Company Analysis Of Huawei Commerce Essay

Company Analysis Of Huawei Commerce Essay The subject that I am profiling about is Huawei Company. The company has been around for 22 years. Huawei started out as a company that provides other telecom company devices and spaces to rent to start their business. Slowly in Huawei had its own Huawei is a telecommunication company. By analysing the company, helps people to better understand the growth of the company .It provides network convergence and advanced devices to network providers. Over a short period of time, Huawei is one of the worlds renowned telecommunication companies. The objective To do a SWOT analysis on the company. To better understand Huaweis competitors and partnership with different company. Company goal Background Information Huawei origins from China in 1988 and founded by Ren Zhengfei. Ren Zhengfei is a graduate from Chongqing University of Civil Engineering and Achitecture . He worked as a PLA (Peoples Liberation Army) in research of new technologies. He has been known for the most advanced technologies researched. After Ren was entrenched from the army, due to a reduction by the army, he moved to Shenzen and was employed as an electronic reseller. By 1988 is then when he opened his own company. Then is when Huawei was formed. Scope There were ample of challenges i had to face to complete my research and analysis. As Huawei is one of the most renowned companies, i only could use resources likely from the internet, such as articles, reviews and also from my experience of using Huaweis convergence as well. There are limited resources of whereabouts of huawei to find, hence i tried my best to complete my PP scope to the best of my research. I hope my PP scope is sufficient in giving a brief and understanding to all of how and why Huawei is one of the world renowned telecommunication company. Summary Creating partnership with other company helps a company to be widely known in the industry. By having other organisation or company to be involved in the same activity, it creates a better reputation for the company. For example, Huawei has maintained several partnerships with few international companies that are world widely known. Such companies are, IT company (Hewlett Packard), Microsoft, telecommunication company (Motorola). This company are familiar to us, by creating partnership with international company helps Huawei to gain reputation and trust by people. Huawei cooperates with International Business Machine (IBM); the worlds few top company. This helps Huawei improved productivity rate and enhance devices such as software and hardware. Besides that, this also helps increase Huawei status in the telecommunication world. Huawei has a wide range of devices, up to date and reliable, this helps Huawei find more operators and telecom companies to cooperate with them. The latest device was the 4T4R operator convergence. It helps operator handle multi task at once, giving them much more convergence and thus handling situation efficiently. This new device launched in 2009, enable Huawei to be a better telecom provider to the global standings. Huawei also provides a better solution in any coverage problems, allowing customers to have a smooth interface between any changes of network convergence. In order to help troubleshoot and find solutions to network difficulties, Huawei researched on a solution and came up with a device called Backhaul OAM, this helps provide better solution in troubleshooting any problems found interfaced in the network of a particular IP. As more viruses are found in any transferred applications or uploads, devices also helps in reducing risks found such as viruses and software operations. Competitors : Huawei main competitors is Cisco. Cisco (another telecoms company) has been Huaweis competitor for quite a period of time. Cisco has made lots of complaint lodged against Huawei for trying to steal information and concepts of Cisco. This complain or court matter is being provided with an evidence of an CCTV camera which one of Huaweis employee is SWOT analysis Strength : Firstly, the feature that Huawei has that helps them to achieve their goal is by getting supply and technology from highly rated corporate companies. Therefore, this helps Huawei to obtain higher qualification and status. Secondly, the strength of Huawei is, they are able to get higher quality and up-to-date software and hardware to meet the consumer expectation. Having higher quality will improve the devices. As a consumer, personally, i preferred the up-to-date devices so that i able to progress with my work efficiently. For example, having the latest modem that increase the speed of my internet connection. Thirdly, Huawei management gives pressure to the employees. Giving pressure to the employees is strength to a company especially for company that has a large group of worker. Giving pressure able to maintain self-discipline and also self-motivation to help sustain the company reputation. For example, having mentor programs that help to guide new employees. New employees will feel that they are being observed by the mentor. Therefore, to continue working in the company they have to develop self-discipline and self-motivation. These give a standard procedure in the company so that new employees know what is expected of them. As a result, new employees are able to progress efficiently. Huawei Company in Bangladesh has shown massive improvement in developing its companys status and progression. With given pressure to employees, employees are able to work within target given. Although they started out small and weak, they persevere to attain the best and giving the best. They have positive attitude that strive them to achieve their goal. First they studied a good point of what a good human resource (HR) must have, and slowly studied and develop an HR of their own. Now complete with training and progression board. With this enthusiasm and spirit from employees, Huawei can achieve goals to great lengths with employees with dedication and perseverance like this worker from Huawei Bangladesh. Besides having positive attitude, Huawei Company in Bangladesh creates work culture. Work culture is an important tool so that the employees look forward to work. Examples of work culture is having salary on time and having classes for employees to upgrade their skills. Weaknesses : Huawei weaknesses have to fail to organise the structure of the company. Leading to having too many new employees which leads to high labour cost. For example, in a logistic department, the department able to progress with 50 employee. However, having more than the required number of employees will result in failure in the organisation structure. : Another weakness of Huawei Company is having more employee which results in new division or department to be formed. These cause disadvantages to the company as it affect the company progress. For example, employees produce slow rate of sales activity. Threat : Rumours are one of the threats that will affect the company reputation. Examples of rumours are scams, false information by ministers that foreign technology has the ability to stop network and possess security threat.For example, an article in India, officials and ministers are protesting of Huaweis development in India. The reason to the slight conflict and misunderstanding is the fear of more foreign workers or domination of Chinese employees then Indian employee. : Beside the rumours, another threat occurs between 1973 to 2005. There is ample percentage of Carbon Emission which then leads to global warming. This poses threat to Telecommunication Company. Huawei participated in a go green campaign since global warming effects due to networks have been releasing too much carbon emission. They came up with a few strategies such as geothermal cooling system, to reduce Carbon Emission, and help to keep an up use of network as well. Without such strategies, network accessibility wont be as to what we are using now e.g. network will be banned as they would cause global warming effects, as every network company has to stop its functions. It also allows consumers to use a global warming free connections which also allows customers and operators to have a high percentage of energy saving and network consumption as well .By participating in this campaign also it allows Huawei to be recognised as an Green telecommunication company, hence giving them an opportunity to attract more providers and customers. Opportunity : Huawei cooperates with few provider companies to get more profits and customers. Huawei aim is to commerce the use of WiMAX(Worldwide Microwave access of connection). This enables global access to internet connectivity and by using other operators company to further wide its WiMAX introduction. By doing this Huawei is able to get profits which will also help sustain its labour cost and other production costs as in manufacturing devices and development of devices. When this is achieved, Huawei is also able to increase productivity rate and employee recruitment, thus bringing Huaweis status to a new and higher level. Cross SWOT analysis Strength VS Opportunity With better resources and technology, Huawei will be able to support its growth and labour cost as they have a better chance in creating high- tech devices. With better convergence, the more corporate will want to merge and create more opportunity. Therefore, this strength of having a better resource able to support the opportunity of having more profits and customer. Strength VS Threat Although Huawei has good quality resources from highly renowned corporate, they still face threats such as, global warming. This is led by the carbon emission released by devices around the world. To have a greater technology, means more effects may take place. Example, greater volume of carbon emission released by high tech devices. Huawei could improve this situation by reducing pollutants caused by devices. Given, suppliers are better and top listed, rumours can easily be denied. Such as the accuse of India minister, saying that the foreign devices are infection and unreliable. Weaknesses VS Opportunity (Will the company weakness cause it to lose the opportunities? The company weaknesses able to affect the opportunities that the company are able to gain. Having failed to organise the structure, might loosen their chance of getting opportunity to improve the company reputation and getting more profits. Too many employees might slow down the progress of the work. If the company structure fail to be organise efficiently, it will lead to lose of potential employees than unpotential and inexperienced employees. When this happens, suppliers and cooperating corporate will lose faith and trust to Huawei and will then lead to the downfall of the company. Weaknesses VS Threat Having too many workers and also inexperienced workers will invite countless problems to any company which has these traits. In order for Huawei to solve threats such as high carbon emission, downfall of company, lack of resources and resignation of potential workers, they must first overcome their weakness, which is to efficient their HR and have only sufficient employees to reduce labour cost. Without the right concept, research on reducing Carbon Emission in the polluted air will lead to nothing. If Huawei has their potential and experienced employees resigned, all the inexperienced employers will not be able to handle problems sufficiently, with no support, and they will eventually make a mess of the situation. With the Carbon Emission around, though reduced, it will rise up again and eventually polluting our earth, only if Huawei is not able to maintain such research and advanced suppliers chain. And without a formed group of employees, the company will not stand a chance to sta bilise and improve their growth. Survey Questions and Response Diagram 1. Are you aware of the Huawei Company? Â  a) Yes b) No 2. If yes, where did you hear about the company? 3. Did you tend to trust company that has partnership with international companies more compared to company that has partnership with non international companies? Â  a) Yes b) No 4. Have you bought any of Huawei product? Â  a) Yes b) No 5. Are you aware of Huawei partnership with other telecommunication company? a) Yes b) No If yes, which company? Conclusion I learned valuable information and lessons of the many obstacle to overcome in order to achieve and be successful. I had done my best to complete my objectives of which is to analysis and to give others a better understanding of Huawei existence and the service they give. I had the S.W.O.T analysed and to get readers an easy understanding to their valuable points which had its own solutions. Giving that Huawei is a telecommunication company, they are not able to share their such information of the company to just to anyone. The reason which i could depict is because of the rivalry and other corporate that might be digging up information on their technologies and recent development. Given such status of secrecy, i am only able to have limited information and resources for my research. From my opinion, by subscribing Huaweis convergence, we could all help participate and help activist in reducing the effect of global warming.By doing so, we are giving ourselves and the earth to have the chance to heal, hence giving us a good place to be living in. Huawei could better expand its existence to public by having promotions on its products, good beneficial and cooperation By doing soo, many of those who are concerned with the Global warming effect, would prefer Huawei and Trust its service. Since more telecoms provider is taking Huawei as its convergence provider, Global Warming would have one less participants to its pact, the Carbon Emissions.

