Portfolio Theory & Analysis

Spring 2022

Dividend Payment of Consumer Good

Company During the Pandemic:
2019 & 2020

Prepared by:
Adianto Juniardi Prakoso - 2020220060

Ali Akbar Fuadi - 2020220019

Getruda Filumena Yulius - 2020220039

Nabiel Elhakim Al Ahmad Bit - 2020220024

 Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1. Research Background......................................................................................................................... 3
1.2. Purpose of Study and Research Question ......................................................................................... 3
1.3. Scope of Study .................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Relevance of Study............................................................................................................................. 4
1.5. Research Design ................................................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. The Fundamental of Dividend ........................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1. Dividend Payout Ratio ................................................................................................................. 5
2.2. The Theory Involves in Dividend ....................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1. Dividend Signaling Theory ........................................................................................................... 5
2.2.2. Residual Theory of Dividends ...................................................................................................... 5
2.2.3. Irrelevant Theory of Dividend ...................................................................................................... 5
2.2.4. Pecking Order Theory of Dividend ............................................................................................... 6
2.2.5. Agency Cost of Free Cash Flow Theory ........................................................................................ 6
2.2.6. The Firm Life Cycle Theory of Dividend ....................................................................................... 6
2.3. Previous Empirical Studies ................................................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1. Hypothesis Development .................................................................................................................. 7
3.1.1 Earnings Per Share and Dividend Per Share ................................................................................. 7
3.1.2 Return of Assets, Debt Ratio, and The Size of Company .............................................................. 7
3.2. Research Framework ......................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1. Data Collection ................................................................................................................................... 9
4.2. Variables Definitions .......................................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................................... 11
5.1. Descriptive Analysis .........................................................................................................................11
5.2. Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................................13
5.3. Discussion .........................................................................................................................................14
CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................................................................... 15
6.1. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................15
6.2 Limitation ..........................................................................................................................................15
6.3 Recommendation ..............................................................................................................................15
WORKS CITED .............................................................................................................................................. 16

2|Page
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1. Research Background

The Covid 19 pandemic has been affected the Economy and Business, especially in Indonesia since
2020 and remains to impact the domestic economic activity alongside the growth that occurred in
the country till this period. Policies for countering the pandemic has been widely declared by the
Indonesian government such as mass vaccination for all the citizens and expected The Indonesia
Economic to have rebound to 4.4 percent in 2021 (World Bank Group, 2021). However, is it very
affected to have the economic growth increase with the current policies such as the mass
vaccination programs that are already being declared.

Based on the simulation being conducted by researchers, there is simulation shows that along with
every shock caused by COVID-19 to national supply and demand, Indonesia will most likely
experience economic stagnation by 2021 especially with the gross domestic product (GDP) level 4–
8% lower than the business as usual (BAU) level during the pandemic that started from 2020-2021.
The two biggest sectors that will receive the hardest hit with this stagnation are the transportation
and tourism sectors, making up a GDP loss ranging from 30% to 50%. (Malayhati,2021).

Despite there is rapid progress in vaccination in Indonesia due to the mass vaccination program
being declared by the government, there is still uncertainty among the people that is very high
considering the projected time gap until the global economy will fully recover from the pandemic.
Additionally, there is a possibility of new COVID-19 variants will occur to Indonesia. If that happens,
the Indonesian government may need to declare another social restriction because it will hamper
the economy even further than the previous year as the government budget will not be sufficient
to support people’s lives and a chance that the vaccination may not fully combat the new variants.
In addition, Indonesia is the country with the fourth-largest population in the world, so the
government needs to ensure the availability of food for the people during global uncertainty by
either making the safety protocol stricter even though most of the people already received a
vaccine (Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, 2021).

1.2. Purpose of Study and Research Question

The purpose of this study is to determine the changes that occur in dividend distribution by
consumer good companies before and after the pandemic. Therefore, the main question that will
be answered at the end of the report is: will the COVID-19 pandemic affect the dividend payout
ratio of companies in the consumer goods sector? Do ROA, Debt Ratio, and size of the company
significantly affect the dividend payout ratio of companies in the consumer goods sector?

