hypothesis for the unit root is: Ho: a = 1; 

The alternative hypothesis is Hi: a <1. 

We shall test the stationarity of our data using the ADF test. 

 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AESR 

 

 www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aesr                              American Economic & Social Review                                Vol. 5, No. 2; 2019 
 

54 
                         
 

Granger Causality Test 
Thus, Granger causality test helps in adequate specification of model. In Granger causality, test, the null hypothesis is that no 
causality between two variables. The null hypotheses is rejected if the probability of F* statistics given in the Granger causality 
result is less than 0.05.  
 
The pair-wise granger causality test is mathematically expressed as: 

111

1

11

1

uxYxY t

x
n

i

t

y
n

i

ot  







                                                  11 

and 

1
V

1y
xxdp1

n

1i

1Yt
y
1

dp
n

1i
o

dp
t

x 








                                                12 

Where xt and yt are the variables to be tested white ut and vt are the white noise disturbance terms. The null hypothesis

011  yy dp , for all I’s is tested against the alternative hypothesis 01 x  and .01 ydp if the co-efficient of 
x

1

are statistically significant but that of ydp1  are not, then x causes y. If the reverse is true then y causes x. however, where both 

co-efficient of 
x

1 and 
ydp1 are significant then causality is bi –directional  

4. Presentation of Results and Discussion of Findings 
The following tables explain the dynamic relationship between dividend decision   and economic value added   of the selected 
manufacturing firms in Nigeria. 
 
Table I: Test of Appropriate Model  

Redundant Fixed Effects Tests   

Effects Test Statistic   d.f.  Prob.  

Cross-section F 2.698090 (14,71) 0.0032 

Cross-section Chi-square 38.392708 14 0.0005 

Correlated Random Effects - Hausman Test  

Test Summary Chi-Sq. 
Statistic 

Chi-Sq. d.f. Prob.  

Cross-section random 11.031481 4 0.0050 

Source:  Extract from E-view 9.0, 2019 
Our study used the likelihood ratio test to choose between the Pooled effect model and the fixed effects model as how 

in table i above. 
The fixed effects model is better than pooled effect that the results of the likelihood ratio test were significant (p-

value< 0.0000 for the three models. This result means that we reject the Pooled effect model and choose the fixed effects model 
for this study. To make a choice between the fixed effects model and the random effects model, we utilized the Hausman test as 
shown in the table above. The hypotheses of the test are as follows: 

The fixed effects model is more appropriate than the random effects model. As the result found that the results of this 
test were significant (p-value = 0.0241). Hence, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the fixed effects model is the 
most appropriate of the three models. 
 
Table II: Presentation of Pooled Regression Model 

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.   

DY -0.149415 0.112713 -1.325624 0.1885 

DPS 0.207417 0.141753 1.463223 0.1471 

DPR 0.110271 0.130836 0.842817 0.4017 

RR 0.106482 0.129402 0.822877 0.4129 

C -0.830492 12.99663 -0.063901 0.9492 

R-squared 0.057177     Mean dependent var 10.19322 

Adjusted R-squared 0.012809     S.D. dependent var 1.292761 

S.E. of regression 1.284455     Akaike info criterion 3.392498 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AESR 

 

 www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aesr                              American Economic & Social Review                                Vol. 5, No. 2; 2019 
 

55 
                         
 

Sum squared resid 140.2350     Schwarz criterion 3.531377 

Log likelihood -147.6624     Hannan-Quinn criter. 3.448502 

F-statistic 1.288701     Durbin-Watson stat 0.940905 

Prob(F-statistic) 0.280916    

Source:  Extract from E-view 9.0, 2019 
 

Table III: Presentation of Fixed Regression Model 

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.   

