i Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance (GUJAF) Vol. 4 Issue 2, October, 2023 ISSN: 2756-665X A Publication of Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Management and Social Sciences, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara State -Nigeria ii © Department of Accounting and Finance, 2023 Vol. 4 Issue 2 October, 2023 ISSN: 2756-665X A Publication of Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Management and Social Sciences, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara State -Nigeria All Rights reserved Except for academic purposes no part or whole of this publication is allowed to be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means be it mechanical, electrical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the Copyright owner. Published and printed by: Ahmadu Bello University Press Limited, Zaria Kaduna State, Nigeria. Tel: 08065949711, 069-879121 e-mail: abupress2013@gmail.com abupress2020@yahoo.com Website: www.abupress.com.ng mailto:abupress2013@gmail.com iii EDITORIAL BOARD Editor-in-Chief: Prof. Shehu Usman Hassan Department of Accounting, Federal University of Kashere, Gombe State. Associate Editor: Dr. Muhammad Mustapha Bagudo Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Kaduna State. Managing Editor: Umar Farouk Abdulkarim Department of Accounting and Finance, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara State. Editorial Board Prof.Ahmad Modu Kumshe Department of Accounting, University of Maiduguri, Borno State. Prof Ugochukwu C. Nzewi Department of Accounting, Paul University Awka, Anambra State. Prof Kabir Tahir Hamid Department of Accounting, Bayero University, Kano, Kano State. Prof. Ekoja B. Ekoja Department of Accounting, University of Jos. Prof. Clifford Ofurum Department of Accounting, University of PortHarcourt, Rivers State. Prof. Ahmad Bello Dogarawa Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria. Prof. Yusuf. B. Rahman Department of Accounting, Lagos State University, Lagos State. Prof. Suleiman A. S. Aruwa Department of Accounting, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nasarawa State. Prof. Muhammad Junaidu Kurawa iv Department of Accounting, Bayero University Kano, Kano State. Prof. Muhammad Habibu Sabari Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. Prof. Okpanachi Joshua Department of Accounting and Management, Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna. Prof. Hassan Ibrahim Department of Accounting, IBB University, Lapai, Niger State. Prof. Ifeoma Mary Okwo Department of Accounting, Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Enugu State. Prof. Aminu Isah Department of Accounting, Bayero University, Kano, Kano State. Prof. Ahmadu Bello Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. Prof. Musa Yelwa Abubakar Department of Accounting, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto State. Prof. Salisu Abubakar Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Kaduna State. Prof. Isaq Alhaji Samaila Department of Accounting, Bayero University, Kano State. Dr. Fatima Alfa Department of Accounting, University of Maiduguri, Borno State. Dr. Sunusi Sa'ad Ahmad Department of Accounting, Federal University Dutse, Jigawa State. Dr. Nasiru A. Ka’oje Department of Accounting, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto State. Dr. Aminu Abdullahi v Department of Accounting, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto, State. Dr. OnipeAdebenege Yahaya Department of Accounting, Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna State. Dr. Saidu Adamu Department of Accounting, Federal University of Kashere, Gombe State. Dr. Nasiru Yunusa Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria. Dr. Aisha Nuhu Muhammad Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria. Dr. Lawal Muhammad Department of Accounting, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria. Dr. Farouk Adeza School of Business and Entrepreneurship, American University of Nigeria, Yola. Dr. Bashir Umar Farouk Department of Economics, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara State. Dr Emmanuel Omokhuale Department of Mathematics, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara. State vi ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS Prof. Kabiru Isah Dandago, Bayero University Kano, Kano State. Prof A M Bashir, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto, Sokoto State. Prof. Muhammad Tanko, Kaduna State University, Kaduna. Prof. Bayero A M Sabir, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto, Sokoto State. Prof. Aliyu Sulaiman Kantudu, Bayero University Kano, Kano State. Editorial Secretary Yazid Ibrahim Kabir Department of Accounting and Finance, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara State. vii CALL FOR PAPERS The editorial board of Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance (GUJAF) is hereby inviting authors to submit their unpublished manuscript for publication. The journal is published in two issues of April and October annually. GUJAF is a double-blind peer reviewed journal published by the Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Management and Social Sciences, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara State Nigeria The Journal accepts papers in all areas of Accounting and Finance for publication which include: Accounting Standards, Accounting Information System, Financial Reporting, Earnings Management, , Auditing and Investigation, Auditing and Standards, Public Sector Accounting and Auditing, Taxation and Revenue Administration, Corporate Governance Issues, Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability and Environmental Reporting Issue, Information and Communication Technology Issues, Bankruptcy Prediction, Corporate Finance, Personal Finance, Merger and Acquisitions, Capital Structure, Working Capital Management, Enterprises Risk Management, Entrepreneurship, International Business Accounting and Finance, Banking Crises, Bank’s Profitability, Risk and Insurance Issue, Islamic Finance, Conventional and Islamic Banks and so forth. GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION AND MANUSCRIPT FORMAT The submission language is English and must be a well-researched original manuscript that has not previously been submitted elsewhere for publication. The paper should not exceed more than 15 pages on A4 type paper in MS-word format, 1.5-line spacing, 12 Font size in Times new roman. Manuscript should be tested for plagiarism before submission, as the maximum similarity index acceptable by GUJAF is 25 percent. Furthermore, the length of a complete article should not exceed 5000 words including an abstract of not more than 250 words with a minimum of four key words immediately after the abstract. All references including in text citation and reference list, tables and figures should be in line with APA 7th Edition publication manual. Finally, manuscript should