Uncletomscabin Essays - Lost Films, Red River Of The South

Uncletom'scabin Analysis of Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe ?The book, Uncle Tom's Cabin, is thought of as a fantastic, even fanatic, representation of Southern life, most memorable for its emotional oversimplification of the complexities of the slave system,? says Gossett (4). Harriet Beecher Stowe describes her own experiences or ones that she has witnessed in the past through the text in her novel. She grew up in Cincinnati where she had a very close look at slavery. Located on the Ohio River across from the slave state of Kentucky, the city was filled with former slaves and slaveholders. In conversation with black women who worked as servants in her home, Stowe heard many stories of slave life that found their way into the book. Some of the novel was based on her reading of abolitionist books and pamphlets, the rest came straight from her own observations of black Cincinnatians with personal experience of slavery. She uses the characters to represent popular ideas of her time, a time when slavery was the biggest issue that people were dea ling with. Uncle Tom's Cabin was an unexpected factor in the dispute between the North and South. The book sold more than 300,000 copies during the first year of publication, taking thousands of people by surprise. Mr. Shelby is a Kentucky plantation owner who is forced by debt to sell two of his slaves to a trader named Haley. Uncle Tom, the manager of the plantation, understands why he must be sold. The other slave marked for sale is Harry, a four-year-old. His mother, Mrs. Shelby's servant, Eliza, overhears the news and runs away with the little boy. She makes her way up to the Ohio River, the boundary with the free state of Ohio. In Ohio, Eliza is sheltered by a series of kind people. At a Quaker settlement, she is reunited with her husband, George Harris. George's master abused him even though George was intelligent and hard-working, and he had decided to escape. The couple is not safe even in the North, though. They are followed by Marks and Loker, slave-catchers in partnership with the trader, Haley. They make there way up to Sandusky, so that they can catch a ferry for Canada, where slavery is forbidden and American laws do not apply. Meanwhile, Uncle Tom is headed down the river, deepe r into slavery. On the boat, he makes friends with Eva St. Clare, a beautiful and religious white child. After Tom rescues Eva from near drowning, Eva's father, Augustine St. Clare, buys him. Life in the household is carefree. Another person living in the house is Ophelia, St. Clare's cousin from Vermont who just moved to New Orleans. She and Augustine argue long and hard about slavery, he defending it, and she opposing it. Augustine buys Topsy for Ophelia to raise, in order to test her theories about education. Topsy is bright and energetic, but has no sense of right and wong. Ophelia is almost ready to give up on her when little Eva shows her how to reach Topsy. Tom and Eva study the Bible together and share a belief in a loving God. But Eva becomes ill and dies. Her death, and her example, transforms the lives of many of the people around her. Even her father becomes more religious. Unfortunately he is accidentally killed before he can fulfill his promise to Eva to free Tom, and Tom is sold again. This time Tom is not so lucky. He is bought by Simon Legree, the owner of an isolated plantation on the Red River. Legree is cruel, and his plantation is a living hell for his slaves. They are worked so hard that they have no time to think or feel, and Legree sets them against each other. Tom almost loses his faith in God, but recovers it and continues his work among the other slaves. He becomes friends with Cassy, a good but despairing woman who has been Legree's mistress. Cassy arranges for her and Emmeline, the girl who has been chosen as Legree's next mistress, to escape, and she urges Tom to join them. He will not, but he allows himself to be brutally beaten by Legree rather than reveal what

An Analysis of Arthur Millers Death of a Salesman essays

An Analysis of Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman essays Arthur Miller's play (and book) Death of a Salesman is somewhat hard to follow in spots where it becomes difficult to separate Willy Loman's fantasy world from his reality. It is, however, one of the greatest plays available to watch or to read, and Miller's genius really comes through in the characters and what they go through during the story. The purpose of this paper is to utilize five different sources to analyze this story, and to show how different parts of the story are looked at in different ways. Death of a Salesman has been reviewed quite extensively in books, in journals, and on the Internet. One of these reviews discusses how Loman suffers so greatly as he sees himself and his family slip into ruin. He believed that his family was destined for greatness, but eventually he places all his hope in his children, who also fail him. This is the last straw for Willy, because he finally realizes that nothing he and his family does will ever be good enough (Amazon, 2003). They are not destined for greatness after all, but instead are doomed to misery and failure, which is much the way the human condition is, and this kind of difficulty is shared by a great many people throughout the world. Much of what Death of a Salesman deals with is the morals that society has embedded in it and how they sometimes fail, even though the best of intentions remain. Loman is torn between running for the money and simply running away from everything, and it is taking its toll on his body and spirit (Shurley, 2003). Loman has had several opportunities in his life to have great adventures and make a lot of money, but he has declined the offers each time, not realizing what they could have done for him. Now he regrets that, but it is too late for him to go back and change things (Shurley, 2003). That is why he puts the pressure on his sons to succeed, but they fail as well,...