Dividend Payout Decision Making Process

Dividend Payout Decision Making Process CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background: Dividend policy is an important component of the corporate financial management policy. It is a policy used by the firm to decide as to how much cash it should reinvest in its business through expansion or share repurchases and how much to pay out to its shareholders in dividends. Dividend is a payment or return made by the firm to the shareholders, (owners of the company) out of its earnings in the form of cash. For a long time, the subject of corporate dividend policy has captivated the interests of many academicians and researchers, resulting in the emergence of a number of theoretical explanations for dividend policy. For the investors, dividend serve as an important indicator of the strength and future prosperity of the business, thereby companies try to maintain a stable dividend because if they reduce their dividend payments, investors may suspect that the company is facing a cash flow problem. Investors prefer steady growth of dividends every year and are reluctant to investm ent to companies with fluctuating dividend policy. Over time, there has been a substantial increase in the number of factors identified in the literature as being important to be considered in making dividend decisions. Thus, extensive studies have been done to find out various factors affecting dividend payout ratio of a firm. However, there is no single explanation that can capture the puzzling reality of corporate dividend behavior. Ocean deep judgment is involved by decision makers to resolve this issue of dividend behavior. The decision of companies to retain or pay out the earnings in form of dividends is important for the maximization of the value of the firm (Oyejide, 1976). Therefore, companies should set a constructive target dividend payout ratio, where it pays dividends to its shareholders and at the same time maintains sufficient retained earnings as to avoid having raise funds by borrowing money. A tough challenge was faced by financial practitioners and many academics, when Miller and Modigliani (MM) (1961) came with a proposition that, given perfect capital markets, the dividend decision does not affect the firm value and is, therefore, irrelevant. This proposition was greeted with surprise because at that time it was universally acknowledged by both theorists and corporate managers that the firm can enhance its business value by providing for a more generous dividend policy and that a properly managed dividend policy had an impact on share prices and shareholder wealth. Since the MM study, many researchers have relaxed the assumption of perfect capital markets and stated theories about how managers should formulate dividend policy decisions. Problem Statement: Dividend policy has attracted a substantial amount of research by many researchers and theorists, who have provided theoretical as well as empirical observations, into the dividend puzzle (Black, 1976). Even though researchers and theorists have extended their studies in context to dividend decisions, the issue as to why corporations distribute a portion of their earnings as dividends is not yet resolved. The issue of dividend policy has stimulated much debate among financial analysts since Lintners (1956) seminal work. He measured major changes in earnings as the key determinant of the companies dividend decisions. There are many factors that affect dividend decisions of a firm as it is very difficult to lay down an optimum dividend policy which would maximize the long-run wealth of the shareholders resulting into increase or decrease of the firms value, but the primary indicator of the firms capacity to pay dividends has been Profits. Miller and Modigliani (1961), DeAngelo and DeAngelo (2006) gave their proposition on the dividend irrelevance, but the argument made by them was on assumptions that werent practical and in fact, the dividend payout decision does affect the shareholders value. The study focuses on identifying various determinants of dividend payout and whether these factors influence the dividend payout decision. Research Objective: There are many theories in the corporate finance literature addressing the dividend issue. The purpose of study is to understand the factors influencing the dividend decision of companies. The specific objectives of this study are: To analyze the financials of the company, to draw a framework of factors such as Retained earnings, Age of the company, Debt to Equity, Cash, Net income, Earnings per share etc. responsible for dividend declaration. To understand the criticality of a companys profitability (in terms of Earnings per share) component in declaration of dividends. To measure each factor individually on how it affects the dividend decision. Research Questions: RQ1. What is the relation between dividend payout and firms debt? RQ2. What is the relation between dividend payout and Profitability? RQ3. What is the relation between dividend payout and liquidity? RQ4. What is the relation between dividend payout and Retained Earnings? RQ5. What is the relation between dividend payout and Net Income? Contribution of the Study: Dividend decision is an important financial decision made by firms, managers, and investors. This study aims to contribute to the corporate finance literature, by looking at the Dividend puzzle. An attempt is made to make a valuable contribution in two major ways: Theoretical and Empirical approach is taken to provide a comprehensive view on the subject. The empirical Approach taken in this study will definitely leave some promising future ideas. The empirical findings and conclusions contained in this study can be used by financial managers to inform dividend decisions. Limitations of Study: The areas of concern to investigate in this study are extensive. Due to the Time constraint and accessibility of data, the research will be limited to the following: The period of study is only three years 2006 to 2008. The research has considered only those firms who pay dividends. The study is focused only on firms trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Structure of the Paper: The remaining chapters will be organized as follows: Chapter Two: Literature Review This chapter discusses the different theories laid down in context to dividend policy and explains the relationship between dividend payout and its determinants as concluded by the study of different researchers and theorists. Chapter Three: Research Methodology This chapter explains the research hypothesis and gives a descriptive study of the techniques and the model used for data analysis. The application of the statistical tests used are explained thoroughly. Chapter four: Data Analysis and Findings To address the research questions, results obtained from the regression analysis will be evaluated and discussed in this chapter. Chapter five: Recommendations and Conclusion. This chapter Concludes the entire study and provides recommendations based on the findings and analysis done in the previous chapter and recommendations for future research. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Dividend remains one of the greatest enigmas of modern finance. Corporate dividend policy is an important decision area in the field of financial management hence there is an extensive literature devoted to the subject. Dividends are defined as the distribution of earnings (present or past) in real assets among the shareholders of the firm in proportion to their ownership. Dividend policy refers to managements long-term decision on how to utilize cash flows from business activities-that is, how much to plow back into the business, and how much to return to shareholders (Khan and Jain, 2005). Lintner (1956) conducted a notable study on dividend distributions, his was the first empirical study of dividend policy through his interview with managers of 28 selected companies, he stated that most companies have clear cut target payout ratios and that managers concern themselves with change in the existing dividend payout rather than the amount of the newly established payout. He also states that, Dividend policy is set first and other policies are then adjusted and the market reacts positively to dividend increase announcements and negatively to announcements of dividend decreases. He measured major changes in earnings as the key determinant of the companies dividend decisions. Lintners study was expanded by Farrelly et al. (1988), who, mailed a questionnaire to 562 firms listed on the New York Stock Exchange and concluded that managers accept dividend policy to be relevant and important. Lintners view was also supported by the study results of Fama and Babiak (1968) and Fama (1974) who suggested that managers prefer a stable dividend policy, and are hesitant to increase dividends to a level that cannot be supported. Fama and Babiaks (1968) study also concludes that Net income appears to explain the dividend change decision better than a cash flow measure. The study by Adaoglu (2000), Amidu and Abor (2006) and Belans et al (2007) stated that net income shows positive and significant association with the dividend payout, therefore indicating that, the firms with the positive earnings pay more dividends. Merton Miller and Franco Modigliani (1961) made a proposition that the value of a firm is not affected by its dividend policy. Dividend policy is a way of dividing up operating cash flows among investors or just a financial decision. Financial theorists Martin, Petty, Keown, and Scott, 1991 supported this theory of irrelevance. Miller and Modiglianis conclusion on the irrelevance of dividend policy presented a tough challenge to the conventional wisdom of time up to that point, it was universally acknowledged by both theorists and corporate managers that the firm can enhance its business value by providing for a more generous dividend policy as investors seem to prefer dividends over capital gains (JM Samuels, FM.Wilkes and R.E Brayshaw). Benartzi et al. (1997) conducted an extensive study and concluded that Lintners model of dividends remains the finest description of the dividend setting process available. Baker et al. (2001) conducted a survey on 630 NASDAQ-listed firms and analyzed the responses from 188 CFOs about the importance of 22 different factors that influence their dividend policy, they found that the dividend decisions made by managers were consistent with Lintners (1956) survey results and model. Their results also suggest that managers pay particular attention to the dividend policy of the firm because the dividend decision can affect firm value and, in turn, the wealth of stockholders, thus dividend policy requires serious attention by the management. E.F Fama and K.R French (2001) investigated the characteristics of companies paying dividends and concluded that the top most characteristics that affect the decision to pay dividends are Firm size, Profitability, and Investment opportunities. They studied dividend payment in the United States and found that the proportion of dividend payers declined sharply from 66% in 1978 to 20.8% in 1999, and that only about a fifth of public companies paid dividends. Growth companies such as Microsoft, Cisco and Sun Microsystems were found to be non-dividend payers. They also explained that the probability that a firm would pay dividends was positively related to profitability and size and negatively related to growth. Their research concluded that larger firms are more profitable and are more likely to pay dividends, than firms with more investment opportunities. The relationship between firm size and dividend policy was studied by Jennifer J. Gaver and Kenneth M. Gaver (1993). They suggested t hat A firms dividend yield is inversely related to the extent of its growth opportunities. The inference here is that as cash flow increases, the coefficient of dividend decreases, indicating that smaller firms that have greater investment opportunities thus they tend not to make dividend payment while larger firms tend to have proactive dividends policy. Ho, H. (2003) undertook a comparative study of dividend policies in Japan and Australia. Their study revealed that dividend policies in Australia and Japan are affected by different financial factors. Dividend policies are affected positively by size in Australia and liquidity in Japan. Naceur et al (2006) examined the dividend policy of 48 firms listed on the Tunisian Stock Exchange during the period 1996-2002. His research indicated that highly profitable firms with more stable earnings could afford larger free cash flows and thus paid larger dividends. Li and Lie (2006) reported that large and profitable firms are more likely to raise their dividends if the past dividend yield, debt ratio, cash ratio are low. A study was conducted by Norhayati Mohamed, Wee Shu Hui, Mormah Hj.Omar, and Rashidah Abdul Rahman on Malaysian companies over a 3 