be send to our email address elfarouk105@gmail.com and a copy to our website on journals.gujaf.com.ng mailto:elfarouk105@gmail.com http://www.gujaf.com.ng/ viii PUBLICATION PROCEDURE After receiving a manuscript that is within the similarity index threshold, a confirmation email will be send together with a request to pay a review proceeding fee. At this point, the editorial board will take a decision on accepting, rejecting or making a resubmission of the manuscript based on the outcome of the double-blind peer review. Those authors whose manuscript were accepted for publication will be asked to pay a publication fee, after effecting all suggested corrections and changes made on the manuscript. All corrected papers returned within the specified time frame will be published in that issue. PAYMENT DETAILS Bank: FCMB Account Number: 7278465011 Account Name: Gusau Journal of Accounting and Finance FOR INQUIRY The Head, Department of Accounting and Finance, Federal University Gusau, Zamfara State. elfarouk105@gmail.com +2348069393824 FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT The Editor-in-Chief on +2348067766435 The Associate Editor on +2348036057525 OR visit our website on www.gujaf.com.ng or journals.gujaf.com.ng http://www.gujaf.com.ng/ http://www.gujaf.com.ng/ ix CONTENTS Board Characteristics and Financial Performance: Evidence from Listed Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria 1 Abdullahi Bala Ado, Norfadzilah Nik Mohd Rashid, Sa’adatu B. Adam, Binta Abubakar Nuhu, Hassanat Salawu Salihu and Tariro Masunda Welfare, Inflation, and Pension Income Inequality Among the Bottom and Top Income Quintiles and Decile: An Implication of Kaduna State Pension Reform 18 Prof. Salamatu I. Isah, Ibrahim Kekere Sule (PhD) Political Connection, Audit Fees, Audit Quality, and Tax Avoidance 31 Novita Dwi Damayanti, M KhoiruRusydi, WuryanAndayani Firm Attributes and Shareholder’s Wealth of Listed Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria 47 A.A. Mustapha, Prof. M.S. Tijjani, S. Salami PhD Financial Determinants of Entrepreneurship in Nigeria 67 Precious Adukwu, Hyeladi Stanley Dibal Work Environment, Remuneration and Accounting Lecturers’ Performance in Polytechnics in North West, Nigeria 88 Dr. Aliyu Abdullahi Ahmed, Rabiatu Ahmed Relative Efficiency of the Capital Market Over the Money Market in a Growth-Financing Economy 110 Adedeji Daniel Gbadebo Board Education, Director's Age and Earnings Management of Listed Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria 131 Idris IbrahimPhD, Prof. Luka Mailafia, Salami Suleiman PhD Ownership Concentration’s Moderating Effect on Dividend Payout And Tobin’s Q in the Nigerian Consumer Goods Sector. 149 Ovbe Simon Akpadaka x Foreign Direct Investment, Renewable Energy and Economic Growth: An Empirical Analysis from South Africa. 167 Ahmed Oluwatobi Adekunle Impact of Digital Financial Services on Savings Development in Nigeria 182 Iro, Onyinyechi Adanna, Eke, Patrick Omoruyi, Yunisa, Simon Amodu, Shekoni, Nurudeen Adebayo Account Receivable Management and Financial Performance of Listed Consumer Goods Firms in Nigeria 209 Umar Suleiman Abubakar Dabai, Biyai Shepnaan, Hajara Abubakar Jimoh, Haruna Halimah Sani Sambo PhD Stable Dividend Policy and Value of Listed Healthcare Firms in Nigeria 227 Maimuna Adamu Salihu, Aminu Danladi Ahmad, Zaharaddeen Salisu Maigoshi, Naja'atu Bala Rabiu The Impact of Monetary Policy on Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMES) in the Period of Economic Crises. 240 Ahmed Oluwatobi Adekunle. CEO Age and Gender on Financial Distress Likelihood of Listed Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria: Moderated by Risk Committee Gender 254 Idris Mohammed, Joshua Okpanachi, OnipeAdabenege Yahaya, Suleiman Tauhid 149 OWNERSHIP CONCENTRATION’S MODERATING EFFECT ON DIVIDEND PAYOUT AND TOBIN’S Q OF LISTED CONSUMER GOODS FIRMS IN NIGERIA Ovbe Simon Akpadaka Anan University Kwall, Plateau State +2348034029041, Simon.akpadaka@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6699-307X Abstract This paper examines the direct effectof ownership concentration (OWNC), dividend policy as proxied by dividend payout (DPAY) and firm size proxied by log of total assets (FS) on firm value which is proxied by Tobin’s Q. Also,the moderating effect of OWNC on the relationship between DPAY and Tobin’s Q was examined. 16 out of the 18 listed consumers goods sector of the Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX)were purposively selected for this study and the study period 2013 to 2022 and 160 statistical observations per variable were employed for the study. Utilizing a ex-post facto research design, and fixed effects regression for the statistical model to control for unobserved heterogeneity withing firms over time, ensuring a robust examination of the relationships under study. Also, an interaction term (OWNC*DPAY) was introduced to capture the joint effects of ownership concentration and dividend policy on Firm value. At the end of the analysis, DPAY was found to have a statistically insignificant impact on firm value. Secondly, OWNC exhibited a significantnegative relationship with firm value, suggesting that higher levels of OWNC could adversely affect firm value. Thirdly, the moderating effect of OWNC on DPAY-firm value relationship yielded a negative and insignificant effect, suggesting that the influence of dividend policy on firm value is not significantly enhanced by variation in ownership concentration. These findings contribute, in a nuanced manner, to literature on dividend policy and ownership concentration in corporate governance in the context of an emerging markets like Nigeria. It is recommended that managers of firms in the sector should look beyond dividend policy for value enhancement strategies and managers should ensure a balancing act between ownership concentration and dispersed ownership because of possible negative impact that concentrated ownership portend. Keywords: Dividend payout, Ownership Concentration, Firm value, Fixed Effect Regression, Nigerian Exchange Group 1. Introduction Ownership concentration (OWNC) is the level to which a firm’s shares are held by a small number of people that a substantial portion of a firm shareholding are held by a few persons. When a large portion of the shares are in the hands of a few people it could be said that there is a high level of ownership concentration, (Gaur et al., 2015; Nashier & Gupta, 2023). Concentrated ownership offers benefits in the mailto:Simon.akpadaka@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6699-307X DOI: https://doi.org/10.57233/gujaf.v4i2.9 150 area of control of managers of firm whose interest are not always in congruence with that of their principals. Jensen and Meckling (2019)argued that in modern corporate where ownership is separated from control, managers have the tendency not to always act in the best interest of their principals. Agency