Movie theatre Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Movie theatre - Essay Example He is directly behind the couple who are now standing, waving their arms at each other. They turn and look at him, then sit down and quit arguing. A few rows down from them, I see an even younger couple sitting next to eachother amongst a group of teenagers. The boy yawns tentively, and lays his arm across the back of her torn seat. She looks up at him and smiles sweetly. Off to the right of them, in the wheelchair accessible area is an older couple. Their backs are not as straight, she looks tiny and shrunken in her wheelchair. He leans toward her carefully and holds a drink so she can sip through the straw. He then places the drink back in the holder and lays his hand gently on her knee. They are content. The lights go down and the previews begin. I am struck with the idea that I have already seen all of life's drama before me, before the movie began. We watch movies to experience emotions of the characters; when true emotion is all around us. The young couple's first date, the argument of the younger adults, and the quiet contentment of the elderly make for an unmistakably real drama. It is a movie I will replay in my head, reminding myself that life is a stage and we are but actors upon it.

Constructions of cultural memory Research Paper

Constructions of cultural memory - Research Paper Example My research questions are: How is the cultural memory of Tiananmen Square Protests represented in the chosen resources and what are the changes that these memories seem to anticipate and argue for? How does the event continue to make history? Witty and Calhoun both represent the event’s cultural memory by describing some of the most critical turning points of the Tiananmen Square protests, although Witty emphasizes rebellion against autocracy through the Tank Man’s photo, while Calhoun analyzes the actions and thoughts of people who were in the midst of shaping democratic ideals in their own terms. Figure 1: Widener’s Photo of the Tank Man Source: Widener (1989 in Witty) In the article, â€Å"Behind the Scenes: Tank Man of Tiananmen,† Witty uses four photos of the Tank Man to represent different perspectives of the Tiananmen Square Protests, where these images try to underline that this man symbolizes the struggles of all ordinary people against government repression and corruption, but because of lack of violence of some photos, it somehow hides the gruesome effects of the government’s crackdown on the protesters. ... The cultural memory focuses on four tanks that are ready to crush all those who oppose and criticize the state and one man who will not be crushed at all. The light post represents urban space through manifesting technology and modernity. The action of the man against the tanks and the cropped lamp post together signify that non-violent action is light in the darkness because rationality meets irrationality. Standing tall like the lamp post, the Tank Man symbolizes democracy and hope for the people. The photo further shows that the tanks are approaching and one man with his shopping bags stand before them. Like others before him, the Tank Man stands in front of the state’s military tools, a memory which argues that he, as well as other ordinary people like him, will fight for democracy anytime and he will not even need tanks to do it. He only needs his resolve and principles, which hundreds to thousands others already offered when they died the night of the Chinese governmentà ¢â‚¬â„¢s crackdown. The photo argues that the state does not have absolute power because the people have power to fight for what is absolutely right for them- the right to oppose and to replace a corrupt and oppressive government. Furthermore, from Witty’s article, the Tiananmen Square protests continue to make history because it portrays an ordinary man’s greatest act of courage and integrity against symbols of oppression. The photo shows that the Tank Man seems to be an office employee with his white shirt and black pants. He is an ordinary man with two white shopping bags, the image of an urban dweller that the state wants to control. The photo argues that he is one man against the state’s violence, and yet because he has had enough, he will stand for his principles of

Research Paper on Censorship Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

