Environment and Health Speech or Presentation Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Environment and Health - Speech or Presentation Example The most advisable way to produce quality food is to grow our crops and animals in an organic manner in our farms. Meaning, we will grow our crops and animals without using GMOs, chemicals and antibiotics in this country (www.gov.uk nd). It may be more expensive to do this but the government can help by providing financial assistance to our farmers. The public can help by willing to buy these quality organic food at a slightly higher price so that it would be economically viable for farmers to grow quality organic crops and animals. The second option is to import quality foods in countries from our neighbouring countries. We have to set our expectation that we cannot import from far flung countries because quality foods that are organic have shorter shelf life. Fruits can be imported as they have longer shelf life compared to vegetables. Making the food and farming industry more competitive while protecting the environment. (n.d.). Retrieved March 5, 2015, from

Education on health promotion Essay Example for Free

Education on health promotion Essay

Dividend Payout Decision Making Process

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

Seeing Through the Grey Mist of Cal Poly :: Descriptive Essays

Seeing Through the Grey Mist of Cal Poly On an early Monday morning my sleepy classmates and I met at the gate to Poly Canyon. The thick marine layer circled around our group as our professor led us into the dense grey fog. A crisp breeze stung my bare cheeks sending a chill down my body. We walked past the Cerro Vista apartments, the last buildings of Cal Poly that I would see for two hours. A feeling of excitement ran through me as we began our walk down the service road and into the canyon, a place just down the street from my dorm that I had never known existed. As we trekked deeper in to the thick mist, a hidden part of Cal Poly began to reveal itself. Walls of serpentine rock rose on either side of the road and the creek below began to fill with water. Four does and a buck looked down on us from the steep slopes above. Eucalyptus trees sent a sweet fragrance through the air, and chirping birds provided soft background music for the hike. Worries of school began to fade away. The trail got rough as we started climbing up Poly Mountain. My eyes were glued to the ground. Rocks were constantly sliding under foot waiting for an opportunity to take my feet out from under me. My breath was getting shorter and my legs began to burn from the first real exercise they had gotten since leaving home. I did not know if I was going to make it up the hill. When we finally stopped for our first break, I collapsed onto the nearest rock and took some time to observe the land around me. I realized I had not looked up once throughout the first quarter of the hike. When we sat down to write I had nothing to describe or to meditate on. The thick fog had erased the trail behind us and everything surrounding it. I was filled with regret. As we continued, I made certain to look around more often. Golden grasses, patches of yucca, grand rock formations, and a solitary tree dotted the landscape. We took our second break in a community of yucca. When I sat down, one stabbed me in my thigh. Its green leaves sat motionless as though nothing had happened.

Bloodlines Chapter Two

A COUPLE OF PEOPLE GASPED, no doubt over Keith's use of the term â€Å"vamp lover.† Neither word was that terrible in and of itself, but together†¦ well, they represented an idea that was pretty much anathema to all that the Alchemists stood for. We fought to protect humans from vampires. Being in league with those creatures was about the vilest thing any of us could be accused of. Even while questioning me earlier, the other Alchemists had been very careful with their choice of language. Keith's usage was almost obscene. Horowitz looked angry on my behalf and opened his mouth as though he might make an equally biting retort. After a quick glance at Zoe and me, he seemed to reconsider, and stayed silent. Michaelson, however, couldn't help himself from muttering, â€Å"Protect us all.† He made the sign against evil. Yet it wasn't Keith's name-calling that really set me off (though that did certainly send a chill through me). It was Stanton's earlier offhand comment. We know you requested Zoe. Keith had requested Zoe for this assignment? My resolve to keep her out of it grew by leaps and bounds. The thought of her going off with him made me clench my fists. Everyone here might think Keith Darnell was some kind of poster child, but I knew better. No girl – let alone my sister – should be left alone with him. â€Å"Keith,† said Stanton, a gentle warning in her voice. â€Å"I can respect your feelings, but you aren't in a position to make that call.† He flushed. â€Å"Palm Springs is my post! I have every right to dictate what goes on in my territory.