DY -0.891660 0.162539 -2.179168 0.0003 

DPS 0.154671 0.151752 2.019236 0.0006 

DPR 0.034566 0.126994 0.272183 0.7863 

RR 0.831367 0.125502 2.249929 0.0034 

C 7.158401 12.56055 0.569911 0.0000 

 Effects Specification   

Cross-section fixed (dummy variables)  

R-squared 0.784588     Mean dependent var 10.19322 

Adjusted R-squared 0.528568     S.D. dependent var 1.292761 

S.E. of regression 1.135448     Akaike info criterion 3.277024 

Sum squared resid 91.53618     Schwarz criterion 3.804762 

Log likelihood -128.4661     Hannan-Quinn criter. 3.489839 

F-statistic 2.464988     Durbin-Watson stat 1.516951 

Prob(F-statistic) 0.003743    

 
Table IV: Presentation of Random Regression Model 

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.   

DY -0.171352 0.133486 -1.283671 0.2027 

DPS 0.174799 0.142437 1.227208 0.2231 

DPR 0.058288 0.123147 0.473324 0.6372 

RR 0.055083 0.121769 0.452358 0.6522 

C 4.594668 12.21246 0.376228 0.7077 

 Effects Specification   

   S.D.   Rho   

Cross-section random 0.728365 0.2915 

Idiosyncratic random 1.135448 0.7085 

 Weighted Statistics   

R-squared 0.443535     Mean dependent var 5.472827 

Adjusted R-squared 0.301475     S.D. dependent var 1.114623 

S.E. of regression 1.115445     Sum squared resid 105.7584 

F-statistic 0.967237     Durbin-Watson stat 1.237294 

Prob(F-statistic) 0.429844    

 Unweighted Statistics   

R-squared 0.454425     Mean dependent var 10.19322 

Sum squared resid 140.6444     Durbin-Watson stat 0.931586 

Source:  Extract from E-view 9.0, 2019 
 
Table V: Cross-Section Random Effects Test Comparisons 

Variable Fixed   Random  Var(Diff.)  Prob.  

DY -0.191660 -0.171352 0.008600 0.8267 

DPS 0.154671 0.174799 0.002741 0.7006 

DPR 0.034566 0.058288 0.000962 0.4444 

RR 0.031367 0.055083 0.000923 0.4350 

Source:  Extract from E-view 9.0, 2019 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AESR 

 

 www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aesr                              American Economic & Social Review                                Vol. 5, No. 2; 2019 
 

56 
                         
 

Table VI: Presentation Of Causality Test 

 Null Hypothesis: Obs F-Statistic Prob.  

 DY does not Granger Cause EVA  60  0.32035 0.7272 

 EVAdoes not Granger Cause DY  0.15716 0.8550 

 DPS does not Granger Cause EVA  60  0.32299 0.7253 

EVA  does not Granger Cause DPS  0.21823 0.8046 

 DPR does not Granger Cause EVA  60  1.17205 0.3173 

 EVA does not Granger Cause DPR  1.49205 0.2339 

 RR does not Granger Cause EVA  60  0.86169 0.4281 

EVA  does not Granger Cause RR  1.52567 0.2265 

Source:  Extract from E-view 9.0, 2019 
 
Table VII:  Test for Stationarity 

Variables ADF - Fisher Chi-square/ PP - Fisher Chi-square Statistics  Probability REMARK DECISION 

