This thesis aims to investigate fund managers salaries in relation to their contributions. The study is conducted on the Swedish fund market under a period over five years, 2014-2018, and include 332 funds. The result observed shows a positive relation between salaries and risk-adjusted performance. The result proves that fund managers are able to outperform the market on average, which should not be possible to do systematically over time according to the efficient market hypothesis. It also turns out that salary has a positive relationship with assets under management. This indicates that fund managers are employed and compensated for more reasons than to generate a high return, namely to contribute to more significant inflows of cash to the fund company. Interpretations of fund managers’ salaries are primarily linked to agency theory and economics of superstars. The agency problem alter in the fund industry since the setting is two-folded. Agency problem could be mitigated by implementing a performance-based compensation structure, to aligning investors, management and fund managers’ ambitions. The result shows signs that a performance-based salary is present in the fund industry. A fund managers’ salary assumes to be based on his/her skillfulness, but could also be due to an individual’s stardom. To conclude, the thesis state that fund managers’ deserve their salary, which in relative terms are fairly high, since they procure additional benefits to the fund company.

The hospitality industry, with its dynamic business environment, has experienced unprecedented disruption and reconfiguration due to the emergence and success of sharing economy firms and online travel agencies. This turbulence calls for effective governance structures that can motivate managers to act in their shareholders' best interests. Despite the importance of effective corporate governance for firm performance and the topic receiving extensive scholarly attention in the management and finance literatures, there seem to be several gaps and mixed findings in the hospitality academic field. To facilitate scholarly advancement, identify gaps in the current knowledge base, and provide direction for future research, in the first essay I undertake a systematic review of research on corporate governance in the hospitality literature. Based on 115 peer-reviewed articles published since 1961, I identify 21 themes explored by scholars, and find that topics related to institutional ownership, executive compensation determinants, board size, and merger and acquisition (MandA) outcomes are commonly examined, whereas topics related to family ownership, debt, and regulation/law are seldom explored. This review contributes to the literature by taking stock of what we know and offering a one-stop-shop for scholars to understand and extend corporate governance literature published in the hospitality field. While evidence in the general business literature suggests that targets, instead of acquirers, are better off after the acquisition, limited studies in the hospitality industry have shown that both bidders and targets are better off after the merger, suggesting that MandAs are more successful in the hospitality industry than in other industries. In the second essay, I empirically examine whether this is indeed the case and what may explain the potential discrepancy in merger performance. Using a comparative study design and a comprehensive sample over 41 years, I find that overall acquirers gain from MandAs, and hospitality MandAs outperform non-hospitality MandAs. Bidders in the hospitality industry are more likely than non-hospitality bidders to acquire large, related targets, using an all-cash mode of payment. Except for industry relatedness, relative size, cash payment, and unlisted target are all positively related to merger performance. This study contributes to the literature by identifying several factors that can explain the differences in MandA performance between hospitality and non-hospitality firms. Despite the fact that MandAs are frequently pursued as a growth strategy in the hospitality industry, their effect on chief executive officer (CEO) compensation has not been systematically examined. Considering that CEO compensation is an important topic related to firm performance, management, and social responsibility, in the third essay I examine the relationship between MandAs and CEO compensation in a sample of hospitality firms consisting of 1,514 firm-year observations over a period of 27 years. The regression analyses find that CEO compensation is significantly higher in the year after large acquisitions; well-governed firms identified via tenure, the Entrenchment-index, and board independence pay their CEOs higher post-acquisition than poorly-governed firms; the fraction of equity-based compensation is unrelated to MandA propensity; and the fraction of cash-based compensation is negatively related to MandA propensity. The additional analyses indicate that CEOs are rewarded for positive stock returns but not penalized for negative stock returns, and even more so in