Several studies in the past few decades examined empirically why firms choose to split their stock or distribute stock dividends and why the market reacts favourably to these distributions. Both events date back several decades. Stock dividends date back to the Elizabethan Age whereas stock splits became common as early as the beginning of the twentieth century (Lakonishok and Lev, 1987). Even though both stock dividends and stock splits have been in existence for several decades, two major questions are raised in the literature. First, if stock splits and stock dividends are just cosmetic in nature and thus they should not have any effect on the total market value of the firm, why do firms continue to engage in such financial distributions? Secondly, why is there a positive stock market reaction to stock split and stock dividend distributions?Various hypotheses were advanced in the existing literature to explain the persistence of stock splits and stock dividends and the related stock price reactions to these announcements, yet none of these hypotheses appear to be strongly supported by the empirical evidence provided thus far. These hypotheses can be broadly classified into two groups: signalling and optimal price hypotheses. 1 As far as the signalling hypothesis is concerned, it has been suggested that, given asymmetric information between managers and shareholders, managers use financial decisions such as stock dividend distributions and stock splits to convey favourable information to shareholders. However, for a signalling device to be valid, there should be a cost associated with sending false 1 Additional hypotheses are discussed in the literature, among those are (a) the market maker hypothesis which argues that the size of the relative bid-ask spread is important for the incentives of the market maker to promote the stock, (b) the neglected firm hypothesis which suggests that stock distributions are made mainly by undervalued firms, and (c) the cosmetic hypothesis which supports that stock distributions are mainly cosmetic in nature (Bechmann and Raaballe, 2007).