year period from 2003-2005. The sample was taken from the top 200 companies listed on the main board of Bursa Malaysia based on market capitaliza tion as at 31December 2005. Their study concluded that bigger firms pay higher dividends. For the purpose of finding out how companies arrive at their dividend decisions, many researchers and theorists have proposed several dividend theories. Gordon and Walter (1963) presented the Bird in Hand theory which suggested that to minimize risk the investors always prefer cash in hand rather than future promise of capital gain. This theory asserts that investors value dividends and high payout firms. As said by John D. Rockefeller (an American industrialist) The one thing that gives me contentment is to see my dividend coming in. For companies to communicate financial well-being and shareholder value the easiest way is to say the dividend check is in the mail. The bird-in-hand theory (a pre-Miller-Modigliani theory) asserts that dividends are valued differently to capital gains in a world of information asymmetry where due to uncertainty of future cash flow, investors will often tend to prefer dividends to retained earnings. As a result the value of the firm would be increased a s a higher payout ratio will reduce the required rate of return (see, for example Gordon, 1959). This argument has not received any strong empirical support. Dividends, paid by companies to shareholders from earnings, serve as an important indicator of the strength and future prosperity of the business. This explanation is known as signaling hypothesis. Signaling is an example factor for the relevance of dividends to the value of the firm. It is based on the idea of information asymmetry between managers and investors, where managers have private information about the firm that is not available to the outsiders. This theory is supported by models put forward by Miller and Rock (1985), Bhattacharya (1979), John and Williams (1985). They stated that dividends can be used as a signaling device to influence share price. The share price reacts favorably when an announcement of dividend increase is made. Few researchers found limited support for the signaling hypothesis (see Gonedes, 1978 , Watts, 1973) and there are other researchers, who supported the hypothesis, for example, in Michaely, Nissim and Ziv (2001), Pettit (1972) and Bali (2003). The tax-preference theory assumes that the market valuation of a firms stocks is increased when the dividend payout ratios is low which in turn lowers the required rate of return. Because of the relative tax liability of dividends compared to capital gains, investors need a large amount of before-tax risk adjusted return on stocks with higher dividend yields (Brennan, 1970). On one side studies by Lichtenberger and Ramaswamy (1979), Poterba and Summers, (1984), and Barclay (1987) have presented empirical evidence in support of the tax effect argument and on the other side Black and Scholes (1974), Miller and Scholes (1982), and Morgan and Thomas (1998) have either opposed such findings or provided completely different explanations. The study by Masulis and Trueman (1988) model dividend payments in form of cash as products of deferred dividend costs. Their model predicts that investors with differing tax liabilities will not be uniform in their ideal firm dividend policy. As the tax l iability on dividends increases (decreases), the dividend payment decreases (increases) while earnings reinvestment increases (decreases). According to Farrar and Selwyn (1967), in a partial equilibrium framework, individual investors choose the amount of personal and corporate leverage and also whether to receive corporate distributions as dividends or capital gains. Barclay (1987) has presented empirical evidence I support of the tax effect argument. Others, including Black and Scholes (1982), have opposed such findings or provided different explanations. Farrar and Selwyns model (1967) made an assumption that investors tend to increase their after tax income to the maximum. According to this model corporate earnings should be distributed by share repurchase rather than the use of dividends. Brennan (1970) has extended Farrar and Selwyns model into a general equilibrium framework. Under this, the expected usefulness of wealth as a system of barter is maximized. Despite being more robust both the models are similar as regards to their predictions. According to Auerbachs (1979) discrete-time, infinite-horizon model, the wealth of shareholders is maximized by the shareholders themselves and not by firm market value. If there does, infact, exist a difference between capital gains and dividends tax; firm market value maximization is no longer determined by wealth maximization. He states that the continued undervaluation of corporate capital leads to dividend distributions. The clientele effects hypothesis is another related theory. According to this theory the investors may be attracted to the types of stocks that fall in with their consumption/savings preferences. That is, investors (or clienteles) in high tax brackets may prefer non-dividend or low-dividend paying stocks if dividend income is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains. Also, certain clienteles may be created with the presence of transaction costs. There are several empirical studies on the clientele effects hypothesis but the findings are mixed. Studies by Pettit (1977), Scholz (1992), and Dhaliwal, Erickson and Trezevant (1999) presented evidence consistent with the existence of clientele effects hypothesis whereas studies by Lewellen et al. (1978), Richardson, Sefcik and Thomason (1986), Abrutyn and Turner (1990), found weak or contrary evidence. There is an assumption that the managers do not always take steps which would lead to maximizing an investors wealth. This gives rise to another favorable argument for hefty dividend payouts which shifts the reinvestment decision back on the owners. The main hitch would be the agency conflict (conflict between the principal and the agent) arising as a result of separate ownership and control. Therefore, a manager is expected to move the surplus funds from the high retained earnings into projects which are not feasible. This would be mainly due to his ill intention or his in competency. Thus, generous dividend payouts increase a firms value as it reduces the managements access to free cash flows and hence, controlling the problem of over investment. There are many more agency theories explaining how dividends can increase the value of a firm. One of them was by Easterbrook (1984); he proposed that dividend payments reduce agency problems in contrast to the transaction cost theory which is of the view that dividend payments reduce the value as it forces to raise costly finances from outside sources. His idea is that if the dividends are not paid, there is a problem of collective action that tends to lead to hap-hazard management of the firm. So, dividend payouts and raising external finance would attract auditory and regulatory measures by financial intermediaries like investment banks, respective stock exchange regulators and the potential investors as well. All this monitoring would lead to considerable reduction of agency costs and appreciate the market value of t he firm. Moreover, as defined by Jenson and Meckling (1976), Agency costs=monitoring costs+ bonding, costs+ residual loss i.e. sum of agency cost of equity and agency cost of debt. Hence, Easterbrook (1984) noted that dividend payments and raising new debt and its contract negotiations would reduce potential for wealth transfer. The realization for potential agency costs linked with separation of management and shareholders is not new. Adam Smith (1937) proposed that management of earlier companies is wayward. This problem was highly witnessed during at the time of British East Indian Companies and tracking managers was a failure due to inefficiencies and high costs of shareholder monitoring (Kindleberger, 1984). Scott (1912) and Carlos (1922) differ with this view point. They agree that although some fraud existed in the corporations, many of the activities of the managers were in line with those of the shareholders interests. An opportune and intelligent manager should always invest the surplus cash available into those opportunities which are well researched to be in the best interest of the shareholders. Berle and Means (1932) was the first to discover the insufficient utilization of funds which are surplus after other investment opportunities taken by the management. This thought was further promoted by Jensens (1986) free cash flow hypothesis. This hypothesis combined market information asymmetries with the agency theory. The surplus funds left after all the valuable projects are largely responsible for creation of the conflict of interest between the management and the shareholders. Payment of dividends and interest on other debt instruments reduce the cash flow with the management to invest in marginal net present value projects and for other perquisite consumptions. Therefore, the dividend theory is better explained by the combination of both the agency and the signaling theory rather than by any o ne of these alone. On the other hand, the free cash flow hypothesis rationalizes the corporate takeover frenzy of the 1980s Myers (1987 and 1990) rather than providing a clear and comprehensive dividend policy. The study by Baker et al. (2007) reports, that firms paying dividend in Canada are significantly larger and more profitable, having greater cash flows, ownership structure and some growth opportunities. The cash flow hypothesis proposes that insiders to a firm have more information about future cash flow than the outsiders, and they have incentivized motives to leak this to outsiders. Lang and Litzenberger (1989) check the cash flow signaling and free cash flow explanations of the effect of dividend declarations on the stock prices. This difference between permanent and temporary changes is also explored in Brook, Charlton, and Hendershott (1998). However, this study is based on the hypothesis that dividend changes contain cash flow information rather than information about earnings. This is the cash flow signaling hypothesis proposing that dividend changes signal expected cash flows changes. The dividend decisions are affected by a number of factors; many researchers have contributed in determining which determinant of dividend payout is the most significant in contributing to dividend decisions. It is said that the primary indicator of the firms capacity to pay dividends has been Profits. According to Lintner (1956) the dividend payment pattern of a firm is influenced by the current year earnings and previous year dividends. Pruitt and Gitmans (1991) survey of financial managers of 1000 largest U.S companies about the interplay among the investment and dividend decisions in their firms reported that, current and past year profits are essential factors influencing dividend payments. The conclusion derived from Baker and Powells (2000) survey of NYSE-listed firms is that the major determinant is the anticipated level of future earnings and continuity of past dividends. The study of Aivazian, Booth, and Cleary (2003) concludes that profitability and return on equity positi vely correlate with the size of the dividend payout ratio. The study by Lv Chang-jiang and Wang Ke-min (1999) on 316 listed companies in China that paid cash dividends during 1997 and 1998 by using modified Lintner dividend model, suggested that the dividend payout ratio is due to the firms current earning level. Other researchers like Chen Guo-Hui and Zhao Chun-guang (2000), Liu Shu-lian and Hu Yan-hong (2003) also concluded their research on the above stated understanding about dividend policy of listed companies in China. A survey done by Baker, Farrelly, and Edelman (1985) and Farrelly, Baker, and Edelman (1986) on 562 New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) firms with normal kinds of dividend polices in 1983 suggested that the major determinants of dividend payments were the anticipated level of future earnings and the pattern of past dividends. DeAngelo et al. (2004) findings suggest that earnings do have some impact on dividend payment. He stated that the high/increasing dividend concentration may be the result of high/increasing earnings concentration. Goergen et al. (2005) study on 221 German firms shows that net earnings were the key determinants of dividend changes. Baker and Smith (2006) examined 309 sample firms exhibiting behavior consistent with a residual dividend policy and their matched counterparts to understand how they set their dividend policies. Their study showed that for the matched firms, the pattern of past dividends and desire to maintain a long-term dividend payout ratio elicit the highest level of agreement from respondents. The study by Ferris et al. (2006) found mixed results for the relation between a firms