theory suggests that dispersed ownership can weaken shareholders control over management. And in contrast OWNC can lead to a more efficient monitoring of management. Large shareholders have greater influence and incentive to monitor and control management closely and this help ensure that managers’ interest align with that of the shareholders, (Shleifer & Vishny, 1986). OWNC has its downside despite argument in its favor by agency theory. High level of OWNC could lead to the suppression of minority shareholders’ interests. La Porta et al. (2000) argued that while concentrated ownership can reduce traditional agency problems between principal and mangers, it can also give rise to another one which could be expropriation of minority shareholders by the controlling concentrated shareholders. In addition, concentrated ownership and dividend policy are intertwined. Shareholders with substantial holding do have control and influence over management and can influence or dictate the direction of dividend policy of the firm. Concentrated shareholders might have preference for higher DPAY as a way of curtailing free cash flow, (Faccio et al., 2001; La Porta et al., 2000;Jensen, 1986). OWNC, DPAY and firm value (proxied by Tobin’s Q)are variables that have been studied extensively. But the interplay between DPAY and Tobin’s Q as moderated by OWNC has not received much of attention in literature and worst it in the context of the consumer goods sector of the Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX) none have been able to explore this relationship. The closest study in this direction are fromNaz et al., (2023) andOyedokun et al. (2020). Naz et al., (2023)examined the impacted of dividend policy on firm performance in Pakistani manufacturing sector and found that OWNC has a significant positive moderating effect on the relationship between dividend policy and firm performance whereas(Oyedokun et al., 2020) examined the impacted of ownership structure on firm value in the consumer goods sector of the NGX but this study was done without an moderating variable. Consequently, the research gap in literature lies in the nuanced examination of ownership concentration, dividend payout and firm value using OWNC as a moderating variable within the context of the consumer goods sector of the NGX . while prior studies like (Gaur et al., 2015; Nashier & Gupta, 2023; Oyedokun et al., 151 2020)have examined the impact of OWNC on firm performance and firm value but with moderation effect of OWNC. there is lack of understanding on how OWNC moderates the relationship between dividend payouts and firm value. La Porta et al. (2000); Jensen and Meckling, 1986)posited theories that suggests benefits of concentrated ownership in taming agency problem there is therefore the need to subject this to rigorous empirical tests. There is also the possibility of a downside to OWNC such as the minority shareholders expropriation (La Porta et al., 2000). Therefor significant research gap exist in understanding how OWNC moderates the effect of dividend payouts on firm value especially in he consumer goods sector of the NGX. Hence, the study is to achieve the following objectives: i. To examine the effect of DPAY on Tobins’Q of consumer goods firms listed on the NGX ii. To examinethe effect of OWNC on Tobin’s Q of consumer goods firms listed on the NGX. iii. To determine the moderating role of OWNC on the relationship between DPAY and Tobin’s Q of consumer goods firms listed on the NGX. I n view of the specific objectives of the study the following hypotheses have been formulated in null form: H01: The DPAY does not have a statistically significant effecton the Tobin’s Qof consumer goods firms listed on the NGX. H02: OWNC does not have a statistically significant effecton the value of consumer goods firms listed on the NGX. H03: OWNC has no statistically significant moderating effect on the relationship between the DPAY and the Tobin’s Qof consumer goods firms listed on the NGX. 1. Review of theoretical issues A synopsis of the fundamental concepts and theoretical underpinnings that support the research is provided in the conceptual review section. This includes dividend policy, firm value, ownership concentration, and the interrelation of these concepts among other topics. This section provides foundational knowledge for subsequent empirical and theoretical analyses through an examination of the existing literature. Dividend payout ratio (DPAY), one of the proxies for dividend policy, represents the portion of a firm’s earnings distributed to shareholders in form of dividends. It is typically expressed as a percentage which is calculated by dividing the total dividends paid by the net income of the firm, (Fama, 2001). There are several factor 152 that influence dividend payout, some of which are firm performance (profitability), liquidity, tax implications, industry regulations like the banking and insurance sectors and corporate governance, (Arora & Srivastava, 2021; Odoemelam& Obiora, 2023; Renneboog& Trojanowski, 2011). DPAY is mathematically expressed as: 𝐷𝑃𝐴𝑌 = 𝐷𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑁𝑒𝑡𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 ∗ 100 Tobin’s Q is one of the often used measure of firm value, it is a financial ratio that compares market value of a firm’s total assets to its replacement costs. The total market value of equity and debts are added together, then dividend by the total assets valued at the replacement costs, (Tobin, 1969). Basically, Tobin’s Q measures the efficiency with which a firm use its assets to generate value. A tobin’s Q value greater than 1 suggests that the firm is worth more than its replacement cost, vis-visa, Setiyawati, et al. (2017). Therefore the Tobin’s Q formula adopted for this study is: 𝑇𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑛′𝑠𝑄 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑜𝑓𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑦+𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑡𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝐷𝑒𝑏𝑡 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠 @ 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 Ownership concentration is an extent to which the shares of a firm are held in the hand of its largest shareholders. When a few individuals hold a significant proportion of a firm’s shares, the firm is said to have high ownership concentration,(Gaur et al., 2015; Zulfikar et al., 2020). Study has revealed that OWNC is common in firms and it is prevalent in jurisdictions with weak legal protections for investors. This concentration let the shareholders, often families or state, to exert significant influence over the firm, (La Porta et al., 2000). Furthermore, studies have established that large shareholders, due to the substantial holdings, have both the means and motivation to to monitor management closely, (Shleifer &Vishny, 1997). This means that concentrated offers benefits by ensuring that firms are well run. However, the work of (Iturriaga & Crisóstomo, 2010) suggests that as owner concentration increases, it begins to produces adverse effect. 