† â€Å"I can understand why you'd feel that way,† said my father. Unbelievable. If Zoe or I had questioned authority like Keith had, our father wouldn't have hesitated to tell us our â€Å"rights† – or rather, he'd tell us that we had none. Keith had stayed with my family one summer – young Alchemists sometimes did that while training – and my father had grown to regard him like the son he'd never had. Even then, there'd been a double standard between Keith and us. Time and distance apparently hadn't diminished that. â€Å"Palm Springs may be your post,† said Stanton, â€Å"but this assignment is coming from places in the organization that are far above your reach. You're essential for coordination, yes, but you are by no means the ultimate authority here.† Unlike me, I suspected Stanton had smacked a few people in her day, and I think she wanted to do that to Keith now. It was funny that she would become my defender, since I'd been pretty sure she didn't buy my story about using Rose to advance my career. Keith visibly calmed himself, wisely realizing a childish outburst wasn't going to get him anywhere. â€Å"I understand. But I'm simply worried about the success of this mission. I know both of the Sage girls. Even before Sydney's ‘incident,' I had serious concerns about her. I figured she'd grow out of them, though, so I didn't bother saying anything at the time. I see now I was wrong. Back then, I actually thought Zoe would have been a far better choice for the family position. No offense, Jared.† He gave my father what was probably supposed to be a charming smile. Meanwhile, it was getting harder and harder to hide my incredulity. â€Å"Zoe was eleven when you stayed with us,† I said. â€Å"How in the world could you have drawn those conclusions?† I didn't buy for an instant that he'd had â€Å"concerns† about me back then. No – scratch that. He'd probably had concerns the last day he stayed with us, when I confronted him about a dirty secret he'd been hiding. That, I was almost certain, was what all of this was about. He wanted me silenced. My adventures with Rose were simply an excuse to get me out of the way. â€Å"Zoe was always advanced for her age,† Keith said. â€Å"Sometimes you can just tell.† â€Å"Zoe's never seen a Strigoi, let alone a Moroi! She'd probably freeze up if she did. That's true of most Alchemists,† I pointed out. â€Å"Whoever you send is going to have to be able to stand being around them, and no matter what you think of my reasons, I'm used to them. I don't like them, but I know how to tolerate them. Zoe hasn't had anything but the most basic of instruction – and that's all been in our home. Everyone keeps saying this is a serious assignment. Do you really want to risk its outcome because of inexperience and unsubstantiated fears?† I finished, proud of myself for staying calm and making such a reasoned argument. Barnes shifted uneasily. â€Å"But if Keith had doubts years ago†¦Ã¢â‚¬  â€Å"Zoe's training is still probably enough to get by,† said my father. Five minutes ago, my father had endorsed me going instead of her! Was anyone here even listening to me? It was like I was invisible now that Keith was here. Horowitz had been busily cleaning and putting away his tattooing tools but looked up to scoff at Barnes's remark. â€Å"You said the magic words: ‘years ago.' Keith couldn't have been much older than these girls are now.† Horowitz shut his tool case and leaned casually against the wall, arms crossed. â€Å"I don't doubt you, Keith. Not exactly. But I'm not really sure you can base your opinion of her off memories from when you were all children.† By Horowitz's logic, he was saying I was still a child, but I didn't care. He'd delivered his comments in an effortless, easy way that nonetheless left Keith looking like an idiot. Keith knew it, too, and turned bright red. â€Å"I concur,† said Stanton, who was clearly getting impatient. â€Å"Sydney wants this badly, and few would, considering it means she'll actually have to live with a vampire.† Want it badly? Not exactly. But I did want to protect Zoe at all costs and restore my credibility. If it meant thwarting Keith Darnell along the way, then so much the – â€Å"Wait,† I said, replaying Stanton's words. â€Å"Did you say live with a vampire?† â€Å"Yes,† said Stanton. â€Å"Even if she's in hiding, the Moroi girl still has to have some semblance of a normal life. We figured we'd kill two birds with one stone and enroll her in a private boarding school. Take care of her education and lodging. We would make arrangements for you to be her roommate.† â€Å"Wouldn't that mean†¦ wouldn't that mean I'd have to go to school?† I asked, feeling a little puzzled now. â€Å"I already graduated.† High school, at least. I'd made it clear a number of times to my father that I'd love to go to college. He'd made it equally clear that he didn't feel there was a need. â€Å"You see?† said Keith, jumping on the opportunity. â€Å"She's too old. Zoe's a better age match.† â€Å"Sydney can pass for a senior. She's the right age.