EVA PP - Fisher Chi-square  73.4606  0.0000 Stationary Reject H0 

 PP - Choi Z-stat -2.69812  0.0035 Stationary Reject H0 

RR PP - Fisher Chi-square  74.3608  0.0000 Stationary Reject H0 

 PP - Choi Z-stat -4.04781  0.0000 Stationary Reject H0 

DY PP - Fisher Chi-square  60.9287  0.0007 Stationary Reject H0 

 PP - Choi Z-stat -2.84488  0.0022 Stationary Reject H0 

DPS PP - Fisher Chi-square  62.1951  0.0005 Stationary Reject H0 

 PP - Choi Z-stat -3.00666  0.0013 Stationary Reject H0 

DPR PP - Fisher Chi-square  74.9173  0.0000 Stationary Reject H0 

 PP - Choi Z-stat -4.11845  0.0000 Stationary Reject H0 

Source:  Extract from E-view 9.0 
 
5. Discussion and Analysis of Results  
Dividend decisions have long been the most controversial issue in corporate finance among scholars (Olowe, 2011). The pattern 
of corporate dividend decisions   not only varies overtime but also affect by internal and external factors of the firm. The issue of 
dividend decisions has long been one of the most controversial issues among scholars in the field of corporate finance. From the 
opinion of Gordon’s, the Dividend policy is relevant while from the opinion of Miller and Modigliani dividend policy is 
irrelevant under specific assumptions that the market is perfect. The question that boarder most scholars is that can there be any 
perfect market that can make dividend policy irrelevant? For instance, the financial market of the developing countries 
specifically Nigeria is known for its imperfection because it is characterized with insider dealings where stock brokers are also 
floor dealers (Onoh, 2002). This justifies the agency theory as noted by Jesen (1979).The a-priori expectation of the result is 
that the independent variables are expected to have a positive impact on shareholders’ return of the quoted commercial banks. 
  The results of the regression model  found that the independent variables can explain 5 percent variation on economic 
value added from the pooled regression results,  75 percent variation from the fixed effect results and 44 percent from the 
random effect (table ii, iii and iv)  Results from model found that dividend yield have negative effect on economic value added  
while dividend per share, dividend payout ratio and retention ratio has positive and significant effect  on economic value added  
of the quoted manufacturing firms. The positive impact of retention ratio and dividend per share confirm the a-priori 
expectation of the result and justifies the objective of constant dividend policies. Retention ratio is a source of internal 
investment. Increase in retention ratio makes the company to be less levered which means that significant proportion of 
corporate investment is financed by equity capital. This makes corporate organizations not to face leverage risk. It also makes the 
organization to grow as noted by Pandey (2005).  The positive effect of the variables confirm the findings of Agyei and Marfo-
Yiadom (2011) whose results found positive relationship between dividend policy and performance, Uwuigbe, Jafaru and Ajayi 
(2012) Whose result  shows a significant and positive association between the performance of firms and the dividend payout. 
Merekefu and Ouma (2012) whose findings revealed positive strong relationship between Net profit after tax and dividends and 
the findings of Timothy and Peter (2012) findings indicated that dividend payout was a major factor affecting firm profitability 
measured by net profit after tax. The negative impact of dividend yield is contrary to the expectation of the results and can be 
traced to monetary policy shocks that affect the performance of the manufacturing firms over the period. The negative impact is 
contrary to the findings of Gul (2012) who found that the market value of companies that pay dividends is well above the book 
value as compared to companies that do not pay dividends and the findings of Salehnezhad (2013) who found a positive 
relationship between financial performance (stock returns) and dividend policy.  However, evidence from the cross-sectional 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AESR 

 

 www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aesr                              American Economic & Social Review                                Vol. 5, No. 2; 2019 
 

57 
                         
 

comparison found that variables are statistically not significant (table v) which implies that there statistical differences between 
fixed and random effect models. The granger causality test found that there is no causality between the variables, this findings is 
contrary to the expectation of the results (table vi) and can be traced to poor performance of the firms over the periods covered 
in this study. The variables are stationary from the results of the stationarity test (table vii).  
 
6. Conclusion 
The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of dividend decision on economic value added quoted manufacturing in 
Nigerian. The study made use of secondary data from financial statement of the quoted manufacturing firms. The Hausman test 
validated the use of fixed effect model. From the results the study conclude that dividend yield have negative and significant 
effect on the economic value added of the manufacturing firms, this implies, variation on dividend  yield of the firms will 
significantly reduce  economic valued added. Dividend per share have positive and significant effect on the economic value added 
of the manufacturing firms, this implies, variation on dividend per share of the firms will significantly increase economic valued 
added. Dividend payout rate   have positive but insignificant effect on the economic value added of the manufacturing firms, this 
implies, variation on dividend payout rate   of the firms will not significantly affect economic valued added. Retention rate   have 
positive and significant effect on the economic value added of the manufacturing firms, this implies, variation on retention rate 
of the firms will significantly increase economic valued added. 
 
