CEO and Chairman Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from Panel Data on Public Firms in the United States, China, and Sweden

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between CEO ownership, chairman ownership, CEO duality, and firm performance across different institutional contexts. While prior research has extensively examined managerial ownership and CEO duality, relatively limited attention has been devoted to chairman ownership as an independent governance mechanism. Existing findings regarding ownership and CEO duality also remain inconclusive, with evidence varying across institutional settings. However, few studies have systematically compared how these governance mechanisms operate across different countries and ownership systems. To address this gap, this study investigates whether ownership-related governance mechanisms affect firm performance differently across the United States, China, and Sweden. Using panel data from Capital IQ covering publicly listed firms between 2015 and 2024, the study applies fixed-effects regressions to analyze the relationship between ownership structures and firm performance. Firm performance is measured using return on assets (ROA), Tobin’s Q, and cash-flow return on assets (CFROA). The results suggest that the relationship between ownership and firm performance varies across countries and performance measures, indicating that governance mechanisms operate differently across institutional environments. In the United States, ownership effects are mixed, with generally negative associations for accounting-based performance measures but more positive effects on Tobin’s Q. In contrast, the Chinese results suggest a different pattern, where ownership is positively associated with accounting-based performance, while effects on market valuation remain largely insignificant. In Sweden, ownership effects are generally weaker, potentially reflecting stronger external governance and concentrated ownership structures. The findings regarding CEO duality are largely statistically insignificant, although some negative effects emerge in specific contexts. Overall, the study contributes to the corporate governance literature by extending the analysis of ownership-performance relationships to chairman ownership and by highlighting the importance of institutional context in shaping governance outcomes.