well-governed firms after acquisition. This study finds that MandAs and corporate governance are determinants of CEO compensation and the form of CEO compensation matters to acquisition decisions in hospitality firms. The findings are of importance for shareholders and the board of directors to design compensation plans that align the interests of managers and shareholders. / Doctor of Philosophy / The hospitality industry, with its dynamic business environment, has experienced unprecedented disruption and reconfiguration due to the emergence and success of sharing economy firms and online travel agencies. This turbulence calls for effective governance structures that can motivate managers to act in their shareholders' best interests. Despite the importance of effective corporate governance for firm performance and the topic receiving extensive scholarly attention in the management and finance literatures, there seem to be several gaps and mixed findings in the hospitality academic field. To facilitate scholarly advancement, identify gaps in the current knowledge base, and provide direction for future research, in the first essay I undertake a systematic review of research on corporate governance in the hospitality literature, and find that topics related to institutional ownership, executive compensation determinants, board size, and merger and acquisition (MandA) outcomes are commonly examined, whereas topics related to family ownership, debt, and regulation/law are seldom explored. This review contributes to the literature by taking stock of what we know and offering a one-stop-shop for scholars to understand and extend corporate governance literature published in the hospitality field. In the second essay, I empirically examine whether MandAs are more successful in the hospitality industry than in other industries and what may explain the potential discrepancy in merger performance. I find that overall acquirers gain from MandAs, and hospitality MandAs outperform non-hospitality MandAs. Bidders in the hospitality industry are more likely than non-hospitality bidders to acquire large, related targets, using an all-cash mode of payment. Except for industry relatedness, relative size, cash payment, and unlisted target are all positively related to merger performance. This study contributes to the literature by identifying several factors that can explain the differences in MandA performance between hospitality and non-hospitality firms. In the third essay I examine the relationship between MandAs and CEO compensation in a sample of hospitality firms, and find that CEO compensation is significantly higher in the year after large acquisitions; well-governed firms identified via tenure, the Entrenchment-index, and board independence pay their CEOs higher post-acquisition than poorly-governed firms; the fraction of equity-based compensation is unrelated to MandA propensity; and the fraction of cash-based compensation is negatively related to MandA propensity. The additional analyses indicate that CEOs are rewarded for positive stock returns but not penalized for negative stock returns, and even more so in well-governed firms after acquisition. This study finds that MandAs and corporate governance are determinants of CEO compensation and the form of CEO compensation matters to acquisition decisions in hospitality firms. The findings are of importance for shareholders and the board of directors to design compensation plans that align the interests of managers and shareholders.

本文以美國公司為樣本，探討高階主管獎酬結構與後續經營績效之關係以及高階主管獎酬結構與盈餘結構之關係。在高階主管獎酬結構與後續經營績效之關係方面，本文以營業活動之現金流量(CFO)、經濟附加價值(EVA^R)與股票報酬率(RET)作為衡量公司經營績效之指標，並以會計績效指標之總資產報酬率(ROA）與普通股權益報酬率(ROE)作為敏感性分析。實證結果均支持預期之推論，即高階主管獎酬結構著重長期激勵之公司，其後續績效明顯優於獎酬結構著重短期激勵之公司。 　　在高階主管獎酬結構與盈餘結構之關係方面，本研究發現：(1) 盈餘結構之應計項目中，應收帳款變動數、應付帳款變動數、存貨變動數與高階主管短期激勵性獎酬呈正相關，而折舊費用則與高階主管之短期激勵性獎酬呈負相關；反之，應收帳款變動數、應付帳款變動數、存貨變動數則與高階主管之長期激勵性獎酬呈負相關，而折舊費用則與高階主管之長期激勵性獎酬呈正相關。如預期地，這說明較高的短期性盈餘應計項目會導致較高的短期激勵性獎酬，及較低的長期激勵性獎酬；而與長期性投資有關的折舊費用則與長期激勵性獎酬呈正相關。因此偏向短期激勵性獎酬之結構，易誘使高階主管利用該四項應計項目，以獲取短期激勵性獎酬；反之，若高階主管獎酬結構以長期激勵性獎酬為主，則高階主管會較重視長期獲利能力與績效，無形中減少操縱短期盈餘之誘因。(2)高階主管現金獎酬比例越高之公司，其盈餘結構中之流動裁決性應計項目比例亦越高，說明現金獎酬比例較高之獎酬結構會誘導高階主管調節流動裁決性應計項目，以達到預定之盈餘目標。 　　綜合以上研究發現，高階主管獎酬結構對於經理人之經營誘因，扮演極重要之角色。 / This study investigates the relationship between CEO compensation structure and components of earnings and that between CEO compensation structure and firm's long-term performance. The larger the proportion of long-term incentive compensation in CEO's total compensation, the better the firm's long-term performance which is measured either as CFO, EVA^R, stock return, or accounting performance measures. On the contrary, higher proportion of short-term incentive compensation in total compensation can be obtained by manipulating accrual components. Firms with larger proportion of cash compensation have higher current discretionary accruals so that managers could be motivated toward managing discretionary current accruals to achieve target earnings. Such evidence suggests that compensation structure can be an important mechanism that induces manager's efforts towards shareholders' interest.