1.3. Scope of Study

This study will mainly focus on the consumer goods sector, and it will address the research
questions with a scope that will include a total of 38 consumer goods companies that give dividend
listed in Indonesia Stock. The chosen time scale of this study is 2019 and 2020 for giving a suitable
comparison for the year before the pandemic (2019) and the year where the pandemic occurred
(2020).

3|Page
1.4. Relevance of Study
This study was made for academic purposes with the hope of enriching the capital market and
consumer good industry literature during the COVID 19 pandemic. In addition, this study is
expected to be a signal to investors and managers of the company regarding changes that may
occur related to the dividend payout ratio.

1.5. Research Design

This paper is designed with five main sections. The first chapter will introduce the study, including
the research background, purpose of the study, scope, relevance, and research design. Then the
second part will cover the literature review, which embodies the fundamental analysis, the relevant
theories and previous empirical research regarding dividends. The third chapter describes the
hypothesis development and research framework to visualize the direction and relationship
between variables that are later examined. The next chapter will show data, variables, and
methodology that is done to complete this paper, delving deeper into the approach and methods of
the research. The decision on whether the hypothesis can be claimed, and elaboration of the
analysis obtained is shown in the fifth chapter. Lastly, this paper will end with a conclusion,
limitation, and recommendation for future studies.

4|Page
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. The Fundamental of Dividend

Dividend is the number of profits obtained by investors which are usually distributed by the
company every year. It has an important role to maintain a good relationship between the
company and investors, because in the eyes of investors, dividends are the evidence that the
company is doing well (Widyawati & Indriani, 2019)

2.1.1. Dividend Payout Ratio

Dividend Payout Ratio is the percentage of net income given by the company to the owners
or shareholders. It is calculated by dividing the total dividends with the company's net
income (Ramadhani).
𝐷𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝑆ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒
𝐷𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝐸𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝑆ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒
2.2. The Theory Involves in Dividend
2.2.1. Dividend Signaling Theory
This theory was first put forward by Stephen Ross and Solomon Ezra in 1977. They stated
that every increase in the number of dividends distributed tends to increase the company's
stock price in the market and vice versa (Simiyu, 2014). The increasing number of dividends
can be a signal of the stability and growth prospects of the company. On the other hand, if
there is a significant decrease in the number of dividends, it can be concluded that the
company has experienced a decrease in income or even losses. Due to the relationship
between dividends and market prices, companies often offer dividends to attract investors'
attention. This theory is also supported by the signaling theory classic models by
Bhattacharya (1979) and Miller and Rock (1985). They have stated that internal stakeholders
will give signals to outsiders or investors regarding the dividend policy to show the future
prospects of the company.

2.2.2. Residual Theory of Dividends

Residual dividend theory is a theory which states that the dividends distributed by a company
come from leftovers or residuals from cash flow (Smith, 2011). This theory does not focus on
the amount of dividends, but on the amount of retained earnings for investing within a
company. It means that a company can pay dividends only if the net income is higher than
that required to support the optimal capital budget (Sead, 2014).

2.2.3. Irrelevant Theory of Dividend

The irrelevant theory of dividends was introduced by Merton Miller and Franco Modigliani. In
contrast to the signaling dividend theory, the relevant theory has stated that dividend
distribution cannot reflect the company's growth and market prices. Companies that
distribute dividends are not necessarily better than companies that do not distribute
dividends.

5|Page
 2.2.4. Pecking Order Theory of Dividend
Pecking order theory ranks the company's funding priority system starting from internal and
then external funds. According to Culata and Gunarsih (2012), "the order of financial sources
used was the source of internal funds from profits, short-term securities, debt, preferred
stock and common stock last". Companies prefer internal funding sources because they do
not need to disclose a large amount of information to external parties. However, internal
sources of funds are often unable to finance all investment and operational activities of the
company. When that happens, the company will turn to external sources of funds by
prioritizing sources of debt funds rather than issuing equity securities.

