Dividend Policy of Russian Companies and the Investors Interests

The paper concentrates on revealing basiс factors causing parameters of dividend policy. Analyzing practice of the Russian corporations, the authors conclude that, despite irregularity and in most cases refusal of payments by joint-stock companies, it is possible to determine similar features with the companies from the developed countries: concentration of dividends and circulation of the buy-back. Specific characteristics of dividend policy have become a consequence of poor quality of institutions leading to significant agency costs in firms: debt is not an essential restriction for payments of dividends; the effect of smoothing dividends is absent, the structure of ownership influences payments; large profitable companies pay dividends, also as a substitute for bad quality of corporate governance. Incentives of large shareholders reserving control over the companies are the main factor defining decisions on payment and the size of dividends.

Behaviour of scalar perturbations of a Reissner-Nordström black hole inside the event horizon

This paper considers general scalar perturbations of a Reissner-Nordstrdöm black hole and examines the qualitative behaviour of these perturbations in the region between and on the inner and outer horizons ( r - ≼ r ≼ r + ). Initial data are specified in terms of the ingoing radiation crossing the outer (event) horizon. The only essential restriction on these data is that the radiation should not die away too slowly on this horizon. The resultant perturbations are shown to be bounded and continuous. It is also shown that if ũ is any retarded null coordinate such that ũ = 0 on the event horizon, then the perturbations tend to zero along lines of constant radius as ũ ↓ 0. In particular, all these properties hold for pertur­bations on the inner horizon. For certain types of scalar field (including the zero rest mass scalar field) perturbations vanish at the crossover point on the inner horizon.

Comparison of Russell's resolution of the semantical antinomies with that of Tarski

In this paper we treat the ramified type theory of Russell [6], afterwards adopted by Whitehead and Russell in Principia mathematica [12], so that we may compare Russell's resolution of the semantical antinomies by ramified type theory with the now widely accepted resolution of them by the method of Tarski in [7], [8], [9].To avoid impredicativity the essential restriction is that quantification over any domain (type) must not be allowed to add new members to the domain, as it is held that adding new members changes the meaning of quantification over the domain in such a way that a vicious circle results. As Whitehead and Russell point out, there is no one particular form of the doctrine of types that is indispensable to accomplishing this restriction, and they have themselves offered two different versions of the ramified hierarchy in the first edition of Principia (see Preface, p. vii). The version in §§58–59 of the writer's [1], which will be followed in this paper, is still slightly different.To distinguish Russellian types or types in the sense of the ramified hierarchy from types in the sense of the simple theory of types, let us call the former r-types.There is an r-type i to which the individual variables belong. If β1, β2, …, βm are any given r-types, m ≧ 0, there is an r-type (β1, β2, …, βm)/n to which there belong m-ary functional variables of level n, n ≧ 1. The r-type (α1, α2, …, αm)/k is said to be directly lower than the r-type (β1, β2, …, βm)/n if α1 = β1, α2 = β2, …, αm = βm, k < n.

Fourier series associated with the sample functions of a stochastic process

We consider a stochastically continuous process ω(t, α) with independent increments, whose sample functions are bounded in the unit interval 0 ≤ t ≤ 1 for almost all α. If ω(t, α) is a process with independent increments, the characteristic function of ω(t, α) is of the form exp {tψ(u)} where where F is a σ-finite measure with finite mass outside every neighbourhood of o, and a and σ are constants. There is no essential restriction in supposing ω(0, α) = 0.