臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

由於政府設立私募制度以提供公司多元籌資管道，期望公司充份運用私募資金，提升財務及公司經營績效。惟自私募制度引進以來，卻發現存有許多有價證券運作衍生之問題。因此本研究首先探討現金增資公司之經營績效是否較私募股權公司為佳，換句話說，現金增資公司與私募股權公司之經營績效是否存在重大差異性，此為研究目的之一。其次再以私募股權公司為樣本，進一步探討影響私募股權公司經營績效之因素。研究結果如下：
一、財務分析方面：於增資當年度及前後年度等三年度現金增資公司於償債能力、獲利能力及現金流量等三個指標上現金增資公司明顯優於私募股權公司，具有顯著性差異，與融資順位理論相符。
二、就私募股權樣本採行迴歸分析，探討資本支出成長率、營業規模成長率、現金增資規模、每股增資價格、增資目的、內部人持股比率等自變數對公司經營績效五個構面之影響，顯示結果如下：
(一)資本支出成長率：於償債能力指標之流動比率及利息保障倍數、獲利能力指標之資產報酬率、股東權益報酬率及每股盈餘等應變數上，資本支出成長率與私募股權公司之經營績效差異達顯著水準，且呈正相關，表示若增資後有再進行投資，則經營績效較佳。Truement(1986)主張資本支出對於公司價值具有正面之影響效果及Cheng(1995)研究發現，就發行權益證券籌資之公司而言，未進行投資者在發行後績效下降，而進行投資者則無此現象，實證結果與Truement(1986)及Cheng(1995)研究結果一致。
(二)營業規模成長率：於五個財務構面之13項指標皆顯示營業規模成長率與私募股權公司之經營績效差異達顯著水準，且呈正相關，表示營業規模成長率越大，私募股權公司之經營績效越佳。
(三)現金增資規模：於償債能力指標之流動比率及利息保障倍數、經營能力指標之存貨週轉率及總資產週轉率等應變數上，顯示現金增資規模與私募股權公司之經營績效差異達顯著水準，且呈負相關，表示可能表示其資金需求大，負債比率及利息支出偏高，進而降低流動比率及利息保障倍數。
(四)每股增資價格：僅於成長情形指標之營業利益成長率，顯示現金增資規模與私募股權公司之經營績效差異達顯著水準，且呈正相關。
(五)增資目的：於獲利能力指標及現金流量指標，顯示增資目的與私募股權公司之經營績效差異達顯著水準，且呈負相關，表示若增資目的為充實營運資金及償還借款，其本身之獲利情形不佳，故增資後對其獲利改善助益不大。
(六)內部人持股比率：於五個財務構面之13項指標皆未顯示內部人持股比率增加與私募股權公司之經營績效差異達顯著水準，無法驗證訊息傳遞假說及利益收斂/掠奪假說。

The system of private placement was established by government with the expectation that multiple channels of fund-raising provided for companies would, by utilizing the fund coming from the private placement, improve their financial affairs and performances. However, since the introduction of private placement, many problems derived from the operation of securities arose. This study first explores whether the performances of companies utilizing capital increase by cash are superior to those of companies utilizing private placement. In other words, the major purposes of this study are to find out if there are any significant differences between capital increase by cash and private placement and to explore the factors influencing business performance by using companies currently utilizing private placement as study samples. The findings of this study are as follows:
1. Financial Affairs: The indexes of the abilities of debt paying, profit making and cash flow of companies utilizing capital increase by cash were significantly better than those companies utilizing private placements were, and this result corresponds to the Pecking Order Theory.