† Stanton gave me a once-over. â€Å"Besides, you were homeschooled, right? This'll be a new experience for you. You can see what you were missing.† â€Å"It would probably be easy for you,† said my father grudgingly. â€Å"Your education was superior to anything they can offer.† Nice backhanded compliment, Dad. I was afraid to show how uneasy this deal was making me. My resolve to look out for Zoe and myself hadn't changed, but the complications just kept growing. Repeat high school. Live with a vampire. Keep her in witness protection. And even though I'd talked up how comfortable I was around vampires, the thought of sharing a room with one – even a seemingly benign one like Jill – was unnerving. Another woe occurred to me. â€Å"Would you be an undercover student too?† I asked Keith. The idea of lending him class notes made me nauseous again. â€Å"Of course not,† he said, sounding insulted. â€Å"I'm too old. I'll be the Local Area Mission Liaison.† I was willing to bet he'd just made that title up on the spot. â€Å"My job is to help coordinate the assignment and report back to our superiors. And I'm not going to do it if she's the one there.† He looked from face to face as he spoke that last line, but there was no question who she was. Me. â€Å"Then don't,† said Stanton bluntly. â€Å"Sydney is going. That's my decision, and I'll argue it to any higher authority you want to take it to. If you are so against her placement, Mr. Darnell, I will personally see that you are transferred out of Palm Springs and don't have to deal with her at all.† All eyes swiveled to Keith, and he hesitated. She'd caught him in a trap, I realized. I had to imagine that with its climate, Palm Springs didn't see a lot of vampire action. Keith's job there was probably pretty easy, whereas when I'd worked in St. Petersburg, I'd been constantly having to do damage control. That place was a vampire haven, as were some of the other places in Europe and Asia my father had taken me to visit. Don't even get me started about Prague. If Keith were transferred, he took the risk of not only getting a bigger workload but also of being in a much worse location. Because although Palm Springs wasn't desirable for vampires, it sounded kind of awesome for humans. Keith's face confirmed as much. He didn't want to leave Palm Springs. â€Å"What if she goes there, and I have reason to suspect her of treason again?† â€Å"Then report her,† said Horowitz, shifting restlessly. He obviously wasn't impressed with Keith. â€Å"The same as you would anyone.† â€Å"I can increase some of Zoe's training in the meantime,† said my father, almost as an apology to Keith. It was clear whose side my father was on. It wasn't mine. It wasn't even Zoe's, really. â€Å"Then, if you find fault with Sydney, we can replace her.† I bristled at the thought of Keith being the one to decide if I had faults, but that didn't bother me nearly as much as the thought of Zoe still being tied to this. If my father was keeping her on standby, then she wasn't out of danger yet. The Alchemists could still have their hooks in her – as could Keith. I vowed then that no matter what it took, even if I had to handfeed him grapes, I would make sure Keith had no reason to doubt my loyalties. â€Å"Fine,† he said, the word seeming to cause him a lot of pain. â€Å"Sydney can go†¦ for now. But I'll be watching you.† He fixed his gaze on me. â€Å"And I'm not going to cover for you. You'll be responsible for keeping that vampire girl in line and getting her to her feedings.† â€Å"Feedings?† I asked blankly. Of course. Jill would need blood. For a moment, all my confidence wavered. It was easy to talk about hanging out with vampires when none were around. Easier still when you didn't think about what it was that made vampires who they were. Blood. That terrible, unnatural need that fueled their existence. An awful thought sprang into my mind, vanishing as quickly as it came. Am I supposed to give her my blood? No. That was ridiculous. That was a line the Alchemists would never cross. Swallowing, I tried to conceal my brief moment of panic. â€Å"How do you plan on feeding her?† Stanton nodded to Keith. â€Å"Would you explain?† I think she was giving him a chance to feel important, as a way of making up for his earlier defeat. He ran with it. â€Å"There's only one Moroi we know of living in Palm Springs,† said Keith. As he spoke, I noticed that his tousled blond hair was practically coated in gel. It gave his hair a slimy shine that I didn't think was attractive in the least. Also, I didn't trust any guy who used more styling products than I did. â€Å"And if you ask me, he's crazy. But he's harmless crazy – inasmuch as any of them are harmless. He's this old recluse who lives outside the city. He's got this hang-up about the Moroi government and doesn't associate with any of them, so he isn't going to tell anyone you guys are there. Most importantly, he's got a feeder he's willing to share.