7. Recommendation 
From the findings, the study made the following recommendations: 

 The cross sectional data indicates that the manufacturing dividend decision was a constant dividend decision, therefore 
we recommend that constant dividend decision should be maintained among the quoted manufacturing firms. 

 Retention forms should be properly invested and the investment environment should be well managed to increase 
shareholders return through the dividend decision channel. 

 The management should devise measures of managing shareholders to achieve shareholders wealth maximization 
through Dividend policy and the operational environment of the quoted manufacturing firms should be integrated 
with the companies’ operating objectives to achieve the objective of the shareholders. 

 The negative effect of the independent variables could be traced to poor corporate governance and poor optimal 
capital structure, therefore we recommend that the operating leverage and the capital structure of the firms should be 
examined or revisited to enhance profitability performance of the quoted firms and corporate governance should be 
ensured in the management of the firms to enhance the profitability performance that will affect positively the 
dividend policy. 

 
References 
Agyei, S. K., & Marfo,  Y. E. (2011).Dividend Policy and Bank Performance in Ghana, International Journal of Economics and 

finance, 3(4),23-42. 
Ajanthan, A. (2013).  The Relationship between Dividend Payout and Firm Profitability: A study of listed Hotels and 

Restaurant companies in Sir Lanka.  Research Journal of Finance and Accounting 4(10), 115-126. 
Akani, H. W., & Lucky, A. L., (2015). Econometric analysis of capital adequacy ratios and the impact on profitability of 

commercial banks in Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Economics and Finance, 6 (6), 11 – 24. 
Akani, H. W., & Lucky, A. L., (2016). Capital structure and shareholders’ value of commercial banks in Nigeria: A multi-variate 

study analysis. IIARD International Journal of Economics and Business Management, 2 (5), 1 – 24. 
Anyamaobi, C., & Lucky, A. L., (2017). Corporate characteristics and value creation: A panel data evidence of Nigeria quoted 

manufacturing firms. World Journal of Finance and Investment Research, 2(1), 31-49. 
Azhagaiah, R., & Priya, N.S. (2008).The impact of dividend policy on shareholders’ wealth. International Research Journal of 

finance and Economic, 3(8), 180-187. 
Bell, L.W.W., (1998) Economic profit: an old concept gains new significance. Journal of Business Strategy, 19, 5: 13-15.  
Bhattacharya, S., (1979).Imperfect information, dividend policy, and the bird in hand fallacy. The Bell Journal of Economics, 

10, (1), 259-270. 
Chen, S., & Dodd, J.L., (1977) Economic value added (eva): an empirical examination of a new corporate performance measure. 

Journal of Managerial Issues, 9, 3: 318-333.  
Eniola, O. J. & Akinselure, O.P. (2016).Impact of divided policy and earnings on selected Quoted companies in Nigeria. 

International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 5(6), 308-321. 
Ezirim, B. C., (2005). Finance dynamics: Principle, techniques and application. Markowitz Centre for Research and 

Development. 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AESR 

 

 www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aesr                              American Economic & Social Review                                Vol. 5, No. 2; 2019 
 

58 
                         
 

Fathima, T, (2014). Impact of dividend payout on corporate profitability: evident from Colombo stock exchange. Advances in 
Economics and Business management 1(1), 27-33. 

Gordon, M. J. & Shapiro, E. (1956). Capital equipment and analysis:  The required Rate of Profit. Journal of Management 
Science 31, 102-110. 

