No description available.

本研究檢視以下兩項議題之研究：高管薪酬以及異常高管薪酬對職工工資的線性及非線性影響，以及所有權型態（國有企業與民營企業）對前述兩者關係之影響。而實證結果發現，高管薪酬及職工工資皆與公司績效呈正向相關，市場化程度高的地區亦會影響其薪酬水準。若以董事會獨立性與是否設立薪酬委員會做為公司治理良窳的指標則與高管薪酬的水準為正相關，但董事會獨立性與職工工資無關。另外與高管薪酬不同的是，機構投資人持股比率會提高職工工資的水準，但對高管薪酬的影響並不顯著。對所有權型態而言，在其他條件不變的情況下，國有企業的高管薪酬及職工工資皆大於非國有企業的高管薪酬。 最後，本研究對發現異常高管薪酬與職工工資的關係呈顯著正相關。而就任職於國有企業的職工與就職於民營企業的職工相比，若其服務企業的異常高管薪酬皆屬於每年前20%者，二組的職工工資並無顯著差異。但是，若其服務企業的異常高管薪酬皆屬於每年後20%者，則國有企業的職工工資會大於民營企業的職工工資。 / This study focuses on two issues: the effect of executive compensation and abnormal executive compensation on salary, and the effect of different ownership types on the relations of two types of compensation and salary. The empirical results show that executives and employees of companies with better performance enjoy higher compensation and salary. Moreover, the marketization level can affect the level of compensation and salary. The results also indicate that the independence level of boards of directors and the establishment of compensation committee both have a positive relationship with executive compensation. However, the independence level of the board of directors has no effect on salary. On the other hand, the shareholding ratio of institutional investors has a positive relationship with salary level, but has no effect on executive compensation. For all the ownership types, all other conditions remain constant, the executive compensation and salary of state-owned enterprises are higher than those of non-state enterprises. In conclusion, this study states that abnormal executive compensation has a positive relationship with salary level. There is no significant difference in salaries between state-owned enterprises and non-state enterprises if the abnormal executive compensation belongs to the top 20% of the sample each year. Conversely, if abnormal executive compensation belongs to the last 20% of the sample each year, the salary of state-owned enterprises is higher than that of non-state enterprises.

This thesis consists of three chapters on financial structure, managerial compensation, and product markets. The unifying theme of these chapters is to examine how the financial decisions of firms are affected by market imperfections. Chapter 1 places emphasis on the impact of internal imperfections arising from asymmetric beliefs (or behavioral biases) and agency conflicts by examining how these internal imperfections affect managerial compensation and corporate financial structure. On the other hand, Chapters 2 and 3 incorporate external market imperfections especially arising from imperfect product market competition. More specifically, these two chapters develop market equilibrium frameworks to examine how the matching market for CEOs and firms interacts with the product market to affect the distributions of CEO compensation and firm size. In Chapter 1, we develop a dynamic model to examine the effects of asymmetric beliefs of a firm's manager and blockholders regarding the profitability of the firm's projects, and differing attitudes towards their risk, on its capital structure. The firm's capital structure reflects the tradeoff between the positive incentive effects of managerial optimism that increases the manager's output and blockholders' private benefits against the negative effects of risk-sharing costs. We provide several testable implications for the effects of the degree of managerial optimism as well as permanent and transitory components of the firm's risk on different components of capital structure. In our calibration of the model, performed separately for different industries, we show that while optimism and risk have qualitatively similar effects on capital structure in different industries, their quantitative effects are significantly different. The interactive effects of asymmetric beliefs and agency conflicts could potentially explain a significant portion of the substantial inter-industry variation in capital structure. Chapter 2 studies how the distributions of CEO talent and compensation vary across industries, and how product market characteristics affect these distributions. We develop a market equilibrium model that incorporates the competitive assignment of CEOs to firms in a framework in which firms engage in imperfect product market---specifically, monopolistic---competition. Using the distributions of CEO pay and firm value in each of twelve Fama-French industries, we calibrate the parameters of our structural model, and indirectly infer the unobserved distributions of CEO talent and firm quality that together determine firm output. We then conduct several counterfactual experiments using the calibrated models corresponding to each of the industries. We find that the distribution of CEO talent does, indeed, vary dramatically across industries. More importantly, contrary to the conclusions of earlier studies that abstract away from the effects of the product market (Tervio, 2008 and Gabaix and Landier, 2008), the impact of CEO talent on firm value appears to be quite significant. Our estimates of the effect of CEO talent on firm value for the industries in our sample are two orders of magnitude higher than those obtained by the aforementioned studies. Further, our estimates suggest that the compensation of CEOs is quantitatively in line with their contributions to firms. Broadly, our study shows that it is important to incorporate the product market environment in which firms operate when assessing the contributions of CEOs to firms. Chapter 3 builds a market equilibrium framework in which the CEO-firm matching process is affected by the product market. We show that under reasonable assumptions there is a unique equilibrium in which only managers with ability above a unique cutoff level are matched to firms. This very simple screening process endogenizes the distribution of active managers who match with firms. Our calibration of the model using a parametric approach, which is in contrast with the empirical analysis performed in Chapter 2, strongly supports the principle arguments on the importance of CEO talent and appropriate CEO talent levels (on average) in Chapter 2. In addition, due to the law of demand and supply, which is a key feature of the extended model, we obtain somewhat different influence of some of product market characteristics on CEO pay. Furthermore, our parametric approach allows us to draw some implications for the effects of CEO talent distribution on the market equilibrium.