2.2.5. Agency Cost of Free Cash Flow Theory

The agency costs of free cash flow hypothesis being proposed by Jensen in 1986. He let out
an argument when managers have more cash than is needed to fund all positive NPV projects
because there is an incentive for managers to waste the excess cash on unprofitable
investments such as acquisitions (Lin & Lin, 2013). The objective is mostly to examine the
impact of free cash flow on the firm, especially in corporate takeover decisions. More
specifically, the acquisitions made by firms with high excess cash are valued, whether the
level of excess cash is negatively related to the long-run takeover performance of acquiring
firms.

2.2.6. The Firm Life Cycle Theory of Dividend

The firm life cycle theory of dividends is based on the notion with the firm becomes mature
over the years, especially with its ability to generate cash overtakes its ability to find
profitable investment opportunities. Eventually, it becomes optimal for the firm to distribute
its free cash flow to shareholders in the form of dividends. This theory emphasizes that the
probability of a company paying dividends is high when retained earnings have a large
proportion of total capital (Kaur, 2019).

2.3. Previous Empirical Studies

There are many factors that can affect the percentage of income that a company gives to its owners
or shareholders. Chaniago and Ekadjaja (2022) conducted a study to determine the effect of ROE,
cash ratio, and managerial ownership on dividend payout ratios in the consumer goods sector from
2017-2020. The result shows that only the cash ratio does not have a significant effect on dividend
payout ratio in that period. In the other study by Fitri et al (2016), they used other 4 variables which
are DER, ROA, asset growth, and dividend payout ratio the previous year. The results show that
only the Debt Equity ratio has no significant effect on the dividend payout ratio.

6|Page
 CHAPTER 3
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

3.1. Hypothesis Development

The objective of this study is: (1) to find how and if there is significance of the difference in EPS and
DPS of consumer goods industry companies before and after pandemic and (2) to find if debt ratio
(DR), return of assets (ROA) and the size of company (using total assets) affect the dividend
payment of consumer goods industry companies, even in the pandemic.

3.1.1 Earnings Per Share and Dividend Per Share

Earnings per Share (EPS) is a ratio that shows the share of net income for each share. The up
down trend of EPS from year to year is usually a benchmark to determine whether a
company's performance is good or not (Rahmadewi & Abundanti, 2018). Therefore, EPS is
considered to influence the rise and fall of the price of a company's stock.

H1 = There is a significant difference between EPS before pandemic and after pandemic

H2 = There is a significant difference between DPS before pandemic and after pandemic

3.1.2 Return of Assets, Debt Ratio, and The Size of Company

According to Suadarna et al., (2020), ROA has a significant positive effect on changes in the
dividend payout ratio. The greater Return on Assets shows the results of the total assets
obtained by the company, it will result in a decision whether the profits earned by the
company will be distributed to shareholders as dividends or will be retained in the form of
retained earnings for investment financing in the future (Suadarna et al., 2020).

Meanwhile, company size does not have a significant effect on the Dividend Payout Ratio
(Widodo et al., 2021). This can happen because the level of performance of the companies
studied is almost the same as each other. Results may differ if there are a combination of
large and small companies on the research subject.

H3 = There is a significant relationship between ROA, DR, and the size of company with DPR in
2019

H4 = There is a significant relationship between RA, DR, and the size of company with DPR in
2020

3.2. Research Framework

Hypotheses 1 and 2 (Figure 3.2a) will show the difference between the Dividends per Share and
Earning per Share before and during the pandemic. Meanwhile, hypotheses 3 and 4 (Figure 3.2b)
will tell whether ROA and DR have a significant impact on DPR or not. The researchers use two
years in their study, which are 2019 and 2020, to analyze the change of the variables between one
period to another.

7|Page
 Figure 3.2a Research Conceptual Model for H1 & H4

Consumer Goods
Industries

EPS before and DPS Before and

after pandemic After Pandemic

Figure 3.2b Research Conceptual Model for H3 & H4

Dividend Payout
Ratio

Earning Per Size of The

Debt Ratio
Share Company

8|Page
 CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1. Data Collection

This research makes use of six pieces of data to be tested. They are Dividend Per Share (DPS),
Earning Per Share (EPS), Dividend Payout Ratio (DPR), Debt Ratio (DR), Return on Asset (ROA), and
size of the company. The stated information is used because this research aims to compare the
dividend payment of companies in the consumer goods sector between the normal condition of
2019 with the pandemic condition of 2020 given the performance of the year through the data
mentioned. The data is collected through secondary research.

