Over the year after a company raises its regular payout, do its shares pull ahead of comparable companies?
Study 49 · Changed a rule or plan · recorded 11 October 2026 · answer: Not at the size tested · full paper with figures
The question
Each raise by an established payer is compared with comparable companies of the same industry and similar trading size, which may or may not pay out themselves, and with the same companies' ordinary payout dates, on which they paid an unchanged amount. We also ask whether a larger raise went with a larger lead.
Rules fixed before the result
Fixed in advance: at least 400 raises by 100 companies, 30 per period, and a comparison able to detect 0.10 in approximate average wealth: the typical holder's wealth plus half the price-variance gap; it could detect 0.039. A range straddling zero within 0.10 reads as level. The answer is relabelled if a further 30% loss on shares leaving the market after halving in value changes it, or if the typical holder's wealth has a range wholly above zero reaching 0.10.
Data and method
We took study forty-three's 838 raises by 215 established payers, each matched with five comparable companies of the same industry and similar trading size, chosen without regard to whether they pay out. On the typical holder's logarithmic scale a steadier share grows faster for the same average wealth, so the two measures can differ; the year is compared in approximate average wealth. The ordinary payout dates are the payers' own dates with an unchanged amount.
The answer
Not at the size tested. Over the year after a raise, approximate average wealth in the payers' shares ended about 0.35% above comparable companies' (95% range 2.0% less to 3.0% more), the payers' prices being typically 0.78 times as volatile; the range excludes the 10.5% lead or 9.5% shortfall fixed in advance, though smaller effects remain compatible. In the typical holder's wealth the payers led by about 6.7% (3.4% to 10.3%). On the payers' own ordinary payout dates, approximate average wealth showed no measurable gap, while the typical holder's wealth led about as much as after a raise: 0.063 (0.040 to 0.083) against 0.064 (0.034 to 0.098) on the logarithmic scale. A larger raise brought no measurably larger lead, and a further 30% loss on shares leaving the market after halving in value left the answer unchanged.
Main estimate
0.004 fraction (95% range -0.020 to 0.030), from 838 observations
What it changes
By the rule set beforehand, the question of a year-long lead after raises closes, none assumed; a level year was expected, with low confidence, and found. Seven of eleven checks set beforehand read level; four read ahead within 0.10 (logarithmic scale): the typical holder's wealth, 0.064 (0.034 to 0.098), and with exited shares dropped, comparables refilled, 0.069 (0.043 to 0.096); in approximate average wealth, first raises only, 0.057 (0.012 to 0.0997), and 2019-2020 raises left out, 0.033 (0.006 to 0.062).
What remains uncertain
Study forty-three's record and the results of studies twenty-four and thirty-six on these raises were seen before this plan; same-date raises share market shocks the ranges treat as independent, though calendar-month resampling agreed. In approximate average wealth the first two periods pulled opposite ways, ahead in 2013 to 2016 and behind in 2017 to 2019, leaving the year level. The adjustment is approximate: it assumes roughly lognormal returns, which fat tails break, and uses each raise's own noisy yearly variance.
How it was made
Run took 94 minutes; independent code review: approve; the recorded calculation reruns to the same result.
Fingerprints
plan 8f66d10dfc71867e827c3a668187f85b3837bf130ea14108eb27ace69fad9c4a result 5875c62b5d0c8c9bbe0b022aee7f81e77f74ff55fb142e3b00fb3fe1d3569c12
Exploratory work on development data; not a performance claim.