No description available.

In Sweden, firms that file for bankruptcy are all auctioned off either piecemeal or as going concerns. Upon filing, managers lose control of the firm. In contrast, in the U.S. managers retain control by selecting to renegotiate the financial claims on the firm under court-supervision (Chapter 11). This thesis addresses the ongoing debate as to whether a Chapter 11-style renegotiation option is valuable to the firm’s securityholders. The optimal bankruptcy system depends on how well the auction system itself functions as well as on the extent to which managers misuse the renegotiation option to their own benefit (the agency problem). While there is substantial evidence on Chapter 11 cases, the thesis provides some first evidence on the workings of a pure auction system using Swedish data. The first essay examines direct costs, creditor recovery rates and auction premiums in Sweden, and compares the results to extant evidence on U.S. Chapter 11 cases. Overall, the results suggest that mandatory auctions provide a relatively cost-efficient bankruptcy procedure, producing recovery rates that are similar to those reported for much larger firms in Chapter 11. Moreover, auction premiums are significant and tend to increase with industry distress, which contradicts arguments that financially distressed firms sell assets below their true value. The second essay provides some first evidence on managerial compensation, turnover and corporate performance following Swedish bankruptcy auctions. The evidence indicates that mandatory auctions act as a substantial managerial disciplinary force: CEOs typically incur significant compensation losses and a majority of CEOs lose their job through the auction. Nevertheless, the operating profitability of the auctioned firms is typically at par with industry norms. Thus, although CEO wealth effects and turnover rates are dramatic, there is little support for the argument that managers in an auction bankruptcy system tend to delay filing at the detriment of the firm's going concern value. Essays three and four take a broader perspective on corporate restructurings. The third essay examines alternative econometric explanations for the lack of stock market gains to bidder firms reported in the literature. The analysis, which uses a large sample of Canadian targets, provides new evidence consistent with the proposition that the measured gains to relatively large, frequent acquirors reflect an attenuation bias produced by event-study econometrics. Moreover, the results suggest that mergers between relatively equal-sized firms, and which have not generated anticipation of future acquisition activity, tend to produce significantly positive bidder gains. This supports the use of mergers also as an alternative to bankruptcy. / <p>Diss. Stockholm : Handelshögskolan, 1998</p>