† I frowned. â€Å"Do we really want Jill hanging out with some anti-government Moroi? The whole purpose is to keep them stable. If we introduce her to some rebel, how do we know he won't try to use her?† â€Å"That's an excellent point,† said Michaelson, seeming surprised to admit as much. I hadn't meant to undermine Keith. My mind had just jumped ahead in this way it had, spotting a potential problem and pointing it out. From the look he gave me, though, it was like I was purposely trying to discredit his statement and make him look bad. â€Å"We won't tell him who she is, obviously,† he said, a glint of anger in his good eye. â€Å"That would be stupid. And he's not part of any faction. He's not part of anything. He's convinced the Moroi and their guardians let him down, so he wants nothing to do with any of them. I've passed a story to him about how Jill's family has the same antisocial feelings, so he's sympathetic.† â€Å"You're right to be wary, Sydney,† said Stanton. There was a look of approval in her eyes, like she was pleased at having defended me. That approval meant a lot to me, considering how fierce she often seemed. â€Å"We can't assume anything about any of them. Although we also checked out this Moroi with Abe Mazur, who concurs he's harmless enough.† â€Å"Abe Mazur?† scoffed Michaelson. He scratched at his graying beard. â€Å"Yes. I'm sure he'd be an expert on who's harmless or not.† My heart lurched at the name, but I tried not to show it. Do not react, do not react, I ordered my face. After a deep breath, I asked very, very carefully, â€Å"Is Abe Mazur the Moroi who's going with Jill? I've met him before†¦ but I thought you said it was an Ivashkov who was going.† If Abe Mazur was in residence in Palm Springs, that would alter things significantly. Michaelson scoffed. â€Å"No, we'd never send you off with Abe Mazur. He's simply been helping with the organization of this plan.† â€Å"What's so bad about Abe Mazur?† asked Keith. â€Å"I don't know who he is.† I studied Keith very closely as he spoke, looking for some trace of deception. But, no. His face was all innocence, openly curious. His blue eyes – or eye, rather – held a rare look of confusion, contrasting with the usual know-it-all arrogance. Abe's name meant nothing to him. I exhaled a breath I hadn't realized I'd been holding. â€Å"A scoundrel,† said Stanton flatly. â€Å"He knows far too much about things he shouldn't. He's useful, but I don't trust him.† A scoundrel? That was an understatement. Abe Mazur was a Moroi whose nickname in Russia – zmey, the serpent – said it all. Abe had done a number of favors for me, ones I'd had to pay back at considerable risk to myself. Part of that payback had been helping Rose escape. Well, he'd called it payback; I called it blackmail. I had no desire to cross paths with him again, mostly because I was afraid of what he'd ask for next. The frustrating part was that there was no one I could go to for help. My superiors wouldn't react well to learning that, in addition to all my other solo activities with vampires, I was making side deals with them. â€Å"None of them are to be trusted,† my father pointed out. He made the Alchemist sign against evil, drawing a cross on his left shoulder with his right hand. â€Å"Yes, well, Mazur's worse than most,† said Michaelson. He stifled a yawn, reminding all of us that it was the middle of the night. â€Å"Are we all set, then?† There were murmurs of assent. Keith's stormy expression displayed how unhappy he was at not getting his way, but he made no more attempts to stop me from going. â€Å"I guess we can leave anytime now,† he said. It took me a second to realize that the â€Å"we† meant him and me. â€Å"Right now?† I asked in disbelief. He shrugged. â€Å"The vampires are going to be on their way soon. We need to make sure everything's set up for them. If we switch off driving, we can be there by tomorrow afternoon.† â€Å"Great,† I said stiffly. A road trip with Keith. Ugh. But what else could I say? I had no choice in this, and even if I did, I was in no position to turn down anything the Alchemists asked of me now. I'd played every card I had tonight, and I had to believe being with Keith was better than a re-education center. Besides, I'd just fought a hard battle to prove myself and spare Zoe. I had to continue showing I was up for anything. My father sent me off to pack with the same briskness he'd ordered me to make myself presentable earlier. I left the others talking and scurried quietly up to my room, still conscious of my sleeping mother. I was an expert in packing quickly and efficiently, thanks to surprise trips my father had sprung on me throughout my childhood. In fact, I always had a bag of toiletries packed and ready to go. The problem wasn't so much in speed as it was in wondering how much to pack. The length of time for this assignment hadn't been specified, and I had the uneasy feeling that no one actually knew. Were we talking about a few weeks? An entire school year? I'd heard someone mention the Moroi wanting to repeal the law that endangered Jill, but that seemed like the kind of legal process that could take a while. To make things worse, I didn't even know what to wear to high school. The only thing I was certain of was that the weather would be hot. I ended up packing ten of my lightest outfits and hoped I'd be able to do laundry. â€Å"Sydney?