The sample used in this research includes 38 companies that run in the consumer goods sector.
Although there are more than 70 companies in the sector, only 38 of them actually paid dividends
during 2019-2020. The data of DPS and EPS are gained from RTI Business, a platform to analyze
stocks' performance. DPR is calculated through dividing DPS by EPS. Debt Ratio, ROA, and asset size
data are obtained from Mirae Asset Sekuritas database through their Financial Statement feature.

4.2. Variables Definition

To conduct the research, there are three models of test that were run. The first model that is tested
is the correlation to see whether the variables are correlated or not. The second model is
descriptive analysis that will be used to compare the DPS and EPS comparison of the years 2019
and 2020. The descriptive analysis of EPS will conclude Hypothesis 1, while the descriptive analysis
of DPS will conclude Hypothesis 2. The third model to be run is the regression analysis with DPR as
the dependent variable and DR, ROA, and size as the independent variables. The regression analysis
will be run twice, with the first attempt to regress the data of 2019 and the second attempt to
regress the year 2020 data. Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4 will conclude the regression results of
year 2019 and 2020 data respectively. The regression models are:

Regression model for H3:

DPR2019 = a + bROA2019 + cDR2019 + dSize2019 + error

Regression model for H4:

DPR2020 = a + bROA2020 + cDR2020 + dSize2020 + error

Table 1: Variable Definition

Variable Abbreviation Description
Descriptive Analysis Variables
Dividend Per Size DPS The amount of dividend shared to stockholder according to
the share outstanding.
Earnings Per Share EPS The amount of net profit the company generates for each
share of their stock.

9|Page
 Regression Analysis Variables
Dividend Payout Ratio DPR The ratio of dividend distributed by the earnings per share
(DPS divided by EPS).
Return on Assets ROA The percentage of income generated by the assets that is
obtained by dividing net income with total assets.
Debt Ratio DR The percentage of total liabilities compared to total assets.
Size of company - The amount of total assets of the company.

10 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 5
RESULT AND DISCUSSION

5.1. Descriptive Analysis

The companies that are used for the analysis (N) is 39. The companies that we chose are the
companies in consumer goods industries that give dividends either in 2019 or 2020. We decide to
eliminate one company, Pt. Multi Bintang Indonesia (MLBI) since it has abnormal return of assets
value in 2020, compared with their return of assets value in 2019 and compared with the other
companies. However, the data analysis shows that there is another outlier in the data which will be
discussed later in the Data Analysis segment.

Figure 5.1 a: Average DPS Comparison

Average DPS Comparison

150

100

50

0
DPS 2019 DPS 2020

Figure 5.1 b: Average EPS Comparison

Average EPS Comparison

400
300
200
100
0
EPS 2019 EPS 2020

Figure 5.1 c: Average DPR Comparison

Average DPR Comparison

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
DPR 2019 DPR 2020

11 | P a g e
 Using descriptive analysis, we can see that the average EPS of consumer goods companies is
decreasing in 2020 by 23.6%, which means that the companies perform poorer compared with their
2019 performance in average. However, the average DPR of consumer goods companies is
increasing in 2020 by 55.8%, which leads the average DPS increase by 92.5% in 2020.

Table 2: Summary of Descriptive Analysis of All Variables

Standard
Mean Range Minimum Maximum Count
Deviation
DPS 2019 66.8592105 103.0549314 420 0 420 38
DPS 2020 128.745512 419.6661464 2600 0 2600 38
EPS 2019 287.580789 910.3178522 5653 2 5655 38
EPS 2020 219.701579 650.2800331 4247 -272 3975 38
DPR 2019 0.39020526 0.383543787 1.7385 0 1.7385 38
DPR 2020 0.60796053 0.756257386 4.2857 0 4.2857 38
ROA 2019 0.09715789 0.077539363 0.347 0.002 0.349 38
ROA 2020 0.08218421 0.073733947 0.384 -0.024 0.36 38
DR 2019 0.35457308 0.186682085 0.79794945 0.008 0.80594945 38
DR 2020 0.37193187 0.185992569 0.7289128 0.01 0.7389128 38
Size 2019 12366351.1 21396180.61 95677066 521493 96198559 38
Size 2020 16094436.8 32698071.38 162638496 498020 163136516 38

The table below shows the correlation analysis which will be needed for regression analysis later.
As we can see, the correlation value between the independent variable and dependent variable is
still in acceptable range, which is between -0.8 and 0.8. Hence, the multicollinearity problem can be
avoided in regression analysis later.