2. By using regression analysis of the samples of private placements to study the variants of growth rate of capital expenditure, the growth rate of business scale, the scale of capital increase by cash, price increase per share, purpose of capital increase by cash and the stock holding ratio of internal personnel, five results were found:
(1) Growth Rate of Capital Expenditure: As to the dependable variables of the index of the ability of debt paying (cash flow and interest cover ratio) and the index of profit making (shareholder equity, ROE and earning per share), there is a significant relationship between the growth rate of capital expenditure and the performance of companies utilizing private placement. The positive correlation shows that if there is investment after the capital increase by cash of a company, the performance will be better. Truement’s research (1986) claimed that capital expenditure had a positive effect on company’s values and Cheng’s study (1995) suggested that the performance of companies issuing equity securities would worsen if there were no investment; however, this effect would not be seen in the companies that did invest. The empirical proofs researched match the findings of Truement and Cheng’s studies.
(2) Growth Rate of Business Scale: The 13 indexes of the five facets of the financial structure all indicate that significance exists between the growth rate of business scale and the business performance of the companies utilizing private placement, and there are positive correlations. This means that the bigger the business scale is, the better the performance of the companies utilizing private placement will be.
(3) Scale of Capital Increase by Cash: As for the dependable variables such as the index of debt paying ability (current ratio, interest cover ration) and the index of ability of running business (inventory turnover and total assets turnover), a significance exists between the scale of capital increase by cash and the business performance of the companies utilizing private placement. Such correlations are negative which means that the bigger the demand of the capital, the higher the debt ratio and the interest expense will be. This would decrease the current ratio and the interest cover ratio.
(4) Price Increase per Share: This was found only in the index of growth such as the growth rate of profit margin indicating that significance exists between the scale of capital increase by cash and the business performance of the companies utilizing private placement. Such correlation is positive.
(5) Purpose of Capital Increase by Cash: This was evidenced in the indexes of the ability of profit making and the current ratio. This means that significance exists between the purpose of capital increase by cash and the business performance of the companies utilizing private placement and the correlation is negative. This indicates that if the purpose of capital increase by cash is to improve operational capital and to pay debt, the benefit will not be too great if the conditions of profit making are unfavorable. In addition, the capital increased will not significantly affect the condition of profit making.
(6) Stock Holding Ratio of Internal Personnel: No significance was found between the stock holding ratio of internal personnel and the business performance of the companies utilizing private placement in any of the 13 indexes of the five facets of the financial structure. No supporting evidence was found to support either the hypothesis of information transmission or the hypothesis of interest constringency/pillage.

