臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來企業隨著經濟自由化及產業國際化發展，紛紛藉由合併的動作，來擴張企業之新版圖，期望能減少企業成本的支出，使經營達到最大效益，進而達到多角化之目的。根據中華徵信所的統計資料顯示，集團企業每年總營業收入佔國民生產毛額的比重很高，顯示出集團企業的營運對台灣經濟發展的重要性，因此，集團企業未來的動向及經營成果是我們關心的問題。到底集團企業多角化程度對其企業價值是否為正面的影響；而且在企業裡股權結構跟企業價值的關係如何，在本文裡將對此做深入的研究。
　　本研究以中華徵信所出版之91年「台灣地區集團企業研究」線上資料庫所收錄之集團企業為研究對象，根據過去學者的文獻分別採用Tobin’s q、會計數字以及股票報酬率三種方法來衡量集團企業的價值，並採取Herfindahl index之集中度指標來衡量集團企業多角化的程度。以多元迴歸模型來實證自民國88年10月至民國92年10月間，台灣地區集團企業多角化程度與股權結構對集團企業價值之影響。
　　關於本研究實證結果如下：
1.企業從事多角化程度愈高會降低其核心公司的經營績效，進而使企業 本身價值減少。
2.以ROA及股票報酬率來衡量企業價值時，高階管理者所有權與企業價值間呈正相關；以Tobin’s q及ROE來衡量企業價值時，則高階管理者所有權與企業價值為負相關。
3.以ROE及股票報酬率來衡量企業價值時，大股東所有權與企業價值間呈正相關；以Tobin’s q及ROA來衡量企業價值時，則大股東所有權與企業價值為負相關。
4.外資對公司股權持有比例愈高，會增加其企業本身價值的。
5.投信對公司股權持有比例愈高，會增加其企業本身價值的。
6.自營商對公司股權持有比例與企業價值的關係雖然為正向，但在統計上的關係並不顯著，公司並不會因為自營商對公司股權持有比例的多寡而影響企業的價值。

In recent years, driven by the trends of economy liberalization and globalization, business firms are forced to widen their territory by mergers and acquisitions in order to reduce the cost of productions and maximize the benefit of operation, resulting in the diversification of business lines. According to the statistics released by CHINA CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICE, LTD., the total revenue produced by conglomerate business groups in Taiwan have a very high percentage in term of GNP, indicating the importance of these business groups to the economic development of Taiwan. The purpose of this research is to study if the effect of diversification on firm’s value is positive and what’s the relationship between the ownership structure and corporate value.
The sample conglomerate groups are collected from the “ 2002 Business groups in Taiwan” database published by CHINA CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICE, LTD.. This paper employs Tobin’s q, accounting and return of stock to measure the value of conglomerate business groups and the Herfindahl index to measure the degree of diversification. It verifies that the effects of diversification as well as ownership structure characteristics influence conglomerate groups value during the sample period from October, 1999 to October, 2003.
The empirical results of this study are as follows:
1. The higher the degree of diversification, the lower the value of its core business and the whole group value.
2. Measured by ROA and return of stock, the relationship between the percentage of management stock holdings and firm value is positive; but when measured by Tobin’s q and ROE, the relationship becomes negative.
3. Measured by ROE and return of stock, the relationship between the percentage of stocks hold by stockholders with 5% ownership or above and firm value is positive; but when measured by Tobin’s q and ROA, the relationship becomes negative.
4. The higher the percentage owned by foreign capital and local institutional investors, the higher the firm value.
6. Although the relationship between the percentage of dealer stock holdings and firm value is positive, it’s not noticeable in statistics.

第一章　緒論 1
第一節　研究動機與背景 1
第二節　研究目的 4
第三節　研究架構與流程 5
第二章　文獻探討 7
第一節　多角化集團企業 7
第二節　多角化程度與集團企業之績效 19
第三章　研究設計 33
第一節　資料蒐集與處理 33
第二節　研究變數的定義與衡量 37
第三節　研究方法與模型設定 39
第四章 實證結果分析 43
第一節 多角化對企業價值的影響 43
第二節 多角化程度與股權結構對企業價值的影響 45
第五章 結論與建議 59
第一節 結論 59
第二節 研究限制 60
第三節　未來研究方向與建議 61
參考文獻 62

