This study compares the dividend policies of independently owned and bank holding company-affiliated commercial banks. The hypothesis tested is that there exists a significant, positive relationship between the amount of cash dividends paid by a bank and its affiliation with a holding company. The issue is an important one because the distribution of earnings as dividends obviously reduces a bank's ability to generate capital internally, and retained earnings have been the chief source of growth in bank equity capital. For some time the bank supervisory authorities have been concerned over the relative decline in importance of capital in the balance sheet of the average bank, such funds permitting banks to absorb unexpected losses and weather periods of financial crises. Capital adequacy is thus a major consideration in the regulators' assessment of bank dividend policy. Prior research has shown that the banking subsidiaries of bank holding companies have maintained lower capital in relation to assets than have other banks despite achieving greater profitability. Since a bank's capital position is usually positively correlated with its earnings, this implies that affiliated banks have been more generous in paying dividends. Indeed, the statistical evidence of this study indicates that the banking subsidiaries of holding companies paid significantly higher dividends than other banks over the four–year period from 1973 through 1976. Whether or not this has resulted in these firms maintaining less than “adequate” capital is a question that goes far beyond the scope of this paper, but which ultimately must be considered.

The unique characteristic of a foreign asset is that the real purchasing power of the cash flows from the asset depends on the exchange rate prevailing on the conversion date. A naive view is that this dependence exposes foreign assets to exchange risk proportional to the volatility of the exchange rate and, other things equal, makes foreign assets much riskier than domestic ones. Anothe extreme is that for nonmonetary foreign assets, purchasing power parity (PPP) causes exchange rates to move inversely todifferential inflation rates, thereby eliminating exchange risk. Aliber and others maintain that a similar argument applies to foreign monetary assets. The international Fisher effect (IFE) causes the exante equilibrium return on all default-free monetary assets, measured in the domestic currency, to be the same regardless of the currency denomination of the instrument. The fact is, however, that PPP and IFE cannot be expected to hold instantaneously throughout time, but only on average over time. Consequently, although foreign assets may promise the same expected return as domestic assets, they will have a higher variance of return as seen by domestic investors. To justify the holding of foreign assets by a domestic investor, one must introduce portfolio considerations, the possibility of consumption expenditures denominated in the foreign currency, heterogeneous expectations, or market imperfections.