In this dissertation, I investigate whether corporate governance affects the negative association between investment and future excess returns. Shareholders are concerned with the effectiveness of the firm's governance regime as a tool to reduce agency costs. In the absence of strong control over firm assets, managers may choose to invest in value-decreasing projects. The probability that managers select value-decreasing projects is an increasing (decreasing) function in investment activity (governance regime). At the time of investment, the capital market prices expected returns to the investment activity conditioned on the governance regime in place. This study examines future risk-adjusted returns to investment activities conditioned on low and high governance regimes. If the market correctly prices the governance environment and the expected returns to expenditures at time t, there should be no future risk-adjusted returns to either governance or expenditure information. I find that for firms with low external monitoring, and separately, for firms with high shareholder rights, lower (higher) investment activity results in positive (negative) future risk-adjusted returns. Implementing a trading strategy which holds low investment firms and shorts high investment firms results in 7.1% and 5.6% annual risk-adjusted returns when conditioned on low institutional holdings and high shareholder right, respectively. This study also provides preliminary evidence that outside blockholder and activist ownership is effective in mitigating the negative association between investment activity and future excess returns through the shareholder rights mechanism. Finally, I provide evidence that the diversification discount associated with multi-segment firms is generally invariant to investment activity levels.

Ownership structure is referenced as one of the key determinants of policy decisions and corporate governance of companies however suggested implications of different structures part in previous research. This study investigates the relationship between different ownership structures and dividend policy decisions taken by a firm and sets out to identify how family ownership in specific differs from other ownership structures. The study follows a framework based on a number of postulated hypothesis based on previous findings of similar investigations and applies it to a Swedish setting. A model is constructed consisting of variables describing ownership, financial and market conditions in Swedish firms from the period 2010-2019. Some, yet sparse, evidence is found indicating differences in dividend policy can be derived from differences in ownership, yet results clarify dividend policy decisions are based on a complex set of conditions not easily captured in a single model.

This study investigates whether family ownership impacts firms’ dividend payout policies by examining firms publicly listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchange (OMX Stockholm) during the years 2013–2018 (1,363 firm-year observations). The investigation is made by performing multiple regression analyses including the dependent variable DIVIDEND PAYOUT. The findings reveal that family firms distribute higher dividend payouts than non-family firms, suggesting that dividends are used as a corporate governance mechanism to mitigate agency problems. Family firms without a second blockholder present have the highest dividends. A family second blockholder appears to collude with the controlling family resulting in lower dividends. A separation between ownership and control results in higher dividends as it implies a worse corporate governance structure. In sum, the results imply that family ownership positively impacts firms’ dividend payout policies in Sweden.