† I was putting my laptop in a messenger bag when Zoe appeared in my doorway. She'd redone her braids so that they were neater, and I wondered if it had been an attempt to impress our father. â€Å"Hey,† I said, smiling at her. She slipped into the room and shut the door behind her. I was glad she'd come to say goodbye. I would miss her and wanted her to know that – â€Å"Why did you do that to me?† she demanded before I could get a word out. â€Å"Do you know how humiliated I am?† I was taken aback, speechless for a few moments. â€Å"I†¦ what are you talking about? I was trying to – â€Å" â€Å"You made me sound incompetent!† she said. I was astonished to see the glint of tears in her eyes. â€Å"You went on and on about how I didn't have any experience and couldn't handle doing what you and Dad do! I looked like an idiot in front of all those Alchemists. And Keith.† â€Å"Keith Darnell is no one you need to worry about impressing,† I said quickly, trying to control my temper. Seeing her stormy face, I sighed and replayed the conversation in the study. I hadn't been trying to make Zoe look bad so much as do whatever I could to make sure I was the one sent away. I'd had no clue she would take it like this. â€Å"Look, I wasn't trying to embarrass you. I was trying to protect you.† She gave a harsh laugh, and the anger sounded weird coming from someone as gentle as Zoe. â€Å"Is that what you call it? You even said yourself that you were trying to get a promotion!† I grimaced. Yes, I had said that. But I could hardly tell her the truth. No human knew the truth about why I'd helped Rose. Lying to my own kind – especially my sister – pained me, but there was nothing I could do. As usual, I felt trapped in the middle. So, I dodged the comment. â€Å"You were never intended to be an Alchemist,† I said. â€Å"There are better things for you out there.† â€Å"Because I'm not as smart as you?† she asked. â€Å"Because I don't speak five languages?† â€Å"That has nothing to do with it,† I snapped. â€Å"Zoe, you're wonderful, and you'd probably make a great Alchemist! But believe me, the Alchemist life†¦ you don't want any part of it.† I wanted to tell her that she'd hate it. I wanted to tell her that she'd never be responsible for her own future or get to make her own decisions again. But my sense of duty prevented me, and I stayed silent. â€Å"I'd do it,† she said. â€Å"I'd help protect us from vampires†¦ if Dad wanted me to.† Her voice wavered a little, and I suddenly wondered what was really fueling her desire to be an Alchemist. â€Å"If you want to get close to Dad, find another way. The Alchemist cause might be a good one, but once you're in it, they own you.† I wished I could explain to her how it felt. â€Å"You don't want this life.† â€Å"Because you want it all for yourself?† she demanded. She was a few inches shorter than me but filled with so much fury and fierceness right now that she seemed to take up the room. â€Å"No! I don't – you don't understand,† I finally said. I wanted to throw my hands up in exasperation but held back, as always. The look she gave me nearly turned me to ice. â€Å"Oh, I think I understand perfectly.† She turned around abruptly and hurried out the door, still managing to move quietly. Her fear of our father overpowered her anger at me. I stared at where she'd been standing and felt terrible. How could she have thought I was really trying to steal all the glory and make her look bad? Because that's exactly what you said, a voice inside me pointed out. I supposed it was true, but I'd never expected her to be offended. I'd never known she had any interest in being one of the Alchemists. Even now, I wondered if her desire was more about being a part of something and proving herself to our father than it was about really wishing she'd been chosen for this task. Whatever her reasons, there was nothing to be done for it now. I might not like the heavy-handed way the Alchemists had dealt with me, but I still fiercely believed in what they were doing to protect humans from vampires. And I definitely believed in keeping Jill safe from her own people if it meant avoiding a massive civil war. I could do this job and do it well. And Zoe – she would be free to pursue whatever she wanted in life. â€Å"What took you so long?† my father asked when I returned to the study. My conversation with Zoe had delayed me a couple minutes, which was two minutes too long for him. I didn't attempt to answer. â€Å"I'm ready to go whenever you are,† Keith told me. His mood had shifted while I was upstairs. Friendliness oozed from him now, so strongly that it was a wonder everyone didn't recognize it as fake. He'd apparently decided to try a more pleasant attitude around me, either in the hopes of impressing the others or sucking up to me so that I wouldn't reveal what I knew about him. Yet even as he wore that plastic smile, there was a stiffness in his posture and the way he crossed his arms that told me – if no else – that he was no happier about being thrown together than I was. â€Å"I can even do most of the driving.