Dividend policy issues in the European pharmaceutical industry: new empirical evidence.

Tobias Basse, Christoph Schwarzbach, J-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg
Author Information
  1. Tobias Basse: Norddeutsche Landesbank (NORD/LB), Friedrichswall 10, 30159, Hannover, Germany.
  2. Christoph Schwarzbach: Institute of Information Systems Research, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz University Hannover, Koenigsworther Platz 1, 30167, Hannover, Germany. schwarzbach@iwi.uni-hannover.de.
  3. J-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg: Institute for Risk and Insurance, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz University Hannover, Otto-Brenner-Straße 7, 30159, Hannover, Germany.

Abstract

This paper examines dividend policy issues in the European pharmaceutical industry. This sector is of particular interest because of the high research and development expenditures and the associated risks characterizing the business models of many firms in this industry. In fact, from the perspective of corporate finance theory, this is a particular challenge for the managers of these corporations that may also have implications for the dividend policy implemented by the firms forming this sector. Moreover, the level of internal financing and litigation risks also seem to be high in the pharmaceutical industry. These facts could also affect the payout policy of the firms. Employing techniques of time series analysis, there is no evidence for dividend signaling and clear evidence for dividend smoothing in the European pharmaceutical industry. Given that dividend increases under certain assumptions can negatively affect the firms' ability to finance new investments in general and research and development projects in particular, these results of our empirical investigations could be described as highly plausible.

Keywords

References

  1. Ann Health Law. 2010 Winter;19(2):367-400, 2 p preceding i [PMID: 21443148]
  2. Health Econ. 2010 Aug;19(8):1002-5 [PMID: 19655335]
  3. JAMA. 2020 Mar 03;323(9):844-853 [PMID: 32125404]
  4. J Health Econ. 2016 May;47:20-33 [PMID: 26928437]
  5. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010 Mar;9(3):203-14 [PMID: 20168317]
  6. J Health Econ. 1991 Jul;10(2):107-42 [PMID: 10113009]
  7. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006 Mar-Apr;25(2):420-8 [PMID: 16522582]
  8. J Health Econ. 2003 Mar;22(2):151-85 [PMID: 12606142]
  9. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008 Jun;7(6):479-88 [PMID: 18469828]
  10. Health Econ. 2010 Feb;19(2):130-41 [PMID: 19247981]
  11. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Dec;6(12):e1386-e1396 [PMID: 30342925]
  12. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001 May;69(5):286-96 [PMID: 11371996]
  13. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009 Dec;8(12):959-68 [PMID: 19949401]
  14. Health Policy. 2011 Apr;100(1):4-17 [PMID: 21256615]
  15. Vaccine. 2009 Nov 5;27(47):6627-33 [PMID: 19665605]
  16. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20 Suppl 3:11-29 [PMID: 12457422]
  17. J Health Econ. 1986 Jun;5(2):153-77 [PMID: 10287224]
  18. J Health Econ. 2005 Sep;24(5):1030-3; discussion 1034-53 [PMID: 16087260]
  19. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006 Mar-Apr;25(2):461-8 [PMID: 16522587]
  20. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Nov 1;177(11):1569-1575 [PMID: 28892524]
  21. BMJ. 2012 Aug 07;345:e4348 [PMID: 22872694]

MeSH Term

Humans
Commerce
Policy
Medicine
Drug Industry
China

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0dividendpolicyindustrypharmaceuticalfirmsEuropeanparticulardevelopmentalsoevidenceissuessectorhighresearchexpendituresrisksfinanceaffectnewempiricalDividendpaperexaminesinterestassociatedcharacterizingbusinessmodelsmanyfactperspectivecorporatetheorychallengemanagerscorporationsmayimplicationsimplementedformingMoreoverlevelinternalfinancinglitigationseemfactspayoutEmployingtechniquestimeseriesanalysissignalingclearsmoothingGivenincreasescertainassumptionscannegativelyfirms'abilityinvestmentsgeneralprojectsresultsinvestigationsdescribedhighlyplausibleindustry:GrangercausalityHealthcareLitigationriskPharmaceuticalResearch

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.