2.2 Ownership Concentration and Firm Value Ownership concentration which is a subset of ownership structure has been studied extensively in various countries and sectors with mix outcomes. The findings from some of such studies are discussed below with the aim of identifying the gap in literatureand justifying the need for the study. Iturriaga and Crisóstomo (2010)analyzed a sample of 213 Brazilian firms from 1995 to 2004 as part of a study. Utilizing OLS panel data regression, the 153 relationship between OWNC and firm value was examined. The findings revealed a U-shaped relationship between OWNC and firm value, indicating that OWNC has a positive effect on firm value at lower levels but a negative effect as OWNC levels increase. This suggests that OWNC initially increases value to a certain extent, but then its effect begins to diminish as concentration rises. Additionally, this implies that a form of concentrated ownership has become firmly entrenched, which may be detrimental to the interests of minority shareholders. In their research, Widiatmoko et al. (2021) examined the relationship between ownership structure, dividend policy, and firm value. The study specifically targeted manufacturing companies that were publicly traded on the Indonesia Stock Exchange and spanned the years 2016 to 2018. By utilizing multiple linear regression models, the research examined the impact of distinct ownership structures—namely concentrated ownership, institutional ownership, and managerial ownership—on both dividend policy and firm value. While on a direct basis, OWNC was found to have nosignificant impact on firm value, on the other hand of mediation, it indicates that it does so indirectly via dividend policy.Also in Indonesia Stock Exchange, Amelinda and Halim (2019)studied the effect of managerial ownership, institutional ownership, foreign ownership,and ownership concentration as predictors of firm value. The study period span 2000 to 2017 and a total of 432 observations were collected for the study period. The result of the multiple regression shows that OWNC was positive and highly significant predictor of firm value. Oluwagbemiga et al., (2014)studied the Nigerian banking sector of the NGX with the aim of determining the effect of OWNC on firm value. Out of a population21 banking firms listed on the exchange 18 were purposively selected for the study and the study period span 2008 to 2012 and multiple linear regression was used for the analysis. The result shows that OWNC, measured by stock held by individual investors and large-block shareholders and divided by total shares in issue, has a positive and significant relationship with firm value. Also(Oyedokun et al., 2020)examined the impact of OWNC, one of ownership structure variables used for the study, on firm valuein the consumer products sector of the Nigerian Exchange. Utilizing a panel regression technique on secondary data thatspans2010 to 2018 for 19 out of 21 listed consumer goods firms. The results showed that OWNC has a positive and significant effect on firm value. This implies that a higher concentration of ownership in the hands of a few leads to increase in value of firms in the consumer goods sector of the NGX. 154 2.3 Ownership Concentration and Dividend Payout Studies have been conducted on the effect of OWNC on divdend payout and the results show that there are evidence that OWNC has postive and significant effect on DPAY, on the contrary there studies that have established negative influence of OWNC on DPAY.Arora and Srivastava (2021)studied the effect of OWNC on DPAY in India, thestudy covers period from 2010 to 2017 and sample size of 326 firm quoted on Bomay Stock exchange. The study employed fixed effect panel regression model for the analysis and the results show thatownership concentration is positively correlated with dividend payout, a finding that is at variance with pattern observed in many advanced economies. This implies that corporate divident policy in emerging market like india differs significant from those in developed markets. SimilarlySetiawan et al. (2016)studied the effect of OWNC on dividend payout with a sample of non-financial firms listed on Indonesia Stock exchange using 710 firm year observation for study period spanning 2006 to 2012. Utilizing linear multiple regression for the analysi, the results show that there is a positive correlation between OWNC and DPAY. This aligns with Shleifer and Vishny, (1986)theory that majority shareholders are more inclined to incur monitoring expenses to safeguard their investment returns. Hence, as ownsership percentage increases, shareholders tend to receive higher dividend payouts. On the contrary, in South Africa, (Nel et al., 2021)studied the relationship between OWNC and different payout methods of firms listed on Johannesburg Stock exchange from 2012 to 2019. Utilizing a Mixed-Model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) as analytical tool, the results of the study shows that 1. High ownership concentration is associated with associated with statistically significant lower dividend payouts, implying that larrge shareholders might extract nore value for themselves at the expense of minrity shareholders which aligns with rent extraction hypothesis 2. The presence of a large shareholder outside the promoter group negatively affects dividend payout, which is another agency problem because it is the interrest of the concentrated shareholders that get protected to the disadvantage of minority shareholders. 2.4 Dividend Payout and Tobin’s Q A substantial body of empirical research consistently demonstrates that dividend policy and firm value are intricately linked. Osakwe et al. (2019)investigated the effect of dividend policy, using DPAY as one of the independent variables, on market price per shares for a study period that spans from 2011 to 2015. Ten consumer goods firm were used for the study and panel least squares regression was adopted for the study analysis. The results shows that dividend payout (DPAY) 155 has a significant and a positive effect on market value per share. In Jordan, (Maswadeh, 2017) examined the impact of cash and stock dividends on Tobin’s Q in the banking sector of Amman Stock exchange with a sample of 16 banks over a study period of 2009 to 2015. Utilizing multiple and stepwise regression analyses the result shows, among other, that DPAY has a significant and positive effect on Tobin’s Q. Furthermore, Dividend payout account for 21.2% of the explanatory power on Tobin’s Q, which undescores the explanatory power of DPAY. Ownership concentration has been used in studies as moderator and it has been found to be significant moderator. Singh et al. (2018) used OWNC to moderate