† â€Å"I don't mind doing my share,† I said, trying to avoid glancing at his glass eye. I also wasn't comfortable being driven by someone with faulty depth perception. â€Å"I'd like to speak to Sydney in private before she goes, if that's all right,† my father said. No one had a problem with that, and he led me into the kitchen, shutting the door behind us. We stood quietly for a few moments, simply facing each other with arms crossed. I suddenly dared to hope that maybe he'd come to tell me he was sorry for how things had been between us this last month, that he forgave me and loved me. Honestly, I would've been happy if he'd simply wanted a private, fatherly goodbye. He peered down at me intently, his brown eyes so identical to mine. I hoped mine never had such a cold look in them. â€Å"I don't have to tell you how important this is for you, for all of us.† So much for fatherly affection. â€Å"No, sir,† I said. â€Å"You don't.† â€Å"I don't know if you can undo the disgrace you brought down on us by running off with them, but this is a step in the right direction. Do not mess this up. You're being tested. Follow your orders. Keep the Moroi girl out of trouble.† He sighed and ran a hand through his dark blond hair, which I'd also inherited. Strange, I thought, that we had so many things in common†¦ yet were so completely different. â€Å"Thank God Keith is with you. Follow his lead. He knows what he's doing.† I stiffened. There was that note of pride in his voice again, like Keith was the greatest thing walking the earth. My father had seen to it that my training was thorough, but when Keith had stayed with us, my father had taken him on trips and lessons I'd never been part of. My sisters and I had been furious. We'd always suspected that our father regretted having only daughters, and that had been proof. But it wasn't jealousy that made my blood boil and teeth clench now. For a moment, I thought, What if I tell him what I know? What will he think of his golden boy then? But staring into my father's hard eyes, I answered my own question: No one would believe me. That was immediately followed by the memory of another voice and a girl's frightened, pleading face staring at me with big brown eyes. Don't tell, Sydney. Whatever you do, don't tell what Keith did. Don't tell anyone. I couldn't betray her like that. My father was still waiting for an answer. I swallowed and nodded. â€Å"Yes, sir.† He raised his eyebrows, clearly pleased, and gave me a rough pat on the shoulder. It was the closest he'd come to real affection in a while. I flinched, both from surprise and because of how rigid I was with frustration. â€Å"Good.† He moved toward the kitchen door and then paused to glance back at me. â€Å"Maybe there's hope for you yet.†

Mexico Report essays

Mexico Report essays Mexico is a Latin country with very distinct qualities. In this report I will cover the very basics of Mexicos history, culture: flag, parties, and food; people, government, military, transnational issues, communications, transportation, and geography. Mexico is very large with many different There is a lot of history on Mexico. I believe there is six key historical events. The pre-Hispanic era was from 1200 B.C. through 1521 A.D., and five major native civilizations influenced Mexicos history, but at different times. Mexicos first established culture was the Olmecs. They developed in the coastal states of Veracruz and Tabasco. They also created an extremely advanced calendar that included the concept of zero. Olmecs are believed to be around from 1200 B.C. until 200 B.C. The Mayans first appeared in 1200 B.C. Theyre known for their excellence in mathematics and astrology. By 1400 A.D. the Mayans nearly disappeared leaving behind a ceremonial center and great ancient cities. The third great group was the Zapotec/Mixtec. The Zapotecs first appeared in the valley of Oaxaca around 900 B.C. They were great city builders, created wonderful temples, burial chambers, metal work, and pottery as well. The Mixtec conquered the Zapotec and developed around Yagul and Mitla. By the early 1400s A.D. the Mixtec became vassals of the Aztec empire. From 950 through 1300 A.D. the Toltecs occupied the northern valley of Mexico. They built one of Mexicos most impressive cities, Tula. The Toltecs were master craftsmen and greatly influenced both the Mayans and the Aztecs in later years. The last of the five major native civilizations were the Aztecs. They dominated Mexico for nearly two hundred years, from 1345 until 1521. They were growing and spreading rapidly in 1591 when the Spanish came to try and conquer. Aztecs developed a complex ...