Table 3: Correlation Analysis of All Variable

DPR DPR ROA ROA Debt Ratio Debt Ratio Size Size 2020 (in
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 millions)
DPR 2019 1.000
DPR 2020 0.087 1.000
ROA 2019 0.445 0.032 1.000
ROA 2020 0.395 -0.011 0.855 1.000
Debt Ratio
2019 -0.103 -0.133 -0.527 -0.352 1.000
Debt Ratio
2020 -0.065 -0.126 -0.452 -0.315 0.869 1.000
Size 2019 (in
million) 0.010 -0.035 0.154 0.063 0.027 0.061 1.000
Size 2020 (in
millions) 0.034 -0.056 0.088 -0.003 0.027 0.123 0.933 1.000

12 | P a g e
5.2. Data Analysis
The data analysis will cover the result of Paired Two-Samples for Means t-Testing that will be used
to support the answer for Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 and regression analysis that will cover
Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4. The first test is used to measure the statistical differences between
the mean of EPS and DPS in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The second test will answer the regression
model and its hypotheses.

Regression model for H3:

DPR2019 = a + bROA2019 + cDR2019 + dSize2019 + error
H0: a = 0, ROA, DR, and company size are not significant to impact DPR in 2019
H1: b ≠ 0, ROA is significant to affect DPR in 2019
H2: c ≠ 0, DR is significant to affect DPR in 2019
H3: d ≠ 0, company size is significant to affect DPR in 2019

Regression model for H4:

DPR2020 = a + bROA2020 + cDR2020 + dSize2020 + error
H0: a = 0, ROA, DR, and company size are not significant to impact DPR in 2020
H1: b ≠ 0, ROA is significant to affect DPR in 2020
H2: c ≠ 0, DR is significant to affect DPR in 2020
H3: d ≠ 0, company size is significant to affect DPR in 2020

The result of both tests can be seen in Table 4 below. It is shown from Paired Two-Samples test that
there is a 23.7% decrease of mean EPS from 2019 to 2020 and 192% increase of mean DPS from
2019 to 2020. However, the P-value is not significant for both EPS and DPS. For the regression
analysis, the result shows that in 2019, only ROA significantly affects DPR with the P-value of
0.0039, meanwhile there are no significant independent variables for 2020.

Table 4: Data Summary

Hypothesis 1
Paired Two-Samples for Means (EPS)
Mean t Stat P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail
EPS 2019 287.58 0.37 0.71 1.996
EPS 2020 219.70
Hypothesis 2
Paired Two-Samples for Means (DPS)
Mean t Stat P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail
DPS 2019 68.67 -0.88 0.38 2.02
DPS 2020 132.14
Hypothesis 3
Regression Analysis 2019
Coefficient t Stat P-Value R Square
Intercept -0.0023 -0.012 0.99
ROA 2019 2.77 3.099 0.0039 0.23
Debt Ratio 2019 0.399 1.086 0.286

13 | P a g e
 Company size 2019 -1.46E-09 -0.53 0.60
Hypothesis 4
Regression Analysis 2020
Coefficient t Stat P-Value R Square
Intercept 0.88 2.36 0.02
ROA 2020 -0.56 -0.30 0.76
0.02
Debt Ratio 2020 -0.56 -0.77 0.45
Company size 2020 -9.12E-10 -0.23 0.82