earnings and its ability to pay dividends. Kao and Wu (1994) used a time series regression analysis of 454 firms over the period of 1965 to1986, and showed that there was a positive relationshi p between unexpected dividends and earnings. Carroll (1995) used quarterly data of 854 firms over the period of 1975 to 1984, and examined whether quarterly dividend changes predicted future earnings. He found a significant positive relationship. Liquidity is also an important determinant of dividend payouts. A poor liquidity position would generate fewer dividends due to shortage of cash. Alli et.al (1993), reveal that dividend payments depend more on cash flows, which reflect the companys ability to pay dividends, than on current earnings, which are less heavily influenced by accounting practices. They claim current earnings do no really reflect the firms ability to pay dividends. A firm without the cash flow back up cannot choose to have a high dividend payout as it will ultimately have to either reduce its investment plans or turn to investors for additional debt. The study by Brook, Charlton and Hendershott (1998) states that, Firms expecting large permanent cash flow increases tend to increase their dividend. Managers do not increase dividends until they are positive that sufficient cash will flow in to pay them (Brealey-Myers-2002). Myers and Bacons (2001) study shows a negative relationship between the liquid ratio and dividend payout. For companies to enable them to enhance their dividend paying capacity, and thus, to generate higher dividend paying capacity, it is necessary to retain their earnings to finance investment in fixed assets. The study by Belans et al (2007) states that the relationship between the firms liquidity and dividend is positive which explains that firms with more market liquidity pay more dividends. Reddy (2006), Amidu and Abor (2006) find opposite evidence. Lintner (1956) posited that the level of retained earnings is a dividend decision by- product. Adaoglu (2000) study shows that the firms listed on Istanbul Stock Exchange follow unstable cash dividend policy and the main factor for determining the amount of dividend is earning of the firms. The same conclusion was drawn by Omet (2004) in case of firms listed on Amman Securities Market and he further states that the tax imposition on dividend does not have the significant impact on the dividend behavior of the listed firms. The study by Mick and Bacon (2003) concludes that future earnings are the most influential variable and that the past dividend patterns as well as current and expected levels are empirically relevant in explaining the dividend decision. Empirical support for Lintners findings, that dividends were indeed a function of current and past profit levels and were negatively correlated with the change in sales was found by Darling (1957), Fama and Babiak (1968). Benchman a nd Raaballe (2007) discovered that the propensity to pay out dividends is positively correlated to retained earnings. Also, the study by Denis and Osobov (2006) states that retained earnings are a significant dividend characteristic for non- US firms including UK, German, and French firms. One of the motives for dividend policy decision is maintaining a moderate share price as poor stock price performance mostly conveys negative information about firms reputation. An empirical research took by Zhao Chun-guang and Zhang Xue-li et al (2001) on all A shares listed companies listed in Shenzhen and Shanghai Stock Exchange, states that the more cash dividends is paid when the stock prices are high. Chen Guo-Hui and Zhao Chun-guang (2000) undertook a research on all A shares listed before 1996 and paid dividend into share capital in 1997 as their sampling, and employed single-factor analysis, multifactor regression analysis to analyze the data. Their research showed a positive stock price reaction to the cash dividend, stock dividend policy. Myers and Bacon (2001) discussed that the debt to equity ratio was positively correlated to the dividend yield. Therefore firms with relatively more investment opportunities would tend to be more geared and vice versa (Ross, 2000). The study by Hu and Liu, (2005) declares that there is a positive correlation between the cash dividend the companies pay and their current earnings, and a inverse relationship between the debt to total assets and dividends. Green et al. (1993) questioned the irrelevance argument and investigated the relationship between the dividends and investment and financing decisions. Their study showed that dividend payout levels are decided along with investment and financing decisions. The study results however do not support the views of Miller and Modigliani (1961). Partington (1983) declared that firms motives for paying dividends and extent to which dividends are decided are independent of investment policy. The study by Higgins (1981) declares a direct link between growths and financing needs, rapidly growing firms have external financing needs because working capital needs normally exceed the incremental cash flows from new sales. Higgins (1972) suggests that payout ratios are negatively related to firms need top fund finance growth opportunities. Other researchers like Rozeff (1982), Lloyd et al. (1985) and Collins et al. (1996) all show significantly negative relationship between historical sales growth and dividend payout whereas D, Souza (1999) however shows a positive but insignificant relationship in the case of growth and negative but insignificant relationship in case of market to book value. Jenson and Meckling (1976) find a strong relationship between dividends and investment opportunities. They explain, in some circumstances where firms have relative uptight disposable Dividend Payout Decision Making Process Dividend Payout Decision Making Process CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background: Dividend policy is an important component of the corporate financial management policy. It is a policy used by the firm to decide as to how much cash it should reinvest in its business through expansion or share repurchases and how much to pay out to its shareholders in dividends. Dividend is a payment or return made by the firm to the shareholders, (owners of the company) out of its earnings in the form of cash. For a long time, the subject of corporate dividend policy has captivated the interests of many academicians and researchers, resulting in the emergence of a number of theoretical explanations for dividend policy. For the investors, dividend serve as an important indicator of the strength and future prosperity of the business, thereby companies try to maintain a stable dividend because if they reduce their dividend payments, investors may suspect that the company is facing a cash flow problem. Investors prefer steady growth of dividends every year and are reluctant to investm ent to companies with fluctuating dividend policy. Over time, there has been a substantial increase in the number of factors identified in the literature as being important to be considered in making dividend decisions. Thus, extensive studies have been done to find out various factors affecting dividend payout ratio of a firm. However, there is no single explanation that can capture the puzzling reality of corporate dividend behavior. Ocean deep judgment is involved by decision makers to resolve this issue of dividend behavior. The decision of companies to retain or pay out the earnings in form of dividends is important for the maximization of the value of the firm (Oyejide, 1976). Therefore, companies should set a constructive target dividend payout ratio, where it pays dividends to its shareholders and at the same time maintains sufficient retained earnings as to avoid having raise funds by borrowing money. A tough challenge was faced by financial practitioners and many academics, when Miller and Modigliani (MM) (1961) came with a proposition that, given perfect capital markets, the dividend decision does not affect the firm value and is, therefore, irrelevant. This proposition was greeted with surprise because at that time it was universally acknowledged by both theorists and corporate managers that the firm can enhance its business value by providing for a more generous dividend policy and that a properly managed dividend policy had an impact on share prices and shareholder wealth. Since the MM study, many researchers have relaxed the assumption of perfect capital markets and stated theories about how managers should formulate dividend policy decisions. Problem Statement: Dividend policy has attracted a substantial amount of research by many researchers and theorists, who have provided theoretical as well as empirical observations, into the dividend puzzle (Black, 1976). Even though researchers and theorists have extended their studies in context to dividend decisions, the issue as to why corporations distribute a portion of their earnings as dividends is not yet resolved. The issue of dividend policy has stimulated much debate among financial analysts since Lintners (1956) seminal work. He measured major changes in earnings as the key determinant of the companies dividend decisions. There are many factors that affect dividend decisions of a firm as it is very difficult to lay down an optimum dividend policy which would maximize the long-run wealth of the shareholders resulting into increase or decrease of the firms value, but the primary indicator of the firms capacity to pay dividends has been Profits. Miller and Modigliani (1961), DeAngelo and DeAngelo (2006) gave their proposition on the dividend irrelevance, but the argument made by them was on assumptions that werent practical and in fact, the dividend payout decision does affect the shareholders value. The study focuses on identifying various determinants of dividend payout and whether these factors influence the dividend payout decision. Research Objective: There are many theories in the corporate finance literature addressing the dividend issue. The purpose of study is to understand the factors influencing the dividend decision of companies. The specific objectives of this study are: To analyze the financials of the company, to draw a framework of factors such as Retained earnings, Age of the company, Debt to Equity, Cash, Net income, Earnings per share etc. responsible for dividend declaration. To understand the criticality of a companys profitability (in terms of Earnings per share) component in declaration of dividends. To measure each factor individually on how it affects the dividend decision. Research Questions: RQ1. What is the relation between dividend payout and firms debt? RQ2. What is the relation between dividend payout and Profitability? RQ3. What is the relation between dividend payout and liquidity? RQ4. What is the relation between dividend payout and Retained Earnings? RQ5. What is the relation between dividend payout and Net Income? Contribution of the Study: Dividend decision is an important financial decision made by firms, managers, and investors. This study aims to contribute to the corporate finance literature, by looking at the Dividend puzzle. An attempt is made to make a valuable contribution in two major ways: Theoretical and Empirical approach is taken to provide a comprehensive view on the subject. The empirical Approach taken in this study will definitely leave some promising future ideas. The empirical findings and conclusions contained in this study can be used by financial managers to inform dividend decisions. Limitations of Study: The areas of concern to investigate in this study are extensive. Due to the Time constraint and accessibility of data, the research will be limited to the following: The period of study is only three years 2006 to 2008. The research has considered only those firms who pay dividends. The study is focused only on firms trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Structure of the Paper: The remaining chapters will be organized as follows: Chapter Two: Literature Review This chapter discusses the different theories laid down in context to dividend policy and explains the relationship between dividend payout and its determinants as concluded by the study of different researchers and theorists. Chapter Three: Research Methodology This chapter explains the research hypothesis and gives a descriptive study of the techniques and the model used for data analysis. The application of the statistical tests used are explained thoroughly. Chapter four: Data Analysis and Findings To address the research questions, results obtained from the regression analysis will be evaluated and discussed in this chapter. Chapter five: Recommendations and Conclusion. This chapter Concludes the entire study and provides recommendations based on the findings and analysis done in the previous chapter and recommendations for future research. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Dividend remains one of the greatest enigmas of modern finance. Corporate dividend policy is an important decision area in the field of financial management hence there is an extensive literature devoted to the subject. Dividends are defined as the distribution of earnings (present or past) in real assets among the shareholders of the firm in proportion to their ownership. Dividend policy refers to managements long-term decision on how to utilize cash flows from business activities-that is, how much to plow back into the business, and how much to return to shareholders (Khan and Jain, 2005). Lintner (1956) conducted a notable study on dividend distributions, his was the first empirical study of dividend policy through his interview with managers of 28 selected companies, he stated that most companies have clear cut target payout ratios and that managers concern themselves with change in the existing dividend payout rather than the amount of the newly established payout. He also states that, Dividend policy is set first and other policies are then adjusted and the market reacts positively to dividend increase announcements and negatively to announcements of dividend decreases. He measured major changes in earnings as the key determinant of the companies dividend decisions. Lintners study was expanded by Farrelly et al. (1988), who, mailed a questionnaire to 562 firms listed on the New York Stock Exchange and concluded that managers accept dividend policy to be relevant and important. Lintners view was also supported by the study results of Fama and Babiak (1968) and Fama (1974) who suggested that managers prefer a stable dividend policy, and are hesitant to increase dividends to a level that cannot be supported. Fama and Babiaks (1968) study also concludes that Net income appears to explain the dividend change decision better than a cash flow measure. The study by Adaoglu (2000), Amidu and Abor (2006) and Belans et al (2007) stated that net income shows positive and significant association with the dividend payout, therefore indicating that, the firms with the positive earnings pay more dividends. Merton Miller and Franco Modigliani (1961) made a proposition that the value of a firm is not affected by its dividend policy. Dividend policy is a way of dividing up operating cash flows among investors or just a financial decision. Financial theorists Martin, Petty, Keown, and Scott, 1991 supported this theory of irrelevance. Miller and Modiglianis conclusion on the irrelevance of dividend policy presented a tough challenge to the conventional wisdom of time up to that point, it was universally acknowledged by both theorists and corporate managers that the firm can enhance its business value by providing for a more generous dividend policy as investors seem to prefer dividends over capital gains (JM Samuels, FM.Wilkes and R.E Brayshaw). Benartzi et al. (1997) conducted an extensive study and concluded that Lintners model of dividends remains the finest description of the dividend setting process available. Baker et al. (2001) conducted a survey on 630 NASDAQ-listed firms and analyzed the responses from 188 CFOs about the importance of 22 different factors that influence their dividend policy, they found that the dividend decisions made by managers were consistent with Lintners (1956) survey results and model. Their results also suggest that managers pay particular attention to the dividend policy of the firm because the dividend decision can affect firm value and, in turn, the wealth of stockholders, thus dividend policy requires serious attention by the management. E.F Fama and K.R French (2001) investigated the characteristics of companies paying dividends and concluded that the top most characteristics that affect the decision to pay dividends are Firm size, Profitability, and Investment opportunities. They studied dividend payment in the United States and found that the proportion of dividend payers declined sharply from 66% in 1978 to 20.8% in 1999, and that only about a fifth of public companies paid dividends. Growth companies such as Microsoft, Cisco and Sun Microsystems were found to be non-dividend payers. They also explained that the probability that a firm would pay dividends was positively related to profitability and size and negatively related to growth. Their research concluded that larger firms are more profitable and are more likely to pay dividends, than firms with more investment opportunities. The relationship between firm size and dividend policy was studied by Jennifer J. Gaver and Kenneth M. Gaver (1993). They suggested t hat A firms dividend yield is inversely related to the extent of its growth opportunities. The inference here is that as cash flow increases, the coefficient of dividend decreases, indicating that smaller firms that have greater investment opportunities thus they tend not to make dividend payment while larger firms tend to have proactive dividends policy. Ho, H. (2003) undertook a comparative study of dividend policies in Japan and Australia. Their study revealed that dividend policies in Australia and Japan are affected by different financial factors. Dividend policies are affected positively by size in Australia and liquidity in Japan. Naceur et al (2006) examined the dividend policy of 48 firms listed on the Tunisian Stock Exchange during the period 1996-2002. His research indicated that highly profitable firms with more stable earnings could afford larger free cash flows and thus paid larger dividends. Li and Lie (2006) reported that large and profitable firms are more likely to raise their dividends if the past dividend yield, debt ratio, cash ratio are low. A study was conducted by Norhayati Mohamed, Wee Shu Hui, Mormah Hj.Omar, and Rashidah Abdul Rahman on Malaysian companies over a 3 year period from 2003-2005. The sample was taken from the top 200 companies listed on the main board of Bursa Malaysia based on market capitaliza tion as at 31December 2005. Their study concluded that bigger firms pay higher dividends. For the purpose of finding out how companies arrive at their dividend decisions, many researchers and theorists have proposed several dividend theories. Gordon and Walter (1963) presented the Bird in Hand theory which suggested that to minimize risk the investors always prefer cash in hand rather than future promise of capital gain. This theory asserts that investors value dividends and high payout firms. As said by John D. Rockefeller (an American industrialist) The one thing that gives me contentment is to see my dividend coming in. For companies to communicate financial well-being and shareholder value the easiest way is to say the dividend check is in the mail. The bird-in-hand theory (a pre-Miller-Modigliani theory) asserts that dividends are valued differently to capital gains in a world of information asymmetry where due to uncertainty of future cash flow, investors will often tend to prefer dividends to retained earnings. As a result the value of the firm would be increased a s a higher payout ratio will reduce the required rate of return (see, for example Gordon, 1959). This argument has not received any strong empirical support. Dividends, paid by companies to shareholders from earnings, serve as an important indicator of the strength and future prosperity of the business. This explanation is known as signaling hypothesis. Signaling is an example factor for the relevance of dividends to the value of the firm. It is based on the idea of information asymmetry between managers and investors, where managers have private information about the firm that is not available to the outsiders. This theory is supported by models put forward by Miller and Rock (1985), Bhattacharya (1979), John and Williams (1985). They stated that dividends can be used as a signaling device to influence share price. The share price reacts favorably when an announcement of dividend increase is made. Few researchers found limited support for the signaling hypothesis (see Gonedes, 1978 , Watts, 1973) and there are other researchers, who supported the hypothesis, for example, in Michaely, Nissim and Ziv (2001), Pettit (1972) and Bali (2003). The tax-preference theory assumes that the market valuation of a firms stocks is increased when the dividend payout ratios is low which in turn lowers the required rate of return. Because of the relative tax liability of dividends compared to capital gains, investors need a large amount of before-tax risk adjusted return on stocks with higher dividend yields (Brennan, 1970). On one side studies by Lichtenberger and Ramaswamy (1979), Poterba and Summers, (1984), and Barclay (1987) have presented empirical evidence in support of the tax effect argument and on the other side Black and Scholes (1974), Miller and Scholes (1982), and Morgan and Thomas (1998) have either opposed such findings or provided completely different explanations. The study by Masulis and Trueman (1988) model dividend payments in form of cash as products of deferred dividend costs. Their model predicts that investors with differing tax liabilities will not be uniform in their ideal firm dividend policy. As the tax l iability on dividends increases (decreases), the dividend payment decreases (increases) while earnings reinvestment increases (decreases). According to Farrar and Selwyn (1967), in a partial equilibrium framework, individual investors choose the amount of personal and corporate leverage and also whether to receive corporate distributions as dividends or capital gains. Barclay (1987) has presented empirical evidence I support of the tax effect argument. Others, including Black and Scholes (1982), have opposed such findings or provided different explanations. Farrar and Selwyns model (1967) made an assumption that investors tend to increase their after tax income to the maximum. According to this model corporate earnings should be distributed by share repurchase rather than the use of dividends. Brennan (1970) has extended Farrar and Selwyns model into a general equilibrium framework. Under this, the expected usefulness of wealth as a system of barter is maximized. Despite being more robust both the models are similar as regards to their predictions. According to Auerbachs (1979) discrete-time, infinite-horizon model, the wealth of shareholders is maximized by the shareholders themselves and not by firm market value. If there does, infact, exist a difference between capital gains and dividends tax; firm market value maximization is no longer determined by wealth maximization. He states that the continued undervaluation of corporate capital leads to dividend distributions. The clientele effects hypothesis is another related theory. According to this theory the investors may be attracted to the types of stocks that fall in with their consumption/savings preferences. That is, investors (or clienteles) in high tax brackets may prefer non-dividend or low-dividend paying stocks if dividend income is taxed at a higher rate than capital gains. Also, certain clienteles may be created with the presence of transaction costs. There are several empirical studies on the clientele effects hypothesis but the findings are mixed. Studies by Pettit (1977), Scholz (1992), and Dhaliwal, Erickson and Trezevant (1999) presented evidence consistent with the existence of clientele effects hypothesis whereas studies by Lewellen et al. (1978), Richardson, Sefcik and Thomason (1986), Abrutyn and Turner (1990), found weak or contrary evidence. There is an assumption that the managers do not always take steps which would lead to maximizing an investors wealth. This gives rise to another favorable argument for hefty dividend payouts which shifts the reinvestment decision back on the owners. The main hitch would be the agency conflict (conflict between the principal and the agent) arising as a result of separate ownership and control. Therefore, a manager is expected to move the surplus funds from the high retained earnings into projects which are not feasible. This would be mainly due to his ill intention or his in competency. Thus, generous dividend payouts increase a firms value as it reduces the managements access to free cash flows and hence, controlling the problem of over investment. There are many more agency theories explaining how dividends can increase the value of a firm. One of them was by Easterbrook (1984); he proposed that dividend payments reduce agency problems in contrast to the transaction cost theory which is of the view that dividend payments reduce the value as it forces to raise costly finances from outside sources. His idea is that if the dividends are not paid, there is a problem of collective action that tends to lead to hap-hazard management of the firm. So, dividend payouts and raising external finance would attract auditory and regulatory measures by financial intermediaries like investment banks, respective stock exchange regulators and the potential investors as well. All this monitoring would lead to considerable reduction of agency