中文摘要 I
英文摘要 II
謝 辭 V
目 錄 VI
圖 目 錄 VIII
表 目 錄 VIII
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 研究流程 4
第四節 論文架構 4
第二章 台灣私募市場之描述 5
第一節 私募制度之介紹 5
第二節 私募之優缺點 12
第三節 私募之運用 14
第三章 文獻探討 16
第一節 私募或公開募集影響因素 16
第二節 私募股權與公司經營績效 19
第三節 影響公司經營績效之因素 20
第四章 研究設計 23
第一節 經營績效比較分析 23
第二節 迴歸分析 24
第三節 資料來源與選樣標準 26
第五章 實證結果與分析 28
第一節 經營績效比較分析 28
第二節 迴歸結果分析 42
第六章 結論與建議 60
第一節 研究結論 60
第二節 研究限制 62
第三節 後續研究建議 62
參考文獻 63


圖目錄
圖1-1 研究流程…………………………………...………………………………..………...4
圖2-1 私募公司債流程圖…………………………………………………………...……...10
圖2-2 私募其他有價證券流程圖…………………………………………………..….…...11
表目錄
表2-1 私募有價證券之轉讓限制……………………………………………………………9
表4-1 財務比率公式彙總表…………………………………………..…….……………..23
表5-1 私募股權樣本與公開現金增資樣本之市場分類………………………….….…...28
表5-2 私募股權樣本與公開現金增資樣本之產業分類……………………………….....28
表5-3 償債能力之負債比率………………………….……………....……..……………...29
表5-4 償債能力之流動比率…………….………………………………….….…………...29
表5-5 償債能力之速動比率……………………………………...………………………...30
表5-6 償債能力之利息保障倍數…………………..………………….…………..……...30
表5-7 償債能力之借款依存度………………………………………………..…….……...30
表5-8 償債能力指標分析彙總表………….…………………………………..…….……...31
表5-9 經營能力之存貨週轉率…….…….……….……………………………..………...31
表5-10經營能力之應收款項週轉率……..………………………..…………..………......31
表5-11經營能力之固定資產週轉率…….….………………….……..…..…………….....32
表5-12經營能力之總資產週轉率…….….…………………………….…….……….…...32
表5-13經營能力指標分析彙總表………….…………………………………..…….……...33
表5-14獲利能力之資產報酬率…………………………………….....…………..………...33
表5-15獲利能力之股東權益報酬率………………………………..…………….....……...33
表5-16獲利能力之營業利益占實收資本額……………………………………...…...…...34
表5-17獲利能力之稅前淨利占實收資本額……………………………...………..….…...34
表5-18獲利能力之純益率………………………………….………….…………………....35
表5-19獲利能力之每股盈餘……………..………………….……..…..…...……...……...35
表5-20獲利能力指標分析彙總表…….…….………………………………..…….……...36
表5-21現金流量之現金流量比率…………………………….…….………....…………...36
表5-22現金流量之現金再投資比率…………………………….…….…….....…...……...37
表5-23現金流量指標分析彙總表…….…….………………………………..…….……...37
表5-24成長情形之營收成長率…………………………………….….…….....….…..…...38
表5-25成長情形之毛利成長率…………………………………….…….....…….…...…...38
表5-26成長情形之營業利益成長率………………………………………......……....…...39
表5-27成長情形之稅前淨利成長率………………………………….……......……...…...39
表5-28成長情形之總資產成長率………………………………………….….…………...40
表5-29成長情形之淨值成長率……………………………………….……..…..….……...40
表5-30成長情形指標分析彙總表…….…….………………………………..…….……...41
表5-31基本敘述性統計量………………………………………….……......….…..……...42
表5-32流動比率為績效衡量指標之迴歸分析………………………..……..…....……...43
表5-33利息保障倍數為績效衡量指標之迴歸分析…………………..……………..…...44
表5-34存貨週轉率為績效衡量指標之迴歸分析……………………..………......……...45
表5-35總資產週轉率為績效衡量指標之迴歸分析…………………..…………..…..…..46
表5-36資產報酬率為績效衡量指標之迴歸分析………………………..……....…...…...47
表5-37股東權益報酬率為績效衡量指標之迴歸分析…………………...…..……...…...48
表5-38營業利益佔實收資本額為績效衡量指標之迴歸分析……………........................49
表5-39稅前純益佔實收資本額為績效衡量指標之迴歸分析………..……………...…...50
表5-40每股盈餘EPS為績效衡量指標之迴歸分析……………..………………........…...51
表5-41現金流量比率為績效衡量指標之迴歸分析……………..………...………....…...52
表5-42營收成長率為績效衡量指標之迴歸分析…………………..……...……………...53
表5-43已實現銷貨毛利成長率為績效衡量指標之迴歸分析……..………………..........54
表5-44營業利益成長率為績效衡量指標之迴歸分析………………..……..….........…...55
表5-45償債能力指標實證結果彙總表………………………..……..……..….........…...56
表5-46經營能力指標實證結果彙總表………………………..……..……..….........…...56
表5-47獲利能力指標實證結果彙總表………………………..……..……..….........…...57
表5-48現金流量指標實證結果彙總表………………………..……..……..….........…...58
表5-49成長情形指標實證結果彙總表………………………..……..……..….........…...59
表5-50財務指標分析彙總表…………….....…………..……..………..….........…...60

中文部分
邱皓政，量化研究法(一)-研究設計與資料處理及量化研究法(二)-統計原理與分析技術，雙葉書廊有限公司出版。
邱愛婷，1996，上市公司外部融資前後公司經營績效變動之實證研究，淡江大學，國際企業研究所未出版碩士論文。
許雪芳，2002，上市上櫃公司私募之研究，國立中山大學，財務管理學系研究所未出版碩士論文。
張書鳴，2006，公司採現金增資或私募的因素及差異性的實證研究，南台科技大學，會計資訊研究所未出版碩士論文。
葉銀華及邱顯比，1996，資本結構、股權結構與公司價值關聯性之實證研究：代理成本理論，第七卷第二期：57-90頁。
劉靜容，2002，淡江大學，產業經濟學所未出版碩士論文。
英文部分
Akerlof, G., 1970, The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism, Quarterly Journal of Economics 89, 488-500.