On Censorship - Research Paper Example Censorship has been used throughout the history not only in communist countries but in democratic countries as well. From the beginning of civilization, censorship has been used by groups as well as individuals to prevent and control dangerous creations, information and ideas which are pernicious for the society. Throughout history it has taken different courses and occurred for various reasons. The main causes of censorship are religion, politics and sex related issues. Censorship are usually done in several areas such print media (newspaper), radio and television for religious purposes and offensive texts and objectionable speeches or behavior. Censorship should be done to benefit the society as a whole, as it is essential to protect the society from internal threat, to maintain peace and order. Censorship is needed and can be justified as censorship is pivotal to maintain social stability, racial harmony and to protect the mass from dangerous influences which can hamper the social growth.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Many people who are against censorship argues that censorship should not be done as the banning of ideas, thoughts and information in any stream  is unconstitutional, for the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech and the press. The Amendment 1 dictates that: â€Å"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance† (Bill of Rights: Amendment I 1). The constitution did provide us with the freedom of speech and press, but it is not right to take this freedom and say anything we want anywhere, at anytime. Freedom should be used but in no way should it be misused. For example if a person hates another race and writes a book about abolishing that race, that person is clearly misusing his / her rights and at the same time dis rupting the harmony of the society. History has shown us time and again that man is an animal if not regulated by rules and regulations. If censorship is not done, the society, as we know, will be chaotic. Freedom should not be taken for granted and should not be misused. Censorship keeps freedom in control to maintain the social order.   It should be kept in mind that too much information can be and often is a dangerous thing. Having said that, it is true, there are some facts that are not suitable for the entire public. Censorship makes sure that dangerous ideas, ideologies, philosophies and outlook does not disrupt the citizens of the state.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In today’s world, media plays a crucial role in influencing both good and bad behavior and ideas. One cannot argue the fact that it depends on the individual choices and what he / she feels like watching. But, the reality is that when one watches a television show, it stagnates into the memory. This often res ults in young people ending up absorbing information far more than they needed for their age group and this has a negative impact on them. Youth’s mind should not be tampered with negative thought or ideas as they are easily influenced by what they see and hear around them. If there is no censorship to check what the youth are watching, this can have a dangerous impact. There is no harm in filtering what

Influences on Dividend Payout Decisions

Influences on Dividend Payout Decisions CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The intricacies of Dividends and Dividend policy can leave even the most seasoned financial professional feeling a little uneasy. While conventional wisdom suggests that paying dividends affects both firms value and shareholder wealth to retain earnings to explore growth opportunities, much debate still surrounds this dynamic discipline; especially when it comes to how dividend decisions can lead to value maximization Kent (2003). 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 emer gence 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 investment 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 t o 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 M M 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: Q1. What is the relation between dividend payout and firms debt? Q2. What is the relation between dividend payout and Profitability? Q3. What is the relation between dividend payout and liquidity? Q4. What is the relation between dividend payout and Retained Earnings? Q5. What is the relation between dividend payout and Net Income? Scope of the Study: This study investigates areas of concern that are extensive thereby due to limitation of time; the scope of research will be limited as the period of study is only three years 2006-2008. The study is focused only on firms trading on NYSE and has considered only those firms who pay dividends. Organization of the paper: The remaining chapters will be organized as follows: Chapter Two: Literature Review This chapter discusses the Determinants of Dividend payout and the theories behind the research questions in context to the Dividend policy. Chapter Three: Research Methodology The chosen research design, data collection and statistical tests for analysis are described in the chapter. Chapter four: Data Analysis and Findings: To address the research questions, results obtained from the regression analysis will be presented and discussed. Chapter five: Recommendations and Conclusion. This chapter provides recommendations for the future research and a conclusion for all this 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. or 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 as 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 positively 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 cash flow and a number of investment opportunities have, the shareholders are ready to accept low dividend payout ratio. From the investors point of view, the dividend payments represent definite evidence of a companys worth. A company that expects sufficient future cash flows, large enough to meet debt obligations and dividend payments, will increase dividend payout. Howe (1998) believed that the actions of the managers might convey information to the investors outside as they are more informed about the future prospects of their firms than the market. Reddy (2002) studied dividend behavior and expressed his views on the observed behavior with the help of signaling hypothesis. The undervalued firms (assessed by the price Influences on Dividend Payout Decisions Influences on Dividend Payout Decisions CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The intricacies of Dividends and Dividend policy can leave even the most seasoned financial professional feeling a little uneasy. While conventional wisdom suggests that paying dividends affects both firms value and shareholder wealth to retain earnings to explore growth opportunities, much debate still surrounds this dynamic discipline; especially when it comes to how dividend decisions can lead to value maximization Kent (2003). 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 emer gence 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 investment 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 t o 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 M M 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: Q1. What is the relation between dividend payout and firms debt? Q2. What is the relation between dividend payout and Profitability? Q3. What is the relation between dividend payout and liquidity? Q4. What is the relation between dividend payout and Retained Earnings? Q5. What is the relation between dividend payout and Net Income? Scope of the Study: This study investigates areas of concern that are extensive thereby due to limitation of time; the scope of research will be limited as the period of study is only three years 2006-2008. The study is focused only on firms trading on NYSE and has considered only those firms who pay dividends. Organization of the paper: The remaining chapters will be organized as follows: Chapter Two: Literature Review This chapter discusses the Determinants of Dividend payout and the theories behind the research questions in context to the Dividend policy. Chapter Three: Research Methodology The chosen research design, data collection and statistical tests for analysis are described in the chapter. Chapter four: Data Analysis and Findings: To address the research questions, results obtained from the regression analysis will be presented and discussed. Chapter five: Recommendations and Conclusion. This chapter provides recommendations for the future research and a conclusion for all this 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. or 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 as 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 positively 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 cash flow and a number of investment opportunities have, the shareholders are ready to accept low dividend payout ratio. From the investors point of view, the dividend payments represent definite evidence of a companys worth. A company that expects sufficient future cash flows, large enough to meet debt obligations and dividend payments, will increase dividend payout. Howe (1998) believed that the actions of the managers might convey information to the investors outside as they are more informed about the future prospects of their firms than the market. Reddy (2002) studied dividend behavior and expressed his views on the observed behavior with the help of signaling hypothesis. The undervalued firms (assessed by the price

Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) :: essays research papers

Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) Digital Subscriber Line new technology that takes advantage of standard copper telephone line to provide secure, reliable, high-speed Internet access. DSL refers to the family of digital subscriber line technologies, such as ADSL, HDSL, and RADSL. Connection speed for DSL ranges from 1.44 Mbps to 512 Kbps downstream and around 128 Kbps upstream. Unlike traditional connections DSL such as analog modems and IDSN, DSL deliver continuous â€Å"always on† access. That means multimedia-rich websites, e-mail, and other online applications are available anytime. DSL makes it possible for you to remain online even while you’re talking on the telephone-without jeopardizing the quality of either connection. DSL is available in a spectrum of speeds. Some are best home use, while others are designed to accommodate rigorous business demands. Whether for business or the home, DSL, offers unsurpassed price/performance value compared to other online options. There are the five facts tha t one should know about DSL. It is remarkably fast. With DSL service, you can benefit from Internet speeds that are up to 12 minutes faster than a typical ISDN connection and 50 times faster than traditional 28.8 Kbps modems. This means that in the 12 seconds it takes to read this information, you could have downloaded a 2 megabyte presentation file or web photograph. It would take 10 more minutes (600 more seconds!) to download the same with a traditional 28.8 Kbps. It’s highly reliable. One can depend on DSL because its proven technology takes full advantage of the existing telecommunications infrastructure. It’s inherently secure. DSL network provides a dedicated Internet connection via private telephone wires, you can bypass dial-up intruders or shared network hackers. Unlike traditional dial-upp modems or cable modems. DSL protects your valuable data with the most secure connection available. It’s surprising affordable. DSL is widely recognized as the most cost-effective connectivity solution for small buisness. DSL delivers industrial- strength like speed to multiple users at only 25% of typical TI costs. There is no better price option available. DSL is also an exceptional value for home users. At about $2 a day for services that meets the needs of most people. The connection is always on. It’s ready to run every minute of the day. There’s no more logging on and off. No more busy signals or disconnects. This gives you the freedom to focus on what you want to accomplish on line rather than focusing on trying to get connected.