costs and appreciate the market value of t he firm. Moreover, as defined by Jenson and Meckling (1976), Agency costs=monitoring costs+ bonding, costs+ residual loss i.e. sum of agency cost of equity and agency cost of debt. Hence, Easterbrook (1984) noted that dividend payments and raising new debt and its contract negotiations would reduce potential for wealth transfer. The realization for potential agency costs linked with separation of management and shareholders is not new. Adam Smith (1937) proposed that management of earlier companies is wayward. This problem was highly witnessed during at the time of British East Indian Companies and tracking managers was a failure due to inefficiencies and high costs of shareholder monitoring (Kindleberger, 1984). Scott (1912) and Carlos (1922) differ with this view point. They agree that although some fraud existed in the corporations, many of the activities of the managers were in line with those of the shareholders interests. An opportune and intelligent manager should always invest the surplus cash available into those opportunities which are well researched to be in the best interest of the shareholders. Berle and Means (1932) was the first to discover the insufficient utilization of funds which are surplus after other investment opportunities taken by the management. This thought was further promoted by Jensens (1986) free cash flow hypothesis. This hypothesis combined market information asymmetries with the agency theory. The surplus funds left after all the valuable projects are largely responsible for creation of the conflict of interest between the management and the shareholders. Payment of dividends and interest on other debt instruments reduce the cash flow with the management to invest in marginal net present value projects and for other perquisite consumptions. Therefore, the dividend theory is better explained by the combination of both the agency and the signaling theory rather than by any o ne of these alone. On the other hand, the free cash flow hypothesis rationalizes the corporate takeover frenzy of the 1980s Myers (1987 and 1990) rather than providing a clear and comprehensive dividend policy. The study by Baker et al. (2007) reports, that firms paying dividend in Canada are significantly larger and more profitable, having greater cash flows, ownership structure and some growth opportunities. The cash flow hypothesis proposes that insiders to a firm have more information about future cash flow than the outsiders, and they have incentivized motives to leak this to outsiders. Lang and Litzenberger (1989) check the cash flow signaling and free cash flow explanations of the effect of dividend declarations on the stock prices. This difference between permanent and temporary changes is also explored in Brook, Charlton, and Hendershott (1998). However, this study is based on the hypothesis that dividend changes contain cash flow information rather than information about earnings. This is the cash flow signaling hypothesis proposing that dividend changes signal expected cash flows changes. The dividend decisions are affected by a number of factors; many researchers have contributed in determining which determinant of dividend payout is the most significant in contributing to dividend decisions. It is said that the primary indicator of the firms capacity to pay dividends has been Profits. According to Lintner (1956) the dividend payment pattern of a firm is influenced by the current year earnings and previous year dividends. Pruitt and Gitmans (1991) survey of financial managers of 1000 largest U.S companies about the interplay among the investment and dividend decisions in their firms reported that, current and past year profits are essential factors influencing dividend payments. The conclusion derived from Baker and Powells (2000) survey of NYSE-listed firms is that the major determinant is the anticipated level of future earnings and continuity of past dividends. The study of Aivazian, Booth, and Cleary (2003) concludes that profitability and return on equity positi vely correlate with the size of the dividend payout ratio. The study by Lv Chang-jiang and Wang Ke-min (1999) on 316 listed companies in China that paid cash dividends during 1997 and 1998 by using modified Lintner dividend model, suggested that the dividend payout ratio is due to the firms current earning level. Other researchers like Chen Guo-Hui and Zhao Chun-guang (2000), Liu Shu-lian and Hu Yan-hong (2003) also concluded their research on the above stated understanding about dividend policy of listed companies in China. A survey done by Baker, Farrelly, and Edelman (1985) and Farrelly, Baker, and Edelman (1986) on 562 New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) firms with normal kinds of dividend polices in 1983 suggested that the major determinants of dividend payments were the anticipated level of future earnings and the pattern of past dividends. DeAngelo et al. (2004) findings suggest that earnings do have some impact on dividend payment. He stated that the high/increasing dividend concentration may be the result of high/increasing earnings concentration. Goergen et al. (2005) study on 221 German firms shows that net earnings were the key determinants of dividend changes. Baker and Smith (2006) examined 309 sample firms exhibiting behavior consistent with a residual dividend policy and their matched counterparts to understand how they set their dividend policies. Their study showed that for the matched firms, the pattern of past dividends and desire to maintain a long-term dividend payout ratio elicit the highest level of agreement from respondents. The study by Ferris et al. (2006) found mixed results for the relation between a firms earnings and its ability to pay dividends. Kao and Wu (1994) used a time series regression analysis of 454 firms over the period of 1965 to1986, and showed that there was a positive relationshi p between unexpected dividends and earnings. Carroll (1995) used quarterly data of 854 firms over the period of 1975 to 1984, and examined whether quarterly dividend changes predicted future earnings. He found a significant positive relationship. Liquidity is also an important determinant of dividend payouts. A poor liquidity position would generate fewer dividends due to shortage of cash. Alli et.al (1993), reveal that dividend payments depend more on cash flows, which reflect the companys ability to pay dividends, than on current earnings, which are less heavily influenced by accounting practices. They claim current earnings do no really reflect the firms ability to pay dividends. A firm without the cash flow back up cannot choose to have a high dividend payout as it will ultimately have to either reduce its investment plans or turn to investors for additional debt. The study by Brook, Charlton and Hendershott (1998) states that, Firms expecting large permanent cash flow increases tend to increase their dividend. Managers do not increase dividends until they are positive that sufficient cash will flow in to pay them (Brealey-Myers-2002). Myers and Bacons (2001) study shows a negative relationship between the liquid ratio and dividend payout. For companies to enable them to enhance their dividend paying capacity, and thus, to generate higher dividend paying capacity, it is necessary to retain their earnings to finance investment in fixed assets. The study by Belans et al (2007) states that the relationship between the firms liquidity and dividend is positive which explains that firms with more market liquidity pay more dividends. Reddy (2006), Amidu and Abor (2006) find opposite evidence. Lintner (1956) posited that the level of retained earnings is a dividend decision by- product. Adaoglu (2000) study shows that the firms listed on Istanbul Stock Exchange follow unstable cash dividend policy and the main factor for determining the amount of dividend is earning of the firms. The same conclusion was drawn by Omet (2004) in case of firms listed on Amman Securities Market and he further states that the tax imposition on dividend does not have the significant impact on the dividend behavior of the listed firms. The study by Mick and Bacon (2003) concludes that future earnings are the most influential variable and that the past dividend patterns as well as current and expected levels are empirically relevant in explaining the dividend decision. Empirical support for Lintners findings, that dividends were indeed a function of current and past profit levels and were negatively correlated with the change in sales was found by Darling (1957), Fama and Babiak (1968). Benchman a nd Raaballe (2007) discovered that the propensity to pay out dividends is positively correlated to retained earnings. Also, the study by Denis and Osobov (2006) states that retained earnings are a significant dividend characteristic for non- US firms including UK, German, and French firms. One of the motives for dividend policy decision is maintaining a moderate share price as poor stock price performance mostly conveys negative information about firms reputation. An empirical research took by Zhao Chun-guang and Zhang Xue-li et al (2001) on all A shares listed companies listed in Shenzhen and Shanghai Stock Exchange, states that the more cash dividends is paid when the stock prices are high. Chen Guo-Hui and Zhao Chun-guang (2000) undertook a research on all A shares listed before 1996 and paid dividend into share capital in 1997 as their sampling, and employed single-factor analysis, multifactor regression analysis to analyze the data. Their research showed a positive stock price reaction to the cash dividend, stock dividend policy. Myers and Bacon (2001) discussed that the debt to equity ratio was positively correlated to the dividend yield. Therefore firms with relatively more investment opportunities would tend to be more geared and vice versa (Ross, 2000). The study by Hu and Liu, (2005) declares that there is a positive correlation between the cash dividend the companies pay and their current earnings, and a inverse relationship between the debt to total assets and dividends. Green et al. (1993) questioned the irrelevance argument and investigated the relationship between the dividends and investment and financing decisions. Their study showed that dividend payout levels are decided along with investment and financing decisions. The study results however do not support the views of Miller and Modigliani (1961). Partington (1983) declared that firms motives for paying dividends and extent to which dividends are decided are independent of investment policy. The study by Higgins (1981) declares a direct link between growths and financing needs, rapidly growing firms have external financing needs because working capital needs normally exceed the incremental cash flows from new sales. Higgins (1972) suggests that payout ratios are negatively related to firms need top fund finance growth opportunities. Other researchers like Rozeff (1982), Lloyd et al. (1985) and Collins et al. (1996) all show significantly negative relationship between historical sales growth and dividend payout whereas D, Souza (1999) however shows a positive but insignificant relationship in the case of growth and negative but insignificant relationship in case of market to book value. Jenson and Meckling (1976) find a strong relationship between dividends and investment opportunities. They explain, in some circumstances where firms have relative uptight disposable

A GROSS FORM OF DELIGHTFUL SATIRE Essays -- essays papers