Asquish,P. and D.Mullins.,1986,Equity issues and offering dilution,Journal of Financial Economics 15：61-89.
Berle, A.A. and C.G.Means.1932. The Modern Corporation and Private Property,New York：Commewce Clearing House.
Cheng, L.,1995,Equity issue underperformance and the timing of security issues., Unpublished Working paper. National Economic Research Associates, Inc.(NERA).
Cronqvist, Henrik, and Mattias Nilsson, 2005, The choice between rights offerings and private equity placements, Journal of Financial Economics ,78，375-407.
Fan, P. H. and T. J.Wong ,2002,Corporate Ownership Structure and the Information of Accounting Earnings in East Asia.,Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33, 401-425.
Hertzel, M.,and R.L. Smith, 1993, Market discounts and shareholder gains for placing equity privately, Journal of Finance 48, 458-485.
Hudson, C., J. Jahera, and W. Lloyd ,1992,Further Evidence on the Relationship Between Ownership and Performance.,The Financial Review, 27,.227-239.
Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling, 1976, Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, Journal of Financial Economics 3,305-360.
Jensen, M.,1986, Agency cost of free cash flow,corporate finance,and tackover,American Economic Review(May),323-329.
Jensen, M. C. and K. J. Ruback, 1990, The market for corporate control: the scientific evidence, Journal of Financial Economics 11,5-50.
Leland, H and D. H. Pyle,1977, Information asymmetric financial structure and financial intermediation, Journal of Finance 32, 371-388.
Ma, Tai and C. Y. Hong, 1999, The issuer’s decision of IPO mechanisms: fixed price versus auction. The 6th Annual Global Finance Conference, Istanbul, Turkey.
Maksimovic, Vojislav, and Pegaret Pichler, 1999, Private versus Public offerings: optimal selling mechanisms with adverse selection, 1999, workingpaper SSRN, FEN Cap-Structure WPS.
Mello, Antonio S. and John E. Parsons, 1998, Going public and the ownership structure of the firm, Journal of Financial Economics 49, 79-109.
Myers, S. C. and N. S. Majluf, 1984, Corporate Financing and Investment Decision when Firms have Information that Investors do not have, Journal of Financial Economics 13, 187-221.
Oswald, S. L. and Jahera Jr., 1991, The Influence of Ownership on Performance: An Empirical Study.,Strategic Management Journal, 12, 218-228.
Shleifer A. and R.W. Vishny.,1986,Large shareholders and corporate control.Journal of Finance 52(2)：117-142.
Spence, M., 1973, Job Market Signaling, Quarterly Journal of Economics 87, 355-379.
Stoughton, Neal M. and Josef Zechner, 1998, IPO-mechanisms, monitoring and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics 49, 45-77.
Titman, S. and A. Subrahmanyam,1999 ,The Going Public Decision and the Development of Financial Markets.Journal of Finance, 54, 1045-1082,
Vance, S.,1995,Inside or Outside Directors: Is There Really a Difference.,Across The Board, 15-17.
White,H.,1980, A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.,Econometrica 48, 817-838.
Wruck.K.H.,1989, Equity ownership concentration and firm value, Journal of Financial Economics 23, 3-28.
Yermack, D.,1996, Higher Market Valuation of Companies with a Small Board of Directors.,Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 185-211.
Zingales, Luigi, 1995, Insider ownership and the decision to go public, The Review of Economic Studies 62, 425-448.