Chickens

As our society continues to advance, our technology does too. One of the most recent inventions of the food system are GMOs .GMOs are organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. These genetically modified organisms are seen to have both negative and positive effects in our society.One of the many examples of genetically modified animals are chickens. The main effect that chickens have on humans is the amount of chemicals are put inside them affects the human system. According to an online article written by Ultius , there is a bacteria that was created in the early 1900s that makes the chickens grow at a faster rate in order for companies to produce more chicken products at a faster and lower cost. The effects of these decisions were not studied early on, however, as time went on we have seen that there is a rise for health defects that are brought on because of these bacterias being placed inside chickens. Our bodies were made to intake natural ingredients, now these ingredients are no longer found in any of the food we intake. There has been studies that show that our food is one of the biggest causes of cancer. A documentary titled â€Å"What the Health†speaks of the truth that is hidden from the consumer about their food. In the documentary a young man goes on a journey to bring light into the issues that go on with our food. He later finds that many of the government associations that are meant to be supporting healthy eating are instead promoting it. Because GMOs help animals grow faster, the producer is able to make more money off the product in a faster rate. Although, we often don't want to accept it most of the things in life are businesses; even feeding people. We would rather feed people something that can make them sick or hurt them if it means these big companies are Martinez 3making more money for it. The business of GMOs has grown so big throughout the world that it is very rare and expensive to buy organic food because there not enough people supporting the idea behind local-GMO-free farms. This isn't only bad for the humans health but for the chickens. Chickens size in 1957 used to be 905 grams but now they have increased up to 4,202 grams which is about 9.2 pounds , chickens die because of their size and can't walk without getting tired or resting. They feed chickens so they could have bigger breast. Chickens are mistreated, they are put in a tight cage that they don't even fit in, this has cause them to break their legs because they are to big to fit in that cage. Chickens aren't the ones that are getting modified but the crops are. The chickens may also include viruses and bacteria.when they feed the chickens the crops contain chemicals which is not safe. Although there are many negatives to genetically modified chickens there can also be positive impacts to our society because of this animals. According to Techrepublic this doesn't only help grow more food but it has a positive impact on economies, and social perspective. This doesn't only benefit humans but it also helps to stop the H5N1 which is a bird flu. Since the chickens are bigger and help give us more food it helps humans to consume. When you go to the store to buy chicken their breast are bigger than usual so you get to eat more . Since the crops that they feed to chickens are modified it's more environmentally-friendly that results in more sustainable food product and Genetically modified crops require less fertilizer and fewer pesticides. There's not that many benefits for the chickens but there's a really huge advantages for the farmers and consumers. The genetically modified Chickens help farmers make more money because they spend less money producing more food. This also helps out companies/ Martinez 4 restaurants. For example KFC , their chicken had been modified because when you get their.chicken breast they are the size of your hand, but we get more food out of it and even get leftovers so we could eat that later again and save some money. So this also helps benefit us because not only do we get more food but it helps our environment and makes it look beautiful and healthy , it contributes to the sustaining of better air and water quality. There are many Pros and Cons about this issue. For us students at Olympian High School this issue is being talked about everywhere in school. The senior class is reading † Farm Sanctuary† a book written by activist and owner of a non-profit organization that focuses on raising awareness for the abuse of animals and the GMOs being used in our food. My sister is currently a senior and is also part of the Common Senior Experience committee, she has told me about meeting Gene Baur, the author of the book. As our society advances problems start to come up more and more; now more than ever is this issue being talked about. The main cause of diseases now comes from our own choice. Big organizations continue to tell us that we have to be careful with what we eat, however, many people don't have the resources to do so. Organic and GMO-free food is expensive and often hard to find in everyday grocery stores. Even as children we have a hard time eating healthy because many of us do not get to decide what we eat because our parents make it for us and we have no choice in whether we want to eat it or not. There are many negative parts to this issue, but maybe if we were given simple solutions that everyone, no matter their social status could use, we could eat better and also help the animals. Gene Baur suggested growing a garden outside you home with fresh fruits and vegetables; although, doing this is a lot of work the benefits outweigh the cost. Starting a garden can help Martinez 5you get free healthy food that does not harm the animals. There isn't a big price tag that comes along with it either, buying seeds from stores costs as much as 79 cents. People can take different stands on the issue and solutions are very hard to find especially since this has become such a natural thing in our environment, but nothing is impossible to do. In conclusion Genetically modified organisms are one of the most advanced technology in the world. GMOs not only have negative but also positive impact in people, farmers, environment and chickens.This is a big issue in society that is affecting everyone that has both negative and positive impacts. Source cited: â€Å"The Dangers Of Eating Genetically Modified Chickens† By Dante, Published september 11 2014.https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/the-dangers-of-eating-genetically-modified-chicken.html†Why Have Chickens Quadrupled In Size Since The 1950s?