the relationship between board independence and organizational performance and as well as relationship between CEO duality and organizational performance. The results showed that OWNC negatively moderates the relationships and this suggests that higher OWNC may weaken the impact of board independence and CEO duality on organizational performance. Similarly, Ali et al. (2022)made use of OWNC to moderate the relationship between board financial expertise and foreign institutional investment and it turned out that OWNC negatively moderates this relationship, which implies that higher OWNC may weaken the influence of board financial expertise on foreign institutional investment. Furthermore, Arora and Singh (2023)study showed that OWNC has a positive moderating role on the relationship between board independence and Small and Medium Scale (SME) IPO (Initial Public Offer) underpricing and as well as the relationship between board committee and IPO underpricing. The theoretical framework the study is anchored primarily on the Agency Theory and Modigliani-Miller (MM) Dividend Irrelevance Theory. Berle and Means (1932) bring to forethe conflicts of interest that existed in modern corporation noting that dispersed ownership leads to separation of ownership and control. This divorce of ownership from management can lead to agency problems, situation where managers of corporations places personal interest over and above that of the shareholders. The theory suggests that concentrated ownership could help mitigate these agency problems, because as large shareholders have both the means and the incentives to monitor managers effectively and such monitoring could help align managers interests with that of the shareholders. While the theory is foundational, its applicability across jurisdictions in contemporary or non- American setting might be limited. 156 Another theory of importance to this paper is the dividend irrelevance theory as postulated by Modigliani and Miller (1958). Under a perfect market situation with no taxes, and no bankruptcy costs, MM argued that dividend policy decision is irrelevant to firm value. They went further to state that the value of a firm is determined by its earning ability and investment decisions and that investors can create a home made dividend by selling or buying shares. The assumptions of the theory are its key limitations because there are taxes in the real world, transactional cost exist and so also is bankruptcy costs. Such conditions of market imperfection are more prevalent in less developed countries like Nigria, where these market imperfections are more evident and can influence corporate decisions, (Bae & Goyal, 2010; Koralalage, 2016). This theoretical framework lays the foundation for our empirical investigatoion into whether OWNC influences the Tobin’s Q, OWNC is able to moderate DPAY relation with Tobin’s Q, DPAY is able to influence Tobin’s Q, all in the context of the consumer goods sector of the NGX. 2. Methods and Models This study employs an ex-post facto research design, which is a non-experimental methodology in which associations between variables are established through the analysis of pre-existing data or events that have already transpired. Examining the relationship between explanatory variables (DPAY, OWNC, FS) and dependent variable (Tobin's Q ), within the consumer goods sector of the NGX is the primary objective.Utilizing a technique of purposive sampling, sixteen of the eighteen firms in the consumer goods sector of the NGX were chosen for the study. The criteria for selection are the firms' pertinence to the research and the accessibility of comprehensive data spanning the study period (2013-2022), as determined by the balanced panel data analysis implemented in this investigation. The selection of a period following the implementation of International Financial Reporting Standards was done with care to ensure a consistent and simplified basis for comparison. This study utilizes a variety of statistical techniques. First, a descriptive statisticwas conducted to understand the distribution of data,and this was followed by Spearman Correlation Analysis, a non-parametric technique employed to evaluate the magnitude and direction of the relationship between variables. When the assumptions necessary for Pearson's correlation, such as normality, are not met, this method is especially applicable to ordinal data or such circumstances(Lecca et al., 2019). 157 Multifaceted panel data analysis constitutes the core of the analysis. Before proceeding, robust standard errors are incorporated into multiple linear regression. By effectively mitigating the effects of heteroskedasticity and ensuring that the estimation of regression coefficient standard errors is accurate, this method is vital for assessing relationships throughout the entire dataset. Additionally, on an intra- firm level, temporal variations are analyzed with the aid of a Fixed-Effects Regression model. By controllingfor unobservable firm-specific factors that may introduce bias into the results, this model offers valuable insights into the internal workings of the organizations. Furthermore, to examine the moderating impact of Ownership Concentration (OWNC) on the association between Dividend Payout Ratio (DPAY) and Tobin's Q, the research utilizes Moderated Regression Analysis. This permits an examination of how the effect of DPAY on Tobin's Q varies with varying levels of OWNC by incorporating an interaction term (DPAYxOWNC) into the regression model. Recognizing the intricate relationship between these variables and their cumulative effect on firm value is predicated on this facet of the analysis. Model 1: without moderating effect TOBIN’S Qit = β0it + β1DPAYit + β3OWNCit + β4FSit + µit (1) Model 2: with moderating effect TOBIN’S Qit = β0it + β1DPAYit + β2DPAY*OWNCit + β3OWNCit + β4FSit+ µit (2) Where: TOBIN’S Q = Firm value, DPAY = Dividend payout ratio, OWNC = Ownership concentration, FS = Firm size, β1 –β4 = coefficients of the independent variables βo = intercept, µ = error term, it = firm and period. 158 Measurement of Variables Table 1: Variables Variable Nature of Variable Proxy Measurement Tobin’s Q Dependent Tobin’s Q 𝑇𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑛′𝑠𝑄 = 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑜𝑓𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑦 + 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝐷𝑒𝑏𝑡 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠 @ 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 As defined by Setiyawati, et al. (2017) Ownership concentration Independent Ownership Concentration As a ratio of the number of shares held by those with at least 5 percent of the issues to the total number of shares issued, ownership concentration is calculated (Chalaki et al., 2012) Dividend Policy Independent Dividend Payout Ratio 𝐷𝑃𝐴𝑌 = 𝐷𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑑_𝑃𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑁𝑒𝑡_𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 Firm Size Control Variable Total Asset Natural Logarithm of total assets DPAY*OWNC Moderator DPAY and OWNC A multiple of DPAY and OWNC wich is the interaction term DPAYxOWNC is utilized. Source: Author’s Compilation (2023) 3. Results and Discussion This section presents the findings of our emipirical investigation into the interplay between OWNC, DPAY and Tobin’s Q. It starts with the descriptive statistics,and correlation matrixThis followed by various robustness tests conducted to ensure the reliability of our findings. Subsequently the results are discussed in details. 