This paper investigates the impact of corporate acquisitions on CEO compensation and CEO turnover of family firms in Continental Europe. We find that CEOs in family firms do not experience an increase in their compensation during the post-acquisition period, while there is a positive and statistically significant association between the compensation of CEOs in non-family firms and their acquisition activity. This finding is consistent with the view that controlling family shareholders provide monitoring for CEOs mitigating managerial agency problems that arise from the separation of ownership and control. Further, we find that the likelihood of CEO turnover declines following an acquisition in non-family firms, suggesting that these acquiring CEOs do not face a higher likelihood of dismissal while they receive a higher level of compensation. In contrast, there is no significant impact of acquisitions on CEO turnover in family firms.

This paper investigates the impact of family control and institutional investors on CEO pay packages in Continental Europe, using a dataset of 754 listed firms with 3731 firm-year observations from 14 countries during 2001–2008. We find that family control curbs the level of CEO total and cash compensation, and the fraction of equity-based compensation. Moreover, we do not observe a significant effect of family control on the excess level of total and cash compensation. This evidence indicates that controlling families do not use CEO compensation to expropriate wealth from minority shareholders. We show that institutional ownership is associated with higher levels of CEO cash and total compensation in Continental Europe, especially in family firms. Also, foreign institutional investors have a positive and significant impact on CEO compensation level. Finally, results indicate that institutional investors affect CEO pay structure: they increase the use of equity-based compensation in both family and non-family firms.

This study examines the relationship between cash holdings and the level of multinationality for a large international sample of firms from 40 countries. We consider two dimensions of diversification, geographical and industrial, and find a direct negative relation between both geographic and industrial diversification and cash holdings. This finding is consistent with the diversification argument that multinationals' headquarters plan their investment and cash needs in an efficient way across geographically diversified operations. We further examine whether there is a trade-off between two diversification strategies. The evidence shows that the effect of industrial diversification is negligible once firms are geographically diversified. By performing country-level tests, we also document some new evidence of international differences for the impacts of tax systems, investor protection, political stability, stock market development, economic size and growth, and national culture on the separate and joint effects of geographic and industrial diversifications.