A GROSS FORM OF DELIGHTFUL SATIRE "The stoical scheme of supplying our wants by lopping off our desires, is like cutting off our feet when we want shoes." -Jonathan Swift "We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love on another." -Jonathan Swift Like all true satirists, Swift was predominantly a moralist, one who chastises the vices and follies of humankind in the name of virtue and common sense. Throughout his writing, Swift constantly raised the question of whether the achievements of civilization-its advancing technology, its institutions, its refinement of manners-cannot be seen as complex forms of barbarism. With this theme in mind, Swift wrote some of his best works: A Modest Proposal, Gulliver’s Travels, and A Tale of a Tub. Although he is mastery at prose, he is also known for his poetry. It can be said that the subjects within his writings could be taken from his religious belief in the non-perfection of man. Swift believed that human reason was necessary to divine guidance. According to Herbert Read, Swift was the first poet who dared to describe nature as it is with all its deformities, and to give exact expression to a turn of thought no matter the subject. And because his life was one long mutiny- mutiny against darkness of fate, the injustice of men, the indignity of our bodily functions-his work is one long scrutiny into dark depths. Therefore, he attacks the idealistic idea of feminine beauty by ironically drawing attention to the female body’s excretory functions. Unfortunately, Swift emphasizes women, despite his deep love and friendship for individual women, as a symbol of man’s bestiality. He victimizes women by his own secret over-idealization of her. This is seen in his poems, The Lady’s Dressing-Room, Strephon and Chloe, and A Beautiful Young Nymph Going to Bed. Swift becomes obsessed by the morbidly physical. The gap between spirit and flesh cannot bridge, for flesh has become uncleansable to him. With Swift being seen by Robert Ellis--quoted by Herbert Read-as having neurasthenia, anything that comes regularly and in routine is liable to become intolerable, it is easier to understand some of his writings. This idea gained him much ridicule from critics because thinkers of his day stressed the essential goodness and rationality of humans. Swift, certainly, shares this i... ...od which he was writing and the subjects that were generally written about. Because his descriptions are so detailed, and the imagery is so deep, Jonathan Swift proves himself as a writer to be studied and admired. Bibliography: WORKS CITED Brown, Laura. â€Å"Reading Race and Gender: Jonathan Swift.† Critical Essays on Jonathan Swift. Ed. Frank Palmeri. New York: G.K. Hall & Co, 1993. 122. Davis, Herbert. â€Å"Swift’s View of Poetry.† Poetry Criticism. Ed. Drew Kalasky. Vol. 9. Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1994. 259 Donoghue, Denis, Ed. Jonathan Swift. Australia: Penguin Books, 1971. 307. Huxley, Aldous. â€Å"Do What You Will.† London: Chatto & Windus, 1956. Johnson, Maurice. â€Å"The Sin of Wit: Jonathan Swift as a Poet.† Literature Criticism from 1400 to 1800. Ed. Dennis Poupard. Vol. 1. New Jersey: Gale Research Company, 1984. 502. Read, Herbert. â€Å"The Poems of Swift.† Literature Criticism from 1400 to 1800. Ed. Dennis Poupard. Vol. 1. New Jersey: Gale Research Company, 1984. 453. Watkins, W.B.C. â€Å"Absent Thee from Felicity.† Literature Criticism from 1400 to 1800. Ed. Dennis Poupard. Vol. 1. New Jersey: Gale Research Company, 1984. 461.

Sir Thomas More :: essays research papers

I.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Just think, if you were a woman you would only make seventy five cents an hour when men would make one dollar. This is one of the conflicts that Thomas more fixed or changed for the benefit of all people. Thomas More did many things in his life he wrote a book called Utopia which was about a perfect world where everybody was treated equal, he was a law student, priest, and eventually he was named a saint. II.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Thomas More was born in London in 1477. His parents were Sir John More, a great lawyer and later judge, and his mother was Agnes Giraunger. He later married Jane Colte in 1504, it was a happy marriage, and they had four children Margaret, Elizabeth, Cecilia, and John; before Janes death in 1511. III.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  He was a very educated man. He entered Parliament in 1504, one of his first acts in public life was to speak against one of Henry VII,s financial policies. As a result his father was imprisoned but released after a hefty fine was paid and Thomas retired from public life. Thomas went to school at St. Anthony’s School at Threadneedle St, and entered as a law student at Oxford University. When he was young he was sent to the household of Cardinal Morton, where he learned the blend of political and religious life. IV.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  He was a very bright student, enthusiastic about learning but also accustomed to basic pleasures. He loved to play on his flute and violin. Like Most college students More was short of cash so sometimes he would even perform for a crowd of people just to make a little cash. He also loved having pets around the house it is said that his home was a veritable zoo. V.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Sir Thomas More had many careers, he was an author, a statesman, a scholar, and a priest. He served as lord chancellor, the highest judicial official in England, from 1529 to 1532. He began his legal career in 1494, and became an undersheriff of London in 1510. by 1518 he had entered the service of King Henry VIII as royal councilor and ambassador. He was knighted and made undertreasurer in 1521, and was chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from 1525 to 1529.

Environmental Health Essay

Overcrowding: Overcrowding in houses can arise from several causes, and the physical and psychological effects on people living in overcrowded conditions can be quite severe. Overcrowding poses serious direct and indirect health risks to all segments of the population, particularly the elderly, young children, and the disabled. Overcrowding results in insufficient ventilation in homes, causing or exacerbating respiratory illness. Susceptibility to disease, the severity of diseases, the spreading of illness, and the mortality due to disease all increase as a result of social and physical overcrowding. Overcrowding physically and emotionally overburdens mothers and other caregivers, increasing health risks of dependents. Lack of space and overcrowding directly impacts on the physical development and psychological wellbeing of disabled residents. Children living in overcrowded and unfit conditions are more likely to experience respiratory problems such as coughing and asthmatic and wheezing. For many children this means losing sleep, restricted physical activity, and missing school. Effects of overcrowding include meningitis, tuberculosis, heart disease, stomach cancer, respiratory disease. Children in overcrowded housing are up to 10 times more likely to contract meningitis than children in general. Meningitis can be life threatening. Long-term effects of the disease include deafness, blindness and behavioural problems. Children in unfit and overcrowded homes miss school more frequently due to illnesses and infections. Overcrowding is linked to delayed cognitive development, and homelessness to delayed development in communication skills. Urbanization: Movement of people from rural to urban areas with population growth equating to urban migration. It is a double edged sword as on one hand it provides people with varied opportunities and scope for economic development and on the other hand it exposes community to new threats. Unplanned urban growth is associated with environmental degradation meaning that population demands that go beyond the environmental service capacity, such as drinking water, sanitation, and waste disposal and treatment. Rapid growth of urban centres has led to substandard housing on marginal land and overcrowding. Outbreaks of diseases transmitted through respiratory and faeco-oral route due to population density. It exacerbates health risks related to insufficient and poor water supply and poor sanitation systems. Lack of privacy leading to depression, anxiety, stress etc. Due to the numbers of motorized vehicles and industries in the cities of the developing world Problems of noise and air pollution arise. Air pollution can affect our health in many ways with both short-term and long-term effects. Short-term air pollution can aggravate medical conditions like asthma and emphysema. Long-term health effects can include chronic respiratory disease, lung cancer, heart disease, and even damage to other vital organs. Water pollution: Water pollution can come from a number of different sources. If the pollution comes from a single source, such as an oil spill, it is called point-source pollution. If the pollution comes from many sources, it is called nonpoint-source pollution. Most types of pollution affect the immediate area surrounding the source. Sometimes the pollution may affect the environment hundreds of miles away from the source, such as nuclear waste, this is called trans boundary pollution. Industrial and agricultural work involves the use of many different chemicals that can run-off into water and pollute it. Metals and solvents from industrial work can pollute rivers and lakes. These are poisonous to many forms of aquatic life and may slow their development, make them infertile or even result in death. Pesticides are used in farming to control weeds, insects and fungi. Run-offs of these pesticides can cause water pollution and poison aquatic life. Subsequently, birds, humans and other animals may be poisoned if they eat infected fish. Petroleum is another form of chemical pollutant that usually contaminates water through oil spills when a ship ruptures. Oil spills usually have only a localized effect on wildlife but can spread for miles. The oil cancause the death of many fish and stick to the feathers of seabirds causing them to lose the ability to fly. Industry is a huge source of water pollution, it produces pollutants that are extremely harmful to people and the environment. Many industrial facilities use freshwater to carry away waste from the plant and into rivers, lakes and oceans. †¢Pollutants from industrial sources include: ? Asbestos – This pollutant is a serious health hazard and carcinogenic. Asbestos fibres can be inhaled and cause illnesses such as asbestosis, mesothelioma, lung cancer, intestinal cancer and liver cancer. ?Lead – This is a metallic element and can cause health and environmental problems. It is a non-biodegradable substance so is hard to clean up once the environment is contaminated. Lead is harmful to the health of many animals, including humans, as it can inhibit the action of bodily enzymes. ?Mercury – This is a metallic element and can cause health and environmental problems. It is a non-biodegradable substance so is hard to clean up once the environment is contaminated. Mercury is also harmful to animal health as it can cause illness through mercury poisoning. ?Nitrates – The increased use of fertilisers means that nitrates are more often being washed from the soil and into rivers and lakes. This can cause eutrophication, which can be very problematic to marine environments. ?Phosphates – The increased use of fertilisers means that phosphates are more often being washed from the soil and into rivers and lakes. This can cause eutrophication, which can be very problematic to marine environments. ?Sulphur – This is a non-metallic substance that is harmful for marine life. ?Oils – Oil does not dissolve in water, instead it forms a thick layer on the water surface. This can stop marine plants receiving enough light for photosynthesis. It is also harmful for fish and marine birds. ?Petrochemicals – This is formed from gas or petrol and can be toxic to marine life. Carbon footprint: Man-made climate change, or global warming, is caused by the release of certain types of gas into the atmosphere. The dominant man-made greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2), which is emitted whenever we burn fossil fuels in homes, factories or power stations. But other greenhouse gases are also important. Methane (CH4), for example, which is emitted mainly by agriculture and landfill sites, is 25 times more potent per kilogram than CO2. Even more potent but emitted in smaller quantities are nitrous oxide (N2O), which is about 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide and released mainly from industrial processes and farming, and refrigerant gases, which are typically several thousand times more potent than CO2. In the UK, the total impact on the climate breaks down like this: carbon dioxide (86%), methane (7%), nitrous oxide (6%) and refrigerant gases (1%). Given that a single item or activity can cause multiple different greenhouse gases to be emitted, each in different quantities, a carbon footprint if written out in full could get pretty confusing. To avoid this, the convention is to express a carbon footprint in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent or CO2e. This means the total climate change impact of all the greenhouse gases caused by an item or activity rolled into one and expressed in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide that would have the same impact. Loss of biodiversity: Human activities are responsible for most of the loss in biodiversity throughout the world. With an increasing population, we are consuming more and more natural resources.. We do this by driving more, using more energy in our homes, and buying many more products than we need. Biodiversity is important since it provides us with raw materials that we use to make products such as clothes, shoes and paper. And although we use many natural products and materials in our daily lives, we also use many human-made chemicals–cleaners, fertilizers, bug spray, pesticides, and many others. Even though we use them to help us, they have many side effects. Toxins and pollution are very harmful to biodiversity. The chemicals that we use end up in our waterways. Plants and animals are killed by oil spills. Wildlife gets caught in plastic trash.