5.3. Discussion
The finding of this research shows that there is a significant factor, ROA, that affects DPR in 2019,
which means that null hypothesis of 2019 is rejected (H3 is accepted). However, ROA is not
significant anymore to affect DPR in 2020 (H4 is rejected). Because there are no significant
independent variables to affect DPR for 2020, null hypothesis is accepted for 2020. The Paired
Two-Samples test also shows that there is a decrease in EPS and increase in DPS, although using t-
test shows that the data is not significant both in 2019 and 2020 (reject H1 and H2). Usually EPS
positively affects DPS, which means higher EPS results in higher DPS and vice versa (Kiboi, 2015).
However, as expected from the consumer goods sector that can perform well during uncertain
situation, the dividend payment increases in 2020. There are even nine companies from the sample
that did not pay dividends for 2019 and paid dividends for 2020. However, there are also
companies that did not pay dividends anymore in 2020, while they did pay it previously. Hence, the
t-test shows that the difference of EPS, DPS, and DPR between 2019 and 2020 are not significant.

The results of the tests show that there is an inconsistency of ROA, DR, and size performance to
affect DPR. Although ROA was significant in 2019, it became insignificant in 2020. This might be
resulted from companies that choose to pay more dividends in 2020 although their average asset
growth is only 12.16% and mean ROA growth is only 4.8%, resulting in higher conversion of EPS into
DPS which increase their DPR as well despite having lower asset growth. However, the mean DR
growth is also only 11%, which is below the asset growth. This phenomenon can be explained that
during uncertain situation although ROA growth is lower than DR, companies prefer to pay more
dividends to show a positive performance on the stock market to attract more investors. This
occurrence is in line with a previous study which stated that around 40% of companies distributed
dividends positively between 2019 and 2020 while only 32% of them choose not to distribute
dividends at all (Tinungki et al., 2022). Therefore, it can be concluded that despite a not so huge
growth of profit and assets, companies in the consumer goods sector tend to pay dividends to show
a good image of their company performance to attract more investors.

14 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION, LIMITATION, AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1. Conclusion
This study was made for two purposes which are to find out whether the COVID-19 pandemic
affected the distribution of dividends by consumer goods companies and whether ROA, Debt Ratio
and size of the company had a significant effect on the Dividend Payout ratio. The results of the
research show that ROA affects the Dividend Payout Ratio significantly but only in 2019.
Meanwhile, the Debt Ratio and company asset size do not significantly affect the Dividend Payout
Ratio both in 2019 and 2020.

6.2 Limitation
The limitation in this study is the number of the sample which only involves 38 companies in the
consumer goods sector. In addition, the time period that is used in the research is also limited
which only consists of 2 years starting from 2019 to 2020. It is relatively too short so it can affect
the results of the tests. This research also only attempts a multiple linear regression without testing
the possibility of using interaction variables that might increase the accuracy of the analysis. The
last consideration is that there are only three variables to regress which are ROA, Debt Ratio, and
company size. Although the result shows these three variables are not significant, there is a
possibility of them being significant if being combined with another variable.

6.3 Recommendation
In order for future studies to be conducted better, there are several suggestions for future
researchers. Considering the limitation of the period that is used, it is better that the next study
uses a longer period of time in order to produce a more accurate result. In addition, future studies
can use more variables in order to find out more clearly what variables can significantly affect the
Dividend Payout Ratio, such as Debt to Equity (DER) and Return on Equity (ROE) ratios. Moreover,
there is still room for a better and more accurate regression analysis technique. Future researchers
on this topic have the option to run regression analysis for interaction variables and compare the
accuracy with another type of regression analysis.

Nonetheless, this research can also give insight that the investor should not rely on only the
variable that we research, since the pandemic effect shows that the patterns that occurred before
pandemic are not shown again in the pandemic era. Hence, investors should investigate more in
the fundamental aspects of the company, such as their company policy and the company behavior.

15 | P a g e
 WORKS CITED

Chaniago, Y. F., & Ekadjaja, A. (2022, March). Determinant of Dividend Payout Ratios in Consumer Goods
Company. Jurnal Ekonomi, (Special Issue), 100-118.

