Determinants of acceptance rates of scrip dividend programs in the German stock market

Download This Article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Structuring corporate actions can be challenging due to the differing expectations and objectives of various stakeholders. In this context, scrip dividends represent an attractive instrument because of the flexibility they offer: shareholders can choose between receiving a cash dividend or additional shares at a previously determined subscription price, which is typically set at a discount to the prevailing market price. For firms considering such programs, the acceptance rate is a key decision metric. Whereas numerous and recent studies exist on other forms of corporate actions, scrip dividends have received comparatively little attention and constitute a largely under-researched field (Dennis & Weston, 2025; Drienko & Khorsand, 2023; Rau et al., 2024). This paper provides the first comprehensive empirical analysis of the factors influencing acceptance rates, based on a novel dataset covering all scrip dividend programs conducted in Germany. Using regression analysis, we find that shareholder concentration, the proportion of domestic investors in the shareholder base, and the discount on newly issued shares have a significant effect on acceptance.

Keywords: Dividend Policy, Scrip Dividends, Funding Strategy

Authors’ individual contribution: Conceptualization — J.H.; Methodology — J.V.; Data Curation — J.H.; Investigation — J.H. and J.V.; Writing — J.V. and J.H.; Supervision — J.V.

Declaration of conflicting interests: The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

JEL Classification: G1, G3, C5

Received: 24.07.2025
Revised: 07.11.2025; 19.12.2025; 27.01.2026
Accepted: 03.02.2026
Published online: 05.02.2026

How to cite this paper: Heinen, J., & Vogt, J. (2026). Determinants of acceptance rates of scrip dividend programs in the German stock market. Risk Governance and Control: Financial Markets & Institutions, 16(1), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.22495/rgcv16i1p9