4.1 Descriptive Statistics The descriptive values are presented under Table II which shows the smallest, largest, average, standard deviation, and normality test results. 159 Table II: Descriptive Statistics Variables Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev. Sktest Tobin’s Q. 4083295 9.414058 1.918529 1.640405 2.459962 DPAY 0 68.2 2.872375 9.758711 - 1.142922 OWNC 20 95 66.25 13.28592 - 1.142922 FS 12.67941 20.31832 17.56105 1.841698 - .7187042 Source: STATA 17 Output, 2023 Table II above is a descriptive statistics of the dependent and independent variables.For Tobin’sQ, whichis a ratio that compares a firm market value to its replacement cost, the minimum value is .4083295, the maximum value 9.414058, with a mean of 1.918529. The standard deviation is 1.640405, which indicates a wide deviation from the mean. The skewness of 2.459962, which is highly skewed,suggests that there are outliers on the right side of the distribution curve. The DPAYhas a minimum value of0, the maximum value 68.2, with a mean of 2.872375. The standard deviation is 9.758711, which shows a relatively wide variation of dividend payout among the sampled entities. The skewness of - 1.142922indicates a negative skewness of the distribution, meaning that there are more firms that pay lower dividends in comparison to the mean dividend. OWNC values range from a minimum of 20 (20%) to a maximum of 0.95 (95%), with a mean of 0.6625 (66.25%). The standard deviation of 13.28592shows that there is a wide variation in ownership concentration values and a skewness value of - .7187042 indicates that there are more firms with ownership concentrations less than the mean, and the tail of the distribution extends more towards lower ownership concentrations. FS, which the log of total assets, ranges from a minimum value of 12.67941to a maximum value of 20.31832, while the mean value is 17.56105. The standard deviation of 1.841698implies a moderate level ofvariability in firm sizesand the skewness of -.7187042shows that the distribution is left skewed, meaning that more the firms have their total assets value below the mean value. 4.2 Correlation Analysis 160 Table III displays the spearman correlation values of the variables.Spearman correlation is noted for its robustness in dealing with non-normal data and for the its ability to handle monotonic relationship between variables, (Bishara & Hittner, 2012). Table III: Correlation Matrix TOBINSQ DPAY OWNC FS TOBINSQ 1 DPAY 0.6698** 1 OWNC 0.0512 0.0461 1 FS 0.1945* 0.2291** 0.2554** 1 Source: STATA 17Output, 2023 ** 0.01 or *0.05 level of significance (2-tailed) Tobin’s Q and DPAY correlation value of 0.6698 shows that is a strong positive correlation Tobin’s Q and Dividend payout. TOBINSQ and OWNC correlation value of 0.0512 is positive and statistically insignificant,which suggests avery weakpositive correlation between Tobin’s Q and Ownership concentration. TOBINSQ and FS 0.1945correlation is positive and significant. There is a weak positive correlation TOBINSQ and FS, which is statistically significant at 5% level. DPAY and OWNC have a correlation coefficient of0.0461, which implies a weak positive correlation between DPAY and OWN, and a statistically insignificant relationship existed between the two. DPAY and FS have a correlation coefficient of0.2291which is positive and statistically significant at 0.01. There is a moderate positive correlation betweenDPAY and FSwhich is highly significant. Lastly,OWNC and FS have a correlation coefficient is 0.2554,which implies a moderate positive correlation that is highly statistically significant. 4.2.1 Robustness Tests To establish the presence of detrimental multicollinearity, the tolerance, and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) must be consistently below ten,(Hauber et al., 2014). The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) results for each of the variables were well below the common threshold of <10, suggest that multicollinearity is not a concern in this model. Furthermore, Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity was conducted. The test yielded a chi-squared statistics of 67.06 with a p-value of0.0000, which is highly significant. This means that there is the presence of heteroskedasticity in the residuals, which means that the variance of the error terms is not constant across observations. The presence of heteroskedasticity 161 led to the use of Robust Ordinary Least Square, helps to adjust for the impact of heteroskedasticity presence in the residuals. It is critical that the most suitable econometric model be utilized for the analysis of our panel data to guarantee the robustness and dependability of our results. As a means of identifying systematic differences, the Hausman test, which compares the coefficients of the random-effects and fixed-effects models as a basis for making the appropriate choice was deployed. The Hausman test produced a chi-squared statistics of 197.08 with a p-value of 0.0000, which means that it is statistically significant,and it suggests that fixed-effect model is more suitable for the panel data analysis. The implication of fixed-effect model choice is that the panel analysis will focus on the within-firm variations over time. It also allows for control of any time- invariant characteristics of the firms that might cause bias. 4.3 Summary of Regression Result This part explains the effect between Dividend Policy, Ownership Concentration,and value of listed Consumer Goods Firms on NGX. Table IV: Summary of Regression (OLS)-Fixed Effect Model Variables Coefficient T-Statistics Probability Cumulative Intercept 20.19855 8.84 0.000 DPAY .0529755 0.44 0.658 DPAY*OWNC -.0005793 -0.37 0.711 OWNC -.0391161 -3.29 0.001 FS -.8955651 -6.66 0.000 R2 0.3505 Fisher Exact Statistics Prob>F Test of Significance Difference (F) Probability F 18.88 0.0000 0.20 0.6590 Source: STATA 17 Output, 2023 The withinRsquare of 0.3505of the fixed effect regression model indicates that only 35.05% of the change in value of listed consumer goods firms in Nigeria is as a result of variation individend payout ratio, moderated dividend payout ratio, ownership concentration and firm size within each firm over the period of this study. 