† By Melissa Cronin, Published October 7, 2014. https://www.thedodo.com/bigger-chickens-breed-select-754013461.html†Genetically Modified Chickens† By Seattle Organic Restaurants.http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-foods/genetically-modified-chickens/. â€Å"Farm Sanctuary† Gene Boura GMO Essay Galilea Martinez 2/17/2018Mr.DavisPeriod 6 Martinez 2As our society continues to advance, our technology does too. One of the most recent inventions of the food system are GMOs .GMOs are organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. These genetically modified organisms are seen to have both negative and positive effects in our society.One of the many examples of genetically modified animals are chickens. The main effect that chickens have on humans is the amount of chemicals are put inside them affects the human system. According to an online article written by Ultius , there is a bacteria that was created in the early 1900s that makes the chickens grow at a faster rate in order for companies to produce more chicken products at a faster and lower cost. The effects of these decisions were not studied early on, however, as time went on we have seen that there is a rise for health defects that are brought on because of these bacterias being placed inside chickens. Our bodies were made to intake natural ingredients, now these ingredients are no longer found in any of the food we intake. There has been studies that show that our food is one of the biggest causes of cancer. A documentary titled â€Å"What the Health†speaks of the truth that is hidden from the consumer about their food. In the documentary a young man goes on a journey to bring light into the issues that go on with our food. He later finds that many of the government associations that are meant to be supporting healthy eating are instead promoting it. Because GMOs help animals grow faster, the producer is able to make more money off the product in a faster rate. Although, we often don't want to accept it most of the things in life are businesses; even feeding people. We would rather feed people something that can make them sick or hurt them if it means these big companies are Martinez 3making more money for it. The business of GMOs has grown so big throughout the world that it is very rare and expensive to buy organic food because there not enough people supporting the idea behind local-GMO-free farms. This isn't only bad for the humans health but for the chickens. Chickens size in 1957 used to be 905 grams but now they have increased up to 4,202 grams which is about 9.2 pounds , chickens die because of their size and can't walk without getting tired or resting. They feed chickens so they could have bigger breast. Chickens are mistreated, they are put in a tight cage that they don't even fit in, this has cause them to break their legs because they are to big to fit in that cage. Chickens aren't the ones that are getting modified but the crops are. The chickens may also include viruses and bacteria.when they feed the chickens the crops contain chemicals which is not safe. Although there are many negatives to genetically modified chickens there can also be positive impacts to our society because of this animals. According to Techrepublic this doesn't only help grow more food but it has a positive impact on economies, and social perspective. This doesn't only benefit humans but it also helps to stop the H5N1 which is a bird flu. Since the chickens are bigger and help give us more food it helps humans to consume. When you go to the store to buy chicken their breast are bigger than usual so you get to eat more . Since the crops that they feed to chickens are modified it's more environmentally-friendly that results in more sustainable food product and Genetically modified crops require less fertilizer and fewer pesticides. There's not that many benefits for the chickens but there's a really huge advantages for the farmers and consumers. The genetically modified Chickens help farmers make more money because they spend less money producing more food. This also helps out companies/ Martinez 4 restaurants. For example KFC , their chicken had been modified because when you get their.chicken breast they are the size of your hand, but we get more food out of it and even get leftovers so we could eat that later again and save some money. So this also helps benefit us because not only do we get more food but it helps our environment and makes it look beautiful and healthy , it contributes to the sustaining of better air and water quality. There are many Pros and Cons about this issue. For us students at Olympian High School this issue is being talked about everywhere in school. The senior class is reading † Farm Sanctuary† a book written by activist and owner of a non-profit organization that focuses on raising awareness for the abuse of animals and the GMOs being used in our food. My sister is currently a senior and is also part of the Common Senior Experience committee, she has told me about meeting Gene Baur, the author of the book. As our society advances problems start to come up more and more; now more than ever is this issue being talked about. The main cause of diseases now comes from our own choice. Big organizations continue to tell us that we have to be careful with what we eat, however, many people don't have the resources to do so. Organic and GMO-free food is expensive and often hard to find in everyday grocery stores. Even as children we have a hard time eating healthy because many of us do not get to decide what we eat because our parents make it for us and we have no choice in whether we want to eat it or not. There are many negative parts to this issue, but maybe if we were given simple solutions that everyone, no matter their social status could use, we could eat better and also help the animals. Gene Baur suggested growing a garden outside you home with fresh fruits and vegetables; although, doing this is a lot of work the benefits outweigh the cost. Starting a garden can help Martinez 5you get free healthy food that does not harm the animals. There isn't a big price tag that comes along with it either, buying seeds from stores costs as much as 79 cents. People can take different stands on the issue and solutions are very hard to find especially since this has become such a natural thing in our environment, but nothing is impossible to do. In conclusion Genetically modified organisms are one of the most advanced technology in the world. GMOs not only have negative but also positive impact in people, farmers, environment and chickens. This is a big issue in society that is affecting everyone that has both negative and positive impacts. Source citedâ€Å"The Dangers Of Eating Genetically Modified Chickens† By Dante, Published september 11 2014.https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/the-dangers-of-eating-genetically-modified-chicken.htmlâ€Å"Why Have Chickens Quadrupled In Size Since The 1950s?† By Melissa Cronin, Published October 7, 2014. https://www.thedodo.com/bigger-chickens-breed-select-754013461.htmlâ€Å"Genetically Modified Chickens† By Seattle Organic Restaurants.http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-foods/genetically-modified-chickens/.â€Å"Farm Sanctuary† Gene Boura GMO Essay Galilea Martinez 2/17/2018Mr.DavisPeriod 6