Gordon, M. J. & Lintner, J. (1959).Dividends, earnings and stock prices. Review of Economics and statistics, 4(1), 99-105. 
Gordon, M., (1960).The savings, investment and valuation of a corporation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 37-51. 
Graham, B., Dodd, D, (1934).Security analysis, 1st edition, McGraw-Hill, New York. International Journal of Economics, 

Commerce and Management, 3 (4), 1-13. 
Gul, S., (2012). The Relationship between Dividend Policy and Shareholders Wealth (Evidence from Pakistan), Economic and 

Finance Review, 2(2), 55-59. 
Ifuero O. O, (2016). Does dividend policy affect firm earning? Empirical evidence from Nigeria. International Journal of 

Financial Research, 7 (5), 77-86. 
Jensen, M. C. (1979).  Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review, 7(6), 

323-329. 
Lee, B. (1996). Causal relations among stock returns, interest rates, real activity and inflation, Journal of Finance, 47, 1591 – 

1603. 
 Lehn, K., & Makhija, A.K., (1997). EVA, Accounting Profits, and CEO Turnover: An Empirical Examination, 1985-1994. 

Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 10( 2), 90-97. 
Lintner, J., (1996). The Potential Role of Managed Commodity-Financial Futures Accounts (and/or Funds) in Portfolios of 

Stocks and Bonds. The Handbook of Managed Futures: Performance, Evaluation & Analysis. Ed. 
Lucky, A. L., (2017). Cost of capital and corporate earning of quoted firms in Nigeria:  A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of 

quoted firms in Nigeria. Australian journal of finance and banking review, 1(1), 41-65. 
M Rabet R., & Bouffat W., (2016). The relationship between dividend policy and firms performances: A study of listed 

companies in morallo. European Scientific Journal. 12(4), 469-482. 
Marshall, T. H. (1920).  Reappraising “Social citizenship in the twenty - first century.  Journal of Citizenship studies 18, 3-4. 
Merekefu, T. M &Ouma, O. P. (2012). Dividend Policy and its impact on firm value: A Review of Theories and Empirical 

evidence. International Journal of Scientific and Research, 22(2), 2-4. 
Miller, M & Modigliani, F (1961) Dividend policy, growth and the valuation of shares. Chicago Journals, 3(4), 411-433. 
Momgbe T.G & Ibrahim A.A (2014). Dividend policy on financial performance: A case study of selected Resgistred firms in 

Nigeria. Research Journal of finance and Accounting 6(20), 1-2. 
Nwamaka, O. C., & Ezeabasili, U. (2017).  Effect of dividend policies on firm value: Evidence from quoted firms in Nigeria.  

International Journal of Management Excellence, 8(2). 
Ojeme, S, Mamidu, A, I. &Ojo, J. A. (2015).  Impact of dividend policy on shareholders wealth: a study on manufacturing 

industry listed in Nasdaq, America.  International Journal of Accounting & Business Management, 4(2), 607-619. 
Olowe, R. A.(2011).  The impact of 2004 banking capital announcement on the Nigeria stock market.African Journal of 

Management, 2(2), 180-201. 
Onoh, J. K. (2002). Dynamics of money banking and faineance in Nigeria: An emerging market.  Astra meridian publishers. 
Osegbu, I. F., Ifurueze, M., &Ifurueze, P., (2014).An analysis of the relationship between dividends payment and corporate 

performance of Nigerian banks. Global Business and Economic Research Journal, 3(2), 75-99. 
Osegbue, I. F., et al. (2014).An analysis of the relationship between dividend payment and corporate performance of Nigerian 

banks.Global Business and Economics Research Journal, 3(2), 75-95. 
Oyinlola, O.M.,  &Ajeigbe, K.B.,  (2013). The impact of dividend policy on stock prices of quoted firms in Nigeria. 

