• Korean small business review
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.67-93
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relations between financial constraints and dividend smoothing of innovative small and medium sized enterprises(SMEs) listed on Korea Securities Market and Kosdaq Market of Korea Exchange. The innovative SMEs is defined as the firms with high level of R&D intensity which is measured by (R&D investment/total sales) ratio, according to Chauvin and Hirschey (1993). The R&D investment plays an important role as the innovative driver that can increase the future growth opportunity and profitability of the firms. Therefore, the R&D investment have large, positive, and consistent influences on the market value of the firm. In this point of view, we expect that the innovative SMEs can adjust dividend payment faster than the noninnovative SMEs, on the ground of their future growth opportunity and profitability. And also, we expect that the financial unconstrained firms can adjust dividend payment faster than the financial constrained firms, on the ground of their financing ability of investment funds through the market accessibility. Aivazian et al.(2006) exert that the financial unconstrained firms with the high accessibility to capital market can adjust dividend payment faster than the financial constrained firms. We collect the sample firms among the total SMEs listed on Korea Securities Market and Kosdaq Market of Korea Exchange during the periods from January 1999 to December 2007 from the KIS Value Library database. The total number of firm-year observations of the total sample firms throughout the entire period is 5,544, the number of firm-year observations of the dividend firms is 2,919, and the number of firm-year observations of the non-dividend firms is 2,625. About 53%(or 2,919) of these total 5,544 observations involve firms that make a dividend payment. The dividend firms are divided into two groups according to the R&D intensity, such as the innovative SMEs with larger than median of R&D intensity and the noninnovative SMEs with smaller than median of R&D intensity. The number of firm-year observations of the innovative SMEs is 1,506, and the number of firm-year observations of the noninnovative SMEs is 1,413. Furthermore, the innovative SMEs are divided into two groups according to level of financial constraints, such as the financial unconstrained firms and the financial constrained firms. The number of firm-year observations of the former is 894, and the number of firm-year observations of the latter is 612. Although all available firm-year observations of the dividend firms are collected, deletions are made in the case of financial industries such as banks, securities company, insurance company, and other financial services company, because their capital structure and business style are widely different from the general manufacturing firms. The stock repurchase was involved in dividend payment because Grullon and Michaely (2002) examined the substitution hypothesis between dividends and stock repurchases. However, our data structure is an unbalanced panel data since there is no requirement that the firm-year observations data are all available for each firms during the entire periods from January 1999 to December 2007 from the KIS Value Library database. We firstly estimate the classic Lintner(1956) dividend adjustment model, where the decision to smooth dividend or to adopt a residual dividend policy depends on financial constraints measured by market accessibility. Lintner model indicates that firms maintain stable and long run target payout ratio, and that firms adjust partially the gap between current payout rato and target payout ratio each year. In the Lintner model, dependent variable is the current dividend per share(DPS_t), and independent variables are the past dividend per share(DPS_t-1) and the current earnings per share(EPS_t). We hypothesized that firms adjust partially the gap between the current dividend per share(DPS_t) and the target payout ratio(Ω) each year, when the past dividend per share(DPS_t-1) deviate from the target payout ratio(Ω). We secondly estimate the expansion model that extend the Lintner model by including the determinants suggested by the major theories of dividend, namely, residual dividend theory, dividend signaling theory, agency theory, catering theory, and transactions cost theory. In the expansion model, dependent variable is the current dividend per share(DPS_t), explanatory variables are the past dividend per share(DPS_t-1) and the current earnings per share(EPS_t), and control variables are the current capital expenditure ratio(CEA_t), the current leverage ratio(LEV_t), the current operating return on assets(ROA_t), the current business risk(RISK_t), the current trading volume turnover ratio(TURN_t), and the current dividend premium(DPREM_t). In these control variables, CEA_t, LEV_t, and ROA_t are the determinants suggested