Launching the New Ship of State Essay essays

Launching the New Ship of State Essay essays Many issues have contributed to the development of the two political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Discuss how their views differed with regard to economic policy, foreign policy, and interpretation of the Constitution. As the national government was slowly trying to improve its self, Jefferson and Hamilton were caught up in a storm of political opposition. Because of this incessant rivalry, both men had their own followings. Jefferson and followers were known as the Jeffersonians or the Democratic Republicans, whereas Hamilton and his following were called the Federalists. In the aftermath of the American Revolution, the Democratic Republics and Federalist parties split politically because of their different positions on economic policy, foreign policy, and interpretation of the Constitution. On the topics of economic policy, foreign policy, and the Constitution, economic policy was a major factor between the political parties. When Hamilton proposed Congress to fund the entire national debt at par and assume the debts acquired by the states in the Revolutionary War, Jefferson was not happy at all. To the Jeffersonians this was unfair because states like Virginia had small debts and so then they would have to help pay for the much larger debts of the northern states. In this case of political opposition, the two sides actually agreed on a compromise. If the states debts could be assumed, then the national capital could be located on the Potomac River. This bargain was carried through in 1790. Besides this assumption, Hamilton wanted to collect customs duties (derived from a tariff). In order to do this, there would need to be a strong amount of foreign trade. Here in the United States, Hamilton did gain revenue, which was used to help the industrious northern stat es. This enraged the Southerners where their taxes on whiskey were thought of as a luxur...