7 Bad Study Habits that Crush Your Productivity

7 Bad Study Habits that Crush Your Productivity After reading this article you’ll be able to boost your performance and conquer the world with style and savvy. Each one of the habits we’ll discuss are disturbingly common. Common as say†¦mediocrity. 1. You Guessed It†¦Procrastination Let’s be honest, some people can master the art of procrastination and some can’t. In reality, what those people are really doing is allowing the information to marinate in their minds. They’re making sense of it internally. Constantly dreaming about it. Thinking about it before they sleep each night. The people who can’t do it, pretty much just push things off until the last minute. Only then do they really direct their energies towards the problem or issue. That doesn’t really work. It just doesn’t. 2. Getting Stuck with Indecision Indecision causes us to become immobile. We stagnate, transforming into a human version of Pavlov’s Dog. Pick a place to start, the most accessible and begin. Tackle the simplest component and move on from there bit by bit. Furthermore, when in doubt go find someone with the answers and consult with them. Doing otherwise, just trying to be the proud Lone Ranger-type is oftentimes flat out ridiculous. And stop waiting for the perfect circumstances to arise, or that special feeling or whatever. That’s just indecision in disguise. You’re saying to yourself that you know what you â€Å"want† to do, but you can only perform miracles once you decide you HAVE to. 3. Listening to the Passing Cloud of Thought Is there anything under the sun more potentially distracting than your inner monologue? Honestly. At every second of every day it just keeps chattering away. Or, if you’re one of the more internally silent types, they tend to act up when you try to focus on something important. Learn to put it in the background and keep it there otherwise you’ll end up going on mental tangents over and over and over again wasting mountains of time. In reality those little tantalizing thoughts are energy vampires. You’ve only got so much before you have to disengage so choose wisely which thoughts you entertain. 4. Not Staying Physically Active Embody your studying whoever possible, or make sure to exercise at least once every day five days a week†¦period! The human mind and body thrive on physical activity. We’re genetically bred for it from our heads to our toes. Resistance sharpens up. When you have a break from your math homework, instead of staying mind-centric go give your body some attention. Take a jog. Go for a swim. Workout. Whatever. Confidence is also a pretty big productivity booster in nearly every respect. Think about it: don’t you do better in all areas of your life when you hold yourself and your abilities in higher esteem? The more focused your body, the more focused your mind can become†¦which in turn makes it easier to keep your internal monologue (not the same as your gut instincts) in check. 5. Caving to Technology Distractions It’s everywhere, calling for your attention second by second day in and day out. Social media networks are live 24/7. You could check recent updates. See if people commented on your blog. You could play some Angry Birds†¦The Xbox is backing thee. Virtual reality is ready to envelope your avatar once again. It goes on and on. You have got to completely disengage your mind from techno-distractions for a while if you’re going to get something done, especially if you’re forced to use a computer to do it. Don’t have tabs or windows open that don’t have to do with the problem at hand. Stop checking your email. Stop checking Drudge†¦! 6. Your Multi-tasking is Too Complex Getting lots of things done at once is awesome. It’s efficient. But, once you reach a point where the complexity is too much only pride and pure ignorance keep you chugging along at 30%. If you’re a chronic multi-tasker try this: do one thing at a time and see if you get more or less done. How about it? You up for the task? You can either go from easiest to hardest, or just mix things up in any way you see fit. Give it a shot. Oftentimes you’ll end up just grouping 2 or 3 things together as you can rather than the whole lot! 7. Avoiding Sufficient Nutrition Guess what genius, without sufficient hydration and micronutrient intake you’re cutting yourself drastically short. Take a simple biology, or human physiology class and be amazed by how much water and energy your brain requires. It’s shocking. Speaking of which, how about you shock yourself and eat quality food rather than top ramen, chili powder and peanut butter. Okay, we’re done. It’s your turn. What the #1 productivity killer to you?