by the residual dividend theory and the agency theory, ROA_t and RISK_t are the determinants suggested by the dividend signaling theory, TURN_t is the determinant suggested by the transactions cost theory, and DPREM_t is the determinant suggested by the catering theory. Furthermore, we thirdly estimate the Lintner model and the expansion model by using the panel data of the financial unconstrained firms and the financial constrained firms, that are divided into two groups according to level of financial constraints. We expect that the financial unconstrained firms can adjust dividend payment faster than the financial constrained firms, because the former can finance more easily the investment funds through the market accessibility than the latter. We analyzed descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation, and median to delete the outliers from the panel data, conducted one way analysis of variance to check up the industry-specfic effects, and conducted difference test of firms characteristic variables between innovative SMEs and noninnovative SMEs as well as difference test of firms characteristic variables between financial unconstrained firms and financial constrained firms. We also conducted the correlation analysis and the variance inflation factors analysis to detect any multicollinearity among the independent variables. Both of the correlation coefficients and the variance inflation factors are roughly low to the extent that may be ignored the multicollinearity among the independent variables. Furthermore, we estimate both of the Lintner model and the expansion model using the panel regression analysis. We firstly test the time-specific effects and the firm-specific effects may be involved in our panel data through the Lagrange multiplier test that was proposed by Breusch and Pagan(1980), and secondly conduct Hausman test to prove that fixed effect model is fitter with our panel data than the random effect model. The main results of this study can be summarized as follows. The determinants suggested by the major theories of dividend, namely, residual dividend theory, dividend signaling theory, agency theory, catering theory, and transactions cost theory explain significantly the dividend policy of the innovative SMEs. Lintner model indicates that firms maintain stable and long run target payout ratio, and that firms adjust partially the gap between the current payout ratio and the target payout ratio each year. In the core variables of Lintner model, the past dividend per share has more effects to dividend smoothing than the current earnings per share. These results suggest that the innovative SMEs maintain stable and long run dividend policy which sustains the past dividend per share level without corporate special reasons. The main results show that dividend adjustment speed of the innovative SMEs is faster than that of the noninnovative SMEs. This means that the innovative SMEs with high level of R&D intensity can adjust dividend payment faster than the noninnovative SMEs, on the ground of their future growth opportunity and profitability. The other main results show that dividend adjustment speed of the financial unconstrained SMEs is faster than that of the financial constrained SMEs. This means that the financial unconstrained firms with high accessibility to capital market can adjust dividend payment faster than the financial constrained firms, on the ground of their financing ability of investment funds through the market accessibility. Futhermore, the other additional results show that dividend adjustment speed of the innovative SMEs classified by the Small and Medium Business Administration is faster than that of the unclassified SMEs. They are linked with various financial policies and services such as credit guaranteed service, policy fund for SMEs, venture investment fund, insurance program, and so on. In conclusion, the past dividend per share and the current earnings per share suggested by the Lintner model explain mainly dividend adjustment speed of the innovative SMEs, and also the financial constraints explain partially. Therefore, if managers can properly understand of the relations between financial constraints and dividend smoothing of innovative SMEs, they can maintain stable and long run dividend policy of the innovative SMEs through dividend smoothing. These are encouraging results for Korea government, that is, the Small and Medium Business Administration as it has implemented many policies to commit to the innovative SMEs. This paper may have a few limitations because it may be only early study about the relations between financial constraints and dividend smoothing of the innovative SMEs. Specifically, this paper may not adequately capture all of the subtle features of the innovative SMEs and the financial unconstrained SMEs. Therefore, we think that it is necessary to expand sample firms and control variables, and use more elaborate analysis methods in the future studies.