Culata, P. R. E., & Gunarsih, T. (2012). PECKING ORDER THEORY AND TRADE-OFF THEORY OF CAPITAL
STRUCTURE: EVIDENCE FROM INDONESIAN STOCK EXCHANGE. Journal The WINNERS, 13(1), 40-
49. https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/27064-EN-pecking-order-theory-and-trade-off-
theory-of-capital-structure-evidence-from-ind.pdf

Fitri, R. R., Hosen, M. N., & Muhari, S. (2016). Analysis of Factors that Impact Dividend Payout Ratio on
Listed Companies at Jakarta Islamic Index. International Journal of Academic Research in
Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 6(2), 87-97. 10.6007/IJARAFMS/v6-i2/2074

Kaur, J. (2019). Firm’s Life Cycle Spurs the Dividend Payments: A Fallacy or an Actuality? Paradigm, 23(1),
36-52. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0971890719835630

Kiboi, C. C. (2015). The Relationship between Earnings per Share and Dividends per Share of Companies
Listed at The Nairobi Securities Exchange. University of Nairobi.
http://hdl.handle.net/11295/95098

Lin, L., & Lin, D. (2013). Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow and Bidders’ Long-run Takeover Performance.
Universal Journal of Accounting and Finance, 1(3), 95-102. 10.13189/ujaf.2013.010302

Malahayati, M., Masui, T., & Anggraeni, L. (2021). An assessment of the short-term impact of COVID-19
on economics and the environment: A case study of Indonesia. EconomiA, 22, 291-313.

Rahmadewi, P. W., & Abundanti, N. (2018). PENGARUH EPS, PER, CR, DAN ROE TERHADAP HARGA
SAHAM DI BURSA EFEK INDONESIA. E-Jurnal Manajemen Unud, 7(4), 2106-2133.
Ihttps://doi.org/10.24843/EJMUNUD.2018.v7.i04.p14

Ramadhani, N. (2021, January 26). Definisi dari Dividend Payout Ratio. Akseleran. Retrieved April 8,
2022, from https://www.akseleran.co.id/blog/dividend-payout-ratio/

Sead, O. (2014). Identification and Evaluation of Factors of Dividend Policy. Economic Analysis, 47(1-2),
42-58. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33812229.pdf

Simiyu, A. (2014). Signaling Theory of Dividends. Journal of Behavioral Finance 1, 1(1), 1-9.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348412_SIGNALING_THEORY_OF_DIVIDENDS

Smith, D. M. (2011). Residual Dividend Policy. In Dividends and Dividend Policy (pp. 115-126). John Wiley
& Sons. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230536117_Residual_Dividend_Policy

Suardana, I. M., Handayani, I. A. P., & Fariantin, E. (2020). ANALISIS PENGARUH RETURN ON ASSET
(ROA), DEBT TO EQUITY RATIO (DER), DAN CASH RATIO (CR) TERHADAP DIVIDEN PAYOUT RATIO
(DPR) PADA PERUSAHAAN MANUFAKTUR DI BURSA EFEK INDONESIA (PERIODE 2015-2018). Jurnal
Akuntansi dan Keuangan Syariah : Aliansi, 3(1).
https://aliansi.ugr.ac.id/index.php/aliansi/article/view/170

16 | P a g e
Tinungki, G. M., Robiyanto, R., & Hartono, P. G. (2022). The Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Corporate
Dividend Policy in Indonesia: The Static and Dynamic Panel Data Approaches. Economies, 10(11),
1-18.

Widodo, F. P. T., Praptapa, A., Suparlinah, I., & Setyorini, C. T. (2021). 2The effect of company size,
institutional ownership, profitability and leverage on dividends payout ratio. Journal of
Contemporary Accounting, 3(2), 77-87. 10.20885/jca.vol3.iss2.art3

Widyawati, D., & Indriani, A. (2019). Determinants of dividend payout ratio: evidence from Indonesian
manufacturing companies. Diponegoro International Journal of Business, 2(2), 112-121.
https://doi.org/10.14710/dijb.2.2.2019.112-121

World Bank Group. (2021, June 17). INDONESIA ECONOMIC PROSPECTS. In Boosting the Recovery. The
World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/in/country/indonesia/publication/indonesia-economic-
prospects-iep-june-2021-boosting-the-recovery

17 | P a g e