International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 11 (9), 1-17. 
Pandey, I. M. (2005). Finance management, 9th edition, VIkas Publishing house PVT Ltd.  
Peter E.A., & Lyndon M.E., (2016). Dividend payment policy and performances evidence from Nigeria. Social sciences learning 

education Journal 1(1), 6-9. 
Riahi-Belkaeoui, A., (1993). The information content of value added, earnings, and cash flow: us evidence. The International 

Journal of Accounting, 28(1),140-146.  
Rogerson, W.P., (1977). Intertemporal cost allocation and managerial investment incentives: a theory explaining the use of 

economic value added as a performance measure. Journal of Political Economy, 105,( 4), 770-795.  
Salehnezhad, S. H. (2013). A study relationship between firm performance and dividend policy by fuzzy regression Iranian 

scenario. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting, 3(2), 41-69. 
Shapiro, D. (1990). What went wrong?  Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 24(4) 49-53. 
Simon-Oke P.O., &Ologunwa O.P., (2016).Evaluation of the effect of dividend policy on the performance of corporate firms in 

Nigeria. FUFA Journal of management and Technology maiden Edition 111-120. 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2019, CRIBFB | AESR 

 

 www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/aesr                              American Economic & Social Review                                Vol. 5, No. 2; 2019 
 

59 
                         
 

Simon-Oke, O. O., &Ologuntra, O. P. (2016). Evolution of the effect of Dividend Policy on the performance of Corporate 
firms in Nigeria.  FUTA Journal of Management and Technology Maiden Edition,111-120. 

Skinner, D. J. &Soltes, E. (2011). What do dividends tell us about earnings quality?  
Spyrou, S. (2001). Stock Returns and Inflation: Evidence from an emerging market.  Article in Applied Economic Letters 8(7), 

447-450. 
Stulz, R., (2000). Merton Miller and modern finance. Financial Management, 29(4), 119–131. 
Suranta, E., & Machfoedz, M.,(2003). Analisisstrukturkepemilikan, nilaiperusahaan, investasi, 

danukurandewandireksi.SimposiumNasionalAkuntansi, 6, 214-226. 
Taimi M. E., (2014). Dividend Policy and Its Impact on Firm Value: A Review of taxes. American Economic Review, 60, 1-40. 
Timothy, M. M., & Peter O., (2012). The Relationship between Dividend Payout and Firm. Theories and Empirical Evidence, 

1-33. 
Tiriongo T. K. ,(2004). Dividend Policy Practices of the Companies Listed at the Nairobi Stock. Exchange, Unpublished MBA 

Project University of Nairobi. 
Travlos, W. Trigeorgis, L. &Vafeas, W. (2001).  Shareholder wealth Effects of Dividend Policy Changes in an Emerging Stock 

Market: The case of Cyprus. Multinational Finance Journal, 5(2), 87-112. 
Urouigbe U., (2012). Dividend policy and firm performance: A study of listed firms in Nigeria. Accounting and management 

information system. 11(3), 442-454. 
Uwuigbe, U., Jafaru, J., &Ajayi, A., (2012). Dividend policy and firm performance: a study of listed firms in Nigeria. 

Accounting and Management Information Systems, 11(3), 442-454. 
Vogt, R. D. (1994).  The source of investment cash flow sensitivity in manufacturing firms:  Is it Asymmetric information or 

Agency Costs? 
Walter, J. E., (1963). Dividend policy: its influence on the value of the enterprise. of Economics, Commerce and Management, 

11 (9), 1-17. 
Wolmarans, H., (2003). Does Lintner’s dividend model explain South African dividend payments? Meditari Accountancy 

Research 1(1), 243-253. 
Yusuf  B. R., (2015). Dividend payment and performance of deposit money banks in Nigeria. International Journal of Achiness 

in management and economics. 4(6), 98-105. 
Zhou, P. &  Ruland, W. (2006).Dividend payout and future earnings growth. Financial Analysts Journal, 62(3), 58 – 69.  

 
 

 
Copyrights  
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an open-access 
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 
 