• Korean small business review
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.65-87
• /
• 2010

With the advent of knowledge-based society, the revitalization of technological innovation type SMEs, termed "inno-biz" hereafter, has been globally recognized as a government policymakers' primary concern in strengthening national competitiveness, and much effort is being put into establishing polices of boosting the start-ups and innovation capability of SMEs. Especially, in that the inno-biz enables national economy to get vitalized by widening world markets with its superior technology, and thus, taking the initiative of extremely competitive world markets, its growth and development has greater significance. In the case of Korea, the government has been maintaining the policies since the late 1990s of stimulating the growth of SMEs as well as building various infrastructures to foster the start-ups of the SMEs such as venture businesses with high technology. In addition, since the enactment of "Innovation Promotion Law for SMEs" in 2001, the government has been accelerating the policies of prioritizing the growth and development of inno-biz. So, for the sound growth and development of Korean inno-biz, this paper intends to offer effective management strategies for SMEs and suggest proper policies for the government, by researching into the effect of technological innovation capability and technology commercialization capability as the primary business resources on business performance in Korean SMEs in the light of market information orientation. The research is carried out on Korean companies characterized as inno-biz. On the basis of OSLO manual and prior studies, the research categorizes their status. R&D capability, technology accumulation capability and technological innovation system are categorized into technological innovation capability; product development capability, manufacturing capability and marketing capability into technology commercialization capability; and increase in product competitiveness and merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. Then the effect of each component on business performance is substantially analyzed. In addition, the mediation effect of technological innovation and technology commercialization capability on business performance is observed by the use of the market information orientation as a parameter. The following hypotheses are proposed. H1 : Technology innovation capability will positively influence business performance. H1-1 : R&D capability will positively influence product competitiveness. H1-2 : R&D capability will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H1-3 : Technology accumulation capability will positively influence product competitiveness. H1-4 : Technology accumulation capability will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H1-5 : Technological innovation system will positively influence product competitiveness. H1-6 : Technological innovation system will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H2 : Technology commercializing capability will positively influence business performance. H2-1 : Product development capability will positively influence product competitiveness. H2-2 : Product development capability will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H2-3 : Manufacturing capability will positively influence product competitiveness. H2-4 : Manufacturing capability will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H2-5 : Marketing capability will positively influence product competitiveness. H2-6 : Marketing capability will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H3 : Technology innovation capability will positively influence market information orientation. H3-1 : R&D capability will positively influence information generation. H3-2 : R&D capability will positively influence information diffusion. H3-3 : R&D capability will positively influence information response. H3-4 : Technology accumulation capability will positively influence information generation. H3-5 : Technology accumulation capability will positively influence information diffusion. H3-6 : Technology accumulation capability will positively influence information response. H3-7 : Technological innovation system will positively influence information generation. H3-8 : Technological innovation system will positively influence information diffusion. H3-9 : Technological innovation system will positively influence information response. H4 : Technology commercialization capability will positively influence market information orientation. H4-1 : Product development capability will positively influence information generation. H4-2 : Product development capability will positively influence information diffusion. H4-3 : Product development capability will positively influence information response. H4-4 : Manufacturing capability will positively influence information generation. H4-5 : Manufacturing capability will positively influence information diffusion. H4-6 : Manufacturing capability will positively influence information response. H4-7 : Marketing capability will positively influence information generation. H4-8 : Marketing capability will positively influence information diffusion. H4-9 : Marketing capability will positively influence information response. H5 : Market information orientation will positively influence business performance. H5-1 : Information generation will positively influence product competitiveness. H5-2 : Information generation will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H5-3 : Information diffusion will positively influence product competitiveness. H5-4 : Information diffusion will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H5-5 : Information response will positively influence product competitiveness. H5-6 : Information response will positively influence merits for new technology and/or product development into business performance. H6 : Market information orientation will mediate the relationship between technology innovation capability and business performance. H7 : Market information orientation will mediate the relationship between technology commercializing capability and business performance. The followings are the research results : First, as for the effect of technological innovation on business performance, the technology accumulation capability and technological innovating system have a positive effect on increase in product competitiveness and merits for new technology and/or product development, while R&D capability has little effect on business performance. Second, as for the effect of technology commercialization capability on business performance, the effect of manufacturing capability is relatively greater than that of merits for new technology and/or product development. Third, the mediation effect of market information orientation is identified to exist partially in information generation, information diffusion and information response. Judging from these results, the following analysis can be made : On Increase in product competitiveness, directly related to successful technology commercialization of technology, management capability including technological innovation system, manufacturing capability and marketing capability has a relatively strong effect. On merits for new technology and/or product development, on the other hand, capability in technological aspect including R&D capability, technology accumulation capability and product development capability has relatively strong effect. Besides, in the cast of market information orientation, the level of information diffusion within an organization plays and important role in new technology and/or product development. Also, for commercial success like increase in product competitiveness, the level of information response is primarily required. Accordingly, the following policies are suggested : First, as the effect of technological innovation capability and technology commercialization capability on business performance differs among SMEs; in order for SMEs to secure competitiveness, the government has to establish microscopic policies for SMEs which meet their needs and characteristics. Especially, the SMEs lacking in capital and labor are required to map out management strategies of focusing their resources primarily on their strengths. And the government needs to set up policies for SMEs, not from its macro-scaled standpoint, but from the selective and concentrative one that meets the needs and characteristics of respective SMEs. Second, systematic infrastructures are urgently required which lead technological success to commercial success. Namely, as technological merits at respective SME levels do not always guarantee commercial success, the government should make and effort to build systematic infrastructures including encouragement of M&A or technology trade, systematic support for protecting intellectual property, furtherance of business incubating and industrial clusters for strengthening academic-industrial network, and revitalization of technology financing, in order to make successful commercialization from technological success. Finally, the effort to innovate technology, R&D, for example, is essential to future national competitiveness, but its result is often prolonged. So the government needs continuous concern and funding for basic science, in order to maximize technological innovation capability. Indeed the government needs to examine continuously whether technological innovation capability or technological success leads satisfactorily to commercial success in market economic system. It is because, when the transition fails, it should be left to the government.

• Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer
• /
• v.9 no.3
• /
• pp.211-220
• /
• 1976

The objective of this paper is to summarize and disicuss the results of studies for the prediction of fertilizer demands up to the year of 2000, from the agromic biew points. 1. The approximated demands of fertilizers figured out from the view point of nutrient requirement and fertilizer efficiency of major crops are 1,162,000M/T (N;554,100 M/T, $P_2O_5$; 360,100 M/T and $K_2O$, 247,000 M/T) at 1980, 1,471,400 M/T (N: 694,800 M/T, $P_2O_5$;465,400M/T and $K_2O$ ;311,200 M/T) at 1990 and 1,764,00 M/T (N;812,500 M/T, $P_2O_5$; 592,300 M/T and $K_2O$;359,200 M/T) at 2000${\cdots}{\cdots}$ (Approximation I) 2. Upon the basis of approximation on the yield levels of major crops per unit area and on the expansion of arable land, the demands of fertilizers at the years of 1980, 1990 and 2000 are predicted as 1,149,300 M/T (N;603,700 M/T $P_2O_5$; 305,500 M/T and $K_2O$, 240,100 M/T) 1,551,100 M/T(N:814,700M/T, $P_2O_5$;412,300 M/T and $K_2O$;324,00 M/T) and 2,253,800 M/T (N;1,183,800M/T, $P_2O_5$; 586,400M/T and $K_2O$, 470,900 M/T), respectively${\cdots}{\cdots}$(Approximation II) 3. When the recent relationships between the increases in yeid of major crops and the amounts of fertilizers for those crops per unit area are brought into consideration for the estimation of future demands of fertilizers, the predicted demands at the years of 1980, 1990 and 2000 are 1,287.600 M/T (N;677,100 M/T, $P_2O_5$; 342,000 M/T, and $K_2O$;268,500 M/T), 2,085,600M/T (N;1,096,700 M/T, $P_2O_5$;533,900 M/T, and $K_2O$;435,000 M/T and 3,380,600 M/T (N;1,777,800M/T, $P_2O_5$;897,800M/T and $K_2O$;705,000M/T) respectively (Approximation III) 4. Approximation I will be closer estimate under such condition that only rice will maintain self suficiency and other food crops will be covered by domestic production by around 50 percent, which is not desirable situation. 5. When higher self suficiency leveles of major food crops are sought through the introduction of improved varieties and expansion of cropping area and arable land by increased land utilization and reclamation of hillside land and tidal land, the Approximations II and III will become close to reality, If improved fertilizers and improved method of fertilizer applications are widely applied at the farmers fields to increase the fertilizer efficiency the former will be closer figure, if not, the latter may be better estimates.

• Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.1-38
• /
• 1972

This study, designed to establish a classification system of paddy soils and suitability groups on productivity and management of paddy land based on soil characteristics, has been made for the paddy soils on the Gimje-Mangyeong plains. The morphological, physical and chemical properties of the 15 paddy soil series found on these plains are briefly as follows: Ten soil series (Baeggu, Bongnam, Buyong, Gimje, Gongdeog, Honam, Jeonbug, Jisan, Mangyeong and Suam) have a B horizon (cambic B), two soil series (Geugrag and Hwadong) have a Bt horizon (argillic B), and three soil series (Gwanghwal, Hwagye and Sindab) have no B or Bt horizons. Uniquely, both the Bongnam and Gongdeog series contain a muck layer in the lower part of subsoil. Four soil series (Baeggu, Gongdeog, Gwanghwal and Sindab) generally are bluish gray and dark gray, and eight soil series (Bongnam, Buyong, Gimje, Honam, Jeonbug, Jisan, Mangyeong and Suam) are either gray or grayish brown. Three soil series (Geugrag, Hwadong and Hwagye), however, are partially gleyed in the surface and subsurface, but have a yellowish brown to brown subsoil or substrata. Seven soil series (Bongnam, Buyong, Geugrag, Gimje, Gongdeog, Honam and Hwadong) are of fine clayey texture, three soil series (Baeggu, Jeonbug and Jisan) belong to fine loamy and fine silty, three soil series (Gwanghwal, Mangyeong and Suam) to coarse loamy and coarse silty, and two soil series (Hwagye and Sindab) to sandy and sandy skeletal texture classes. The carbon content of the surface soil ranges from 0.29 to 2.18 percent, mostly 1.0 to 2.0 percent. The total nitrogen content of the surface soil ranges from 0.03 to 0.25 percent, showing a tendency to decrease irregularly with depth. The C/N ratio in the surface soil ranges from 4.6 to 15.5, dominantly from 8 to 10. The C/N ratio in the subsoil and substrata, however, has a wide range from 3.0 to 20.25. The soil reaction ranges from 4.5 to 8.0. All soil series except the Gwanghwal and Mangyeong series belong to the acid reaction class. The cation exchange cpacity in the surface soil ranges from 5 to 13 milliequivalents per 100 grams of soil, and in all the subsoil and substrata except those of a sandy texture, from 10 to 20 milliequivalents per 100 grams of soil. The base saturation of the soil series except Baeggu and Gongdeog is more than 60 percent. The active iron content of the surface soil ranges from 0.45 to 1.81 ppm, easily-reduceable manganese from 15 to 148 ppm, and available silica from 36 to 366 ppm. The iron and manganese are generally accumulated in a similar position (10 to 70cm. depth), and silica occurs in the same horizon with that of iron and manganese, or in the deeper horizons in the soil profile. The properties of each soil series extending from the sea shore towards the continental plains change with distance and they are related with distance (x) as follows: y(surface soil, clay content) = $$-0.2491x^2+6.0388x-1.1251$$ y(subsoil or subsurface soil, clay content) = $$-0.31646x^2+7.84818x-2.50008$$ y(surface soil, organic carbon content) = $$-0.0089x^2+0.2192x+0.1366$$ y(subsoil or subsurface soil, pH) = $$-0.0178x^2-0.04534x+8.3531$$ Soil profile development, soil color, depositional and organic layers, soil texture and soil reaction etc. are thought to be the major items that should be considered in a paddy soil classification. It was found that most of the soils belonging to the moderately well, somewhat poorly and poorly drained fine and medium textured soils and moderately deep fine textured soils over coarse materials, produce higher paddy yields in excess of 3,750 kg/ha. and most of the soils belonging to the coarse textured soils, well drained fine textured soils, moderately deep medium textured soils over coarse materials and saline soils, produce yields less than 3,750kg/ha. Soil texture of the profile, available soil depth, salinity and gleying of the surface and subsurface soils etc. seem to be the major factors determining rice yields, and these factors are considered when establishing suitability groups for paddy land. The great group, group, subgroup, family and series are proposed for the classification categories of paddy soils. The soil series is the basic category of the classification. The argillic horizon (Bt horizon) and cambic horizon (B horizon) are proposed as two diagnostic horizons of great group level for the determination of the morphological properties of soils in the classification. The specific soil characteristics considered in the group and subgroup levels are soil color of the profile (bluish gray, gray or yellowish brown), salinity (salic), depositonal (fluvic) and muck layers (mucky), and gleying of surface and subsurface soils (gleyic). The family levels are classified on the basis of soil reaction, soil texture and gravel content of the profile. The definitions are given on each classification category, diagnostic horizons and specific soil characteristics respectively. The soils on these plains are classified in eight subgroups and examined under the existing classification system. Further, the suitability group, can be divided into two major categories, suitability class and subclass. The soils within a suitability class are similar in potential productivity and limitation on use and management. Class 1 through 4 are distinguished from each other by combination of soil characteristics. Subclasses are divided from classes that have the same kind of dominant limitations such as slope(e), wettness(w), sandy(s), gravels(g), salinity(t) and non-gleying of the surface and subsurface soils(n). The above suitability classes and subclasses are examined, and the definitions are given. Seven subclasses are found on these plains for paddy soils. The classification and suitability group of 15 paddy soil series on the Gimje-Mangyeong plains may now be tabulated as follows.