中文部份
中華徵信所，民國91年，2002年台灣地區集團企業研究。
江毓潔（民87），「從代理理論的觀點探討股權結構與公司多角化的關係」，中正大學財務金融研究所未出版碩士論文。
吳佩琪（民85），「台灣地區集團企業多角化真實效果－公司價值與會計績效研究」，中正大學財金融研究所未出版碩士論文。
林助育（民81），「台灣地區集團企業多角化策略形成動、分類模式與財務績效之實證研究」，成大企研所未出版碩士論文。
俞海琴與周本鄂（民83），「台灣地區上市公司董監事、關係人持股比率和公司托賓Q關係之研究」，管理評論，第13卷第1期，頁79-98。
莊宸堯(民87)，「台灣地區大型集團企業多角化動機、策略、控制型態及績效間之相關性研究」，中原大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
張峻萍（民87），「公司監理與經營績效之關係」，台灣大學會計研究所未出版碩士論文。
許致中（民75），「台灣地區企業多角化策略對績效影響之研究」，交通大學管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
彭紹華（民81），「代理理論與所有權結構關係之研究－我國股票上市公司之實證」，中國文化大學企業管理研所未出版碩士論文。
黃仲生（民85），「多角化對公司價值影響之實證研究」，中山大學財務管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
劉宴辰（民82），「從代理理論觀點探究股權結構、董事會組成對企業財務績效影響之研究－上市公司之實證分析」，淡江大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。
諸慧玲（民80），「集團企業多角化策略對財務績效影響之探討」，淡江大學管理科學研究所未出版碩士論文。
英文部份
Aaker, D. A., 1984, Developing Business Strategies, New York: John Willey and Sons, 35-36
Aaker, D. A., 1994, Developing Business Strategies, 4th ed., New York: John Willey and Sons, 261.
Amihud, Y. and B. Lev, 1981, Risk Reduction as A Managerial Motive For Conglomerate, The Bell Journal of Economics, 6, 605-617.
Ami, R. and J. Livnat, 1988, Diversification Strategies, Business Cycles and Economic Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 9, 100-101.
Ansoff, H. I., 1957, Strategies for Diversification, Harvard Business Review, 35, 113-124.
Around, R. J., 1969, Conglomerate Growth and Public Policy, Economics of Conglomerate Growth, Department of Agricultural Economics, Oregon State University.
Belkaoui, A. and E. Pavlik, 1992, The Effects of Ownership Structure and Diversification Strategy on Performance, Managerial and Decision Economics Chichester, Jul/Aug, 13, 343.
Berger, P. G. and E. Ofek, 1995, Diversification’s Effect on Firm Value, Journal of Financial Economics, 37, 39-65.
Berle, A. A. and G. C. Means, 1932, The Modern Corporate and Private Property, NY.
Berry, C. H., 1975, Corporate Growth and Diversification, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Booz, A. and Hamilton, 1985, Diversification: A Survey of European Chief Executives, Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., NY.
Carter, J., 1977, In Search of Synergy: A Structure Performance Test, Review of Economics and Statistics, 59, 279-289.
Chaganti, R. and F. Damanpour, 1991, Institutional Ownership, Capital Structure, and Firm Perform, Strategic Management Journal, 12, 479-491.
Chandler, A. J., 1962, Strategy and Structure, Cambridge, The MIT Press, MA.
Chung, K. H. and S. W. Pruitt, 1994, A Simple Approximation of Tobin’s Q, Financial Management, 23, 70-74
Comment, R. and G. A. Jarrell, 1995, Corporate Focus and Stock Returns, Journal of Financial Economics, 37, 67-87.
Fama, E., 1980, Agency Problem and the Theory of the Firm, Journal of Political Economy, 88, 288-307.
Gort, M., 1962, Diversification and Integration In American Industry, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ.
Graham, J. R. and M. L. Lemmon, 1999, Does Corporate Diversification Destroy Value?, Working paper, University of Utah.
Grinyer, P. H., A. Yasai, and S. S. Bazzaz, 1980, Strategy, Structure, The Environment and Financial Performance In 48 United Kingdom Companies, Academy of Management Journal, 23, 193-220.
Herfindahl, O. C., 1950, Concentration in the U.S. Steel Industry, Unpublished thesis, Columbia University.
Jacqemin A. P. and C. H. Berry, 1979, Entropy Measure of Diversification and Corporate Growth, Journal of Industrial Economics, 27, 205-248.
Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling, 1976, Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior-Agency Cost and Ownership Structure, Journal of Financial and Economics, 3, 305-360.
Jensen, M. and R. Ruback, 1983, The Market for Corporate Control: The Scientific Evidence, Journal of Financial Economics, 11, 5-50.
Kamien, M. and N. Schweartz, 1975, Market Structure and Innovation: A Survey, Journal of Economic Literature, 13, 1-37.
Lang, L. H. P. and R. M. Stulz, 1994, Tobin’s Q, Corporate Diversification and Firm Performance, Journal of Political Economy, 102, 1248-1280.
Markides, C. C., 1995, Diversification, Restructuring and Economic Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 16, 101-108.
McConnell, J. and H. Servaes, 1990, Additional Evidence on Equity Ownership and Corporate Value, Journal of Financial Economics, 27, 595-612.
Mcdougall, F. M. and D. K. Round, 1984, A Comparison of Diversifying and Nondiversifying Australian Industrial Firms, Academy of Management Journal, 27, 384-398.
Montgomery, C. A., 1979, Diversification, Market Structure and Firm Performance: An Extension of Rumelt’s Mode, Ph.D. Dessertation, Prudure University.
Montgomery, C. A., 1985, Product-Market Diversification and Market Power, Academy of Management Journal, 28.
Morck, R., A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny, 1988, Management Ownership and Market Valuation: An Empirical Analysis, Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 293-315.
Pitts, R. A. and H. D. Hopkins, 1982, Firm Diversity: Conceptualization and Measurement, Academy of Management Review, 7, 620-629.
Pound, J., 1988, Proxy Contests and the Efficiency of Shareholder Oversight, Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 237-265.
Ramanujam, V. and P. Varadarajan 1987, Diversification and Per-Formance: A Reexamination Using a New Two-Dimensional Con-Ceoptualization of Diversity, Academy of Management Journal, 30, 380-393.
Ramanujam, V. and P. Varadarajan, 1989, Research On Corporate Diversification: A Synthesis, Strategic Management Journal, 10, 524.
Reed, R. and G. A. Luffman, 1986, Diversification: The Growing Confusion, Strategic Management Journal, 7, 29-35.
Rosenberg, J. B., 1977, Diversification and Market Structure: A Note, Review of