Hippolytus: Seneca, Euripides, Ovid

Liz Soolkin Hippolytus: Seneca, Euripides, Ovid The story of Hippolytus, a man wronged and killed by his own stepmother is a myth retold by many different writers. For this paper, I have chosen to discuss the myth as retold by Ovid, Seneca, and Euripides. Each multiform has a few distinct differences that impacts the meaning of the myth as whole. While reading each myth, the reader receives a completely different sense from the story, a conclusion that is unique to each story.The difference in each retelling that changes the meaning of the story most significantly is the stepmother, Phaedra’s role and the emphasis each author places on her character in his form of the story. The variations in the portrayal of her character provide each story a different meaning; a large portion of the meaning comes from the reader’s ability or inability to relate to Phaedra; this ability depends on the author’s portrayal of her and her actions.Seneca’s version of the story of Hippolytus’s death is called Phaedra. Before even beginning to read the narrative, the reader understands that Phaedra is the main character in the story; the main conflict of the story is one between her and her stepson. She does everything in her power to get Hippolytus to sleep with her: she asks the nurse to convince him and even tries to do so herself after fainting in his arms. She does not seem to care about his strong morals or her own morals.Aphrodite’s curse on her has led her to be so determined to sleep with her stepson that she ignores her ideals and the ideals of Hippolytus. When she is rejected, she spreads the lies about Hippolytus having raped her and lives to see the consequences of those lies; though she is in control of the situation and could physically stop the story from ending tragically, she does nothing to prevent her stepson from being cursed by his father. She is alive when Hippolytus’ mangled corpse is brought to her and her husb and, Hippolytus’s father, Theseus.Only then does she realize her immense shame because she recognizes that her dishonest actions lead to Hippolytus’s undoing and that her need for revenge is what causes Hippolytus to suffer his horrendous fate. Her shame only comes after she causes her stepson’s death. In Euripides’ version, Phaedra kills herself before Hippolytus is cursed. She leaves a suicide note blaming Hippolytus with her death. She is unable to outlive Hippolytus and see the consequences of her vengeful actions.Unlike in Seneca’s version, in Euripides’s retelling Phaedra dies and has no ability to stop the spread of lies about Hippolytus. She can do nothing to take back her actions like she could have in Seneca’s version. The reader can accept Phaedra’s actions more in Euripides’s version because she dies, attempting to keep herself morally good and free from shame and guilt for her lust; she is portrayed more as essentially a good person who is cursed by Aphrodite and her attraction to her stepson. One can be more empathetic to her in this version because Aphrodite could cast the same curse on anyone.In her death, she blames Hippolytus of rape, relating her to Seneca’s version of her character as a harsh person, intent on revenge, someone to whom the reader cannot easily relate. Ovid’s retelling of the myth of Hippolytus is completely different from Seneca and Euripides’ narratives. First of all, Ovid’s account starts with Hippolytus’s narration of the story; the reader is first introduced to Hippolytus as someone returned from the dead so, even without reading the story, the reader already knows that Hippolytus suffers tragic death at the end of the story.Because he is telling his story to a bystander, Hippolytus does not go into great detail of his life; he recounts the story of his stepmother’s betrayal in a very short and succinct manner, concen trating more on the suffering he faced when his â€Å"limbs [were] entangled in the reins [of his chariot]† (Ovid’s Metamorphoses p. 539 line 608-609). The fact that Hippolytus talks of his own death in a conversational manner, attempting to console Egeria is important because it is one of Ovid’s techniques that he used to place the reader’s attention on Hippolytus.Whereas Seneca wrote about Phaedra and described the story with her as the main character, Ovid wrote about Hippolytus, from Hippolytus’s point of view. In this story, Aphrodite is not even mentioned as being the instigator of Phaedra’s lust. Phaedra is portrayed as a cold-blooded, merciless killer who did not feel shame for her murder of Hippolytus. The shame aspect, that was so important in defining the other author’s versions of the myth, is absent from Ovid’s version. Phaedra’s shame’s absence from the myth can be explained by the fact that Hippolyt us himself is narrating the story.Ovid gives the reader a perspective from the victim’s point-of-view, which does not view any guilt felt by Phaedra as relevant. Even if she feels guilt, she is still held responsible for her actions. Whereas in the other myths, the reader knows that Aphrodite is the final cause of Hippolytus’s death and Phaedra is not completely guilty, in Ovid’s myth, she is not mentioned since Hippolytus was not aware of her influence on Phaedra. The three versions’ portrayals of Phaedra are important when analyzing the different meanings of the multiform myth.The difference lies in the different conflicts that arise in each myth and the various sources of Phaedra’s shame, or the absence of it. In Euripides’ version of the story, the main struggle of the myth lies in Phaedra’s inner conflict; she struggles with her desires and is unable to express them and deal with them in a healthy way. She must use the help of he r nurse to help her and before the story is over, the shame of her immoral thoughts kills her. Unlike Euripides’ version, Seneca’s retelling of the myth shows her conflict to be one with Hippolytus.Phaedra’s every action is a struggle against Hippolytus’ strong morals and chastity. The story is one of a fight between the two characters, concluding with Hippolytus’ loss of life, an event that leads to Phaedra’s shame and eventually her death. Ovid tells the story as a conflict between Hippolytus and Phaedra from Hippolytus’ point-of-view. Hippolytus, in Ovid’s version is wronged by his stepmother, who is portrayed as evil and coldhearted. There is no mention of any shame she might feel for her stepson’s murder; the lack of shame depicts as heartless, an obvious antagonist to Hippolytus’.From these differences, one can interpret that a greater meaning lies in the three author’s definitions of shame. Whereas P haedra in Seneca’s version is shameful of her own immoral thoughts and urges, the other Phaedra, in Euripides’ version, only realizes her guilt when she sees Hippolytus’ dead body; she acts more child-like, not believing that such terrible consequences could come from her actions until she sees them. Ovid differs completely in his view of shame. He sees it as irrelevant to the victim’s suffering and pain.In his version, Hippolytus does not consider Phaedra as having felt any remorse for her actions, he sees her as a coldblooded killer who caused him immense grief. The way I began to analyze the myths of Hippolytus was to think about the major differences between the characters. Because the story is all about the characters rather than the setting or culture, I thought that the differences of each character among each multiform would give me a clear view of the meanings of each multiform. The character that seems to influence each story the most is Phaedra .I could have gone into greater detail about the differences amongst each Hippolytus, Theseus, and nurse but I realized that analyzing those differences would result in an essay of 20 pages and would not be as meaningful. Relying on the differences among each author’s version of Phaedra to give meaning to the differences was very fruitful. I managed to find that the differences in Phaedra’s character were based in her decisions throughout the story. In one story, she killed herself before Hippolytus was dead; in another version, she killed herself after Hippolytus died and in the third version, she was barely even mentioned.Each story showed her as more or less humane; in Euripides’s and Seneca’s versions of the story, Aphrodite was mentioned as the source of her attraction to Hippolytus. The godess’s participation in the crime took some of the blame off of Phaedra’s shoulders and made it easier for the reader to relate to Phaedra. In Ovidâ €™s version, Aphrodite was not mentioned and Hippolytus’s death was viewed as a direct result of Phaedra’s cruel passion. More differences between Seneca and Euripides’s versions could be found and meaning could be discovered from the timing of Phaedra’s death.I asked myself, â€Å"why caused her to die before or after Hippolytus and what is the meaning of the difference in her suicide? † I realized that in both cases, shame had caused her to kill herself but in each story, shame was a result of something different. In Euripides’s version, Phaedra kills herself because of her own immorality; she feels guilty about her sinful passions towards Hippolytus. In Seneca’s versions, she commits suicide from guilt of seeing Hippolytus’s mangled corpse and realizing that her actions had caused his death.