Free Essays on Effects Of Second Hand Smoke

Anti-smokers have long tried to restrict smoking on the grounds that it was bad for smokers' health. But this sort of paternalism, while it has many merits, is not very effective when it comes to getting laws passed. At least not in this country. In recent years, however, they have made great progress using the theory that smoking is bad for the health of others: that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) can, in fact, be deadly. The phrase "respiratory illnesses", when used in connection with ETS, is usually found appended to a list of other claims, as in "cancer, heart disease and ..." It seems to round off the list nicely and is purposely left vague. If pressed, anti-smokers will, as if by rote, recite "... such as asthma, colds, influenza and pneumonia". But none of these ailments is caused by smoking, much less by ETS. Pressed further, the antis will backpedal to the claim that ETS "aggravates" these conditions. Since 1979, the number of smokers has declined significantly, from about 33% of adults, or higher, to a proportion varyingly reported as being from 20% to 25%. During the same period, a host of anti-smoking laws have dramatically curtailed smoking in public places. Today, exposure to ETS is not one tenth of what it was in 1979. So where are the mystery deaths caused by "respiratory illnesses" that can be blamed on ETS? There aren't any. The diabolical innuendo of the phrase"... cancer, heart disease and respiratory illnesses" causes many to believe people die this way and to repeat the rumor. But it is akin to saying† nuclear bombs, biological warfare and firecrackers (Tang 613)." With the pending challenge to the EPA's report, that is about to change. For a preview of the truth likely to emerge, we have only to look at a recent Australian court case in which the Australian Department of Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare was pressing a complaint against a casino in an attempt to enforce a no-smoking law. The questio... Free Essays on Effects Of Second Hand Smoke Free Essays on Effects Of Second Hand Smoke Anti-smokers have long tried to restrict smoking on the grounds that it was bad for smokers' health. But this sort of paternalism, while it has many merits, is not very effective when it comes to getting laws passed. At least not in this country. In recent years, however, they have made great progress using the theory that smoking is bad for the health of others: that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) can, in fact, be deadly. The phrase "respiratory illnesses", when used in connection with ETS, is usually found appended to a list of other claims, as in "cancer, heart disease and ..." It seems to round off the list nicely and is purposely left vague. If pressed, anti-smokers will, as if by rote, recite "... such as asthma, colds, influenza and pneumonia". But none of these ailments is caused by smoking, much less by ETS. Pressed further, the antis will backpedal to the claim that ETS "aggravates" these conditions. Since 1979, the number of smokers has declined significantly, from about 33% of adults, or higher, to a proportion varyingly reported as being from 20% to 25%. During the same period, a host of anti-smoking laws have dramatically curtailed smoking in public places. Today, exposure to ETS is not one tenth of what it was in 1979. So where are the mystery deaths caused by "respiratory illnesses" that can be blamed on ETS? There aren't any. The diabolical innuendo of the phrase"... cancer, heart disease and respiratory illnesses" causes many to believe people die this way and to repeat the rumor. But it is akin to saying† nuclear bombs, biological warfare and firecrackers (Tang 613)." With the pending challenge to the EPA's report, that is about to change. For a preview of the truth likely to emerge, we have only to look at a recent Australian court case in which the Australian Department of Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare was pressing a complaint against a casino in an attempt to enforce a no-smoking law. The questio... Free Essays on Effects Of Second Hand Smoke Second-Hand Smoke Effects Issues on smoking have arisen in the media once again, so much so that now the government is debating whether or not this drug should be banned in public places. Exposure to second-hand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States only behind alcohol and active smoking. There is a need to aggressively combat this health hazard. The attitudes of smokers who recognize this problem view the problem as a nuisance and continue to put others at risk. With the annoyance of the smell and smoke of cigarettes, it is obvious that advancement in banning smoking in public places must be professed. Everyone doubts that â€Å"firsthand† smoke is deadly to people’s health leading to lung cancer and heart diseases in adults; asthma and bronchitis in children. Now, the tobacco industry is onto the second-hand smoke. Several anti-smoking organizations are trying to turn smoking in public into a private activity that does not have to involve nonsmokers breath ing second-hand smoke. What is even more important is that many of these organizations convinced a lot of smokers to cut back or quit completely. The problem of second-hand smoke is increasing because it is so common in our society. It makes second-hand smoke the third-ranking cause of lung cancer among nonsmokers. Even in the most elegant restaurants non-smokers are bombarded with exposure to second-hand smoke. â€Å"So-called† smoking sections are almost never useful because the smoke always drifts into the non-smoking eating area. Exposure to second-hand smoke causes several negative reactions on the body of all non-smokers regardless their physical well-being. Second-hand smoke is the smoke exhaled from smokers which comes from the burning end of a cigarette, cigar or pipe. This smoke from the burning end of a cigarette, releases several thousand poisonous chemical compounds (Martin 1). Some of the toxic and cancer causing agents found i...