162 A Fisher Exact F-statistics of 18.88, which is significant at the 1% level, indicates that the regression model including dividend payout;ownership concentration, firm size and the moderated dividend payout ratio,is statistically significant. This suggests strong evidence against the null hypothesis, which posits no joint effect of these variables on firm value. Therefore, it can be inferred that the independent variables collectively have a statistically significant association with the dependent variable. Wald test conducted to assess the significance of the difference between the un- moderated DPAY and the moderated (DPAY*OWNC) variables yielded an F- statistic value of 0.20 with a corresponding p-value of 0.6590. This p-value is substantially higher than the conventional threshold for statistical significance, which is 5% (0.05). This mean that there is no statistically significant difference between the impact of the dividend payout ratio (DPAY) on its ownand its interaction with OWNC on the value of listed consumer goodsfirms on the NGX. Consequently, we fail to reject the null hypothesis (H03)which posited that ownership concentration does not have a statistically significant moderating effect on the relationship between the dividend payout ratio and the value of consumer goods firms listed in Nigeria. It therefore means that dividend policy (DPAY) influence on value of consumer goods firms is not affected by changes in ownership concentration within these firms. The DPAY coefficient, with a value of 0.0529755, indicates a positive relationship with the firm's value as measured by Tobin's Q, but its influence is comparatively moderate. The implication is that a marginal rise in the firm's value is correlated with an increase in the dividend payout ratio.The obtained t-statistic for DPAY is 0.44, which is significantly below the conventional thresholds of significance (approximately ±2 for a confidence level of 95 percent). The t-low statistic's value of 0.44 suggests that the coefficient lacks statistical significance in differentiating it from zero. This suggests that the observed impact of DPAY on Tobin's Q may be attributable to random variation rather than a discernible pattern. Furthermore, the insignificant p-value of 0.658 offers support to the conclusion reached on t-values. The obtained p-value surpasses the conventional threshold of 5 percent that is considered to be statistically significant. From a practical view, a p-value of 0.658 indicates that the likelihood of encountering this outcome is 65.8 percent, assuming that the actual impact of DPAY on Tobin's Q is negligible. Statistically, the available evidence is insufficient to reject the null hypothesis of no effect. As a resultwe fail to reject the null hypothesis (H01) which posited that 163 dividend payout ratio does not have a statistically significant impact on the value of consumer goods firms listed in Nigeria. A significant but adverse effect of ownership concentration on the degree of firm value was observed. This is statistically significant at the 1% level, as indicated by the coefficient value of -.0391161 and t-value of -3.29. (0.001). According to this, the value of publicly traded consumer goods companies decreases as ownership concentration rises. H02, which states that ownership concentration has no statistically significant effect on the value of consumer goods firms listed in Nigeria, is hereby rejected in light of the preceding analysis regarding the entire variable. 4. Conclusions with Recommendations This paper carried out a detailed analysis of the impact of the dividend payout ratio (DPAY), ownership concentration (OWNC), and the interaction betweenthese variables on firm value measures by Tobin’s Q. A fixed effect panel regression was developed to capture the dynamics within firms over time while controlling for firm size and other potential confounding factors. DPAY was found to be an insignificant explanatory variable on value of firm within the firms studied which suggests that dividend policy might not be a key determinantof firm value in the consumer goods sector of the NGX. This finding is contrary to the findings of Oyedokun et al. (2020)who examined same consumer goods sector in the period 2010 to 2018. OWNC on the other hand was found to have a negative, yet significant impact on firm value. This outcome tend to align in part with the findings of Iturriaga and Crisóstomo (2010).This implies that more ownership concentration is detrimental to the value of firms in the sector, and this therefore calls for a balancing act between OWNC and dispersed ownership. Furthermore, the interaction between OWNC and DPAY on firm value was immaterial, implying that the influence of dividend policy on firm value is not significantly altered by variation in OWNC level. Based on the findings of this study it isrecommended that firms in the consumer goods sector should ensure a balance in the ownership concentration of their firms because high OWNC is likely to produce a negative impact on firm value. Also, given the non-significance of DPAY on firm value, it advisable that firms in the sector should focus more on other value enhancing variables like growth opportunities and market expansion. References Ali, S., Rehman, R. U., Sarwar, B., Shoukat, A., & Farooq, M. (2022). Board financial expertise and foreign institutional investment: the moderating role 164 of ownership concentration. Review of International Business and Strategy, 32(3), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-02-2021-0032. Amelinda, R., M. E. Halim. P. S. K. N. (2019). Parabolic Effect Between Managerial Ownership And Firm Value To Control Agency Conflict. JurnalManajemen, 23(3), 355. https://doi.org/10.24912/jm.v23i3.569 Arora, N., & Singh, B. (2023). Board characteristics, ownership concentration and SME IPO underpricing. Pacific Accounting Review, 35(1), 19–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR- 08-2020-0111 Arora, R. K., & Srivastava, A. (2021). Ownership Concentration and Dividend Payout in Emerging Markets: Evidence from India. Global Business Review, 22(5), 1276–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150918824953 Bae, K., & Goyal, V. K. (2010). Equity Market Liberalization and Corporate Governance. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1670397 Berle, A., & Means, G. (1932). The Modern Corporation and Private Property. Macmillan. Bishara, A. J., & Hittner, J. B. (2012). Testing the significance of a correlation with nonnormal data: Comparison of Pearson, Spearman, transformation, and resampling approaches. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028087. Chalaki, P., Didar, H., &Riahinezhad, M. (2012). Corporate governance attributes and financial reporting quality: Empirical evidence from Iran. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(15). Faccio, M., Lang, L. H. P., & Young, L. (2001). Dividends and expropriation. American Economic Review, 91(1), 54–78. Fama, E. F., & F. K. R. (2001). Disappearing dividends: changing firm characteristics or lower propensity to pay? Journal of Financial Economics, 60, 3–43. Gaur, S. S., Bathula, H., & Singh, D. (2015). Ownership concentration, board characteristics and firm performance. Management Decision, 53(5), 911– 931. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2014-0519 Hauber, M. E., Samaš, P., Anderson, M. G., Rutila, J., Low, J., Cassey, P., & Grim, T. (2014). Life-history theory predicts host behavioural responses to experimental brood parasitism. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 26(4), 349– 364. Iturriaga, F. J. L., & Crisóstomo, V. L. (2010). Do leverage, dividend payout, and ownership concentration influence firms’ value creation? an analysis of Brazilian firms.Emerging MarketFinance and Trade, 46(3), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.2753/REE1540-496X460306 https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-02-2021-0032 https://doi.org/10.24912/jm.v23i3.569 https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR- https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150918824953 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1670397 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028087 https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2014-0519 https://doi.org/10.2753/REE1540-496X460306 165 Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (2019). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. In Corporate governance (pp. 77–132). Gower. Koralalage, W. B. Y. (2016). CFOs’ Views on Corporate Financing Decisions. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrfm-12- 2014-0031 La Porta, R., Lopez‐de‐Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., &Vishny, R. W. (2000). Agency problems and dividend policies around the world. The Journal of Finance, 55(1), 1–33. Lecca, L. I., Portoghese, I., Mucci, N., Galletta, M., Meloni, F., Pilia, I., Marcias, G., Fabbri, D., Fostinelli, J., & Lucchini, R. G. (2019). Association between work-related stress and QT prolongation in male workers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23), 4781. Maswadeh, S. A. (2017). The Effect of Cash and Stock Dividends on the Banks Tobina Q. https://doi.org/10.15224/978-1-63248-141-2-44 Michael C. Jensen. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–329. Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1958). The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance and the Theory of Investment. The American Economic Review, 48(3), 261– 297. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1809766 Nashier, T., & Gupta, A. (2023). Ownership Concentration and Firm Performance in India. Global Business Review, 24(2), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150919894395 Naz, F., Abrish, S., & Sadiq, N. (2023). Dividend Policy and Firm Performance with Moderating Effect of Ownership Structure: Evidence from The Manufacturing Firms in Pakistan. International Journal of Management Research and Emerging Sciences, 13(2). Nel, R., Wesson, N., & Steenkamp, L.-A. (2021). The association between ownership concentration and payout behaviour: Evidence from South Africa. Acta Commercii, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v21i1.965 Odoemelam, E. P., &Obiora, F. (2023). Accounting Information Disclosure and Dividend Payout of Listed Pharmaceutical Firm in Nigeria. European Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance Research, 11(2), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.37745/ejaafr.2013/vol11n26283 Oluwagbemiga, O. E., Michael, O., & Zaccheaus, S. A. (2014). The Effect of Ownership Concentration on Firm Value of Listed Companies. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(1), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837- 19179096 https://doi.org/10.1108/qrfm-12-2014-0031 https://doi.org/10.1108/qrfm-12-2014-0031 https://doi.org/10.15224/978-1-63248-141-2-44 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1809766 https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150919894395 https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v21i1.965 https://doi.org/10.37745/ejaafr.2013/vol11n26283 https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-19179096 https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-19179096 166 Osakwe, A. C., Ezeabasili, V. N., &Chukwunulu, J. I. (2019). Effect of dividend policy on stock prices: Evidence from Nigeria. International Journal of Economics and Financial Management, 4(3), 31–45. Oyedokun, G. E., Isah, S., &Awotomilusi, N. S. (2020). Ownership Structure and Firm Value of Quoted Consumers Goods Firms in Nigeria. Journal of Accounting and Strategic Finance, 3(2), 214–228. https://doi.org/10.33005/jasf.v3i2.65 Renneboog, L., & Trojanowski, G. (2011). Patterns in payout policy and payout channel choice. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(6), 1477–1490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.10.028 Setiawan, D., Bandi, B., Kee Phua, L., &Trinugroho, I. (2016). Ownership structure and dividend policy in Indonesia. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 10(3), 230–252. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-05-2015-0053 Setiyawati, L., Wahyudi, S. , &Mawardi, W. (2017). The influence of dividend policy, debt policy, independent commissioner, and institutional ownership on the firm value with growth opportunities as moderator variables (Study on Non-Financial Companies Listed on IDX in the Period of Years of 2012- 2015). JurnalBisnis STRATEGI •, 26(Desember), 146–162. Shleifer, A., &Vishny, R. W. (1986). Large shareholders and corporate control. Journal of Political Economy, 94(3, Part 1), 461–488. Shleifer, A., &Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737–783. Singh, S., Tabassum, N., Darwish, T. K., & Batsakis, G. (2018). Corporate Governance and Tobin’s Q as a Measure of Organizational Performance. British Journal of Management, 29(1), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 8551.12237. Tobin, J. (1969). A general equilibrium approach to monetary theory. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 1(1), 15–29. Widiatmoko, J., Badjuri, A., & Irsad, M. (2021). Ownership Structure on Dividend Policy and Its Impact on Firm Value. Zulfikar, R., Nofianti, N., Astuti, K. D., Meutia, M., Ramadan, A., Zulfikar, R., Nofianti, N., DwiAstuti, K., Meutia, M., & Ramadan, A. (2020). The Role of Ownership’s Concentration Moderating Dividend Policy Effects on Firm Value. In International Journal of Economics and Business Administration: Vol. VIII (Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.33005/jasf.v3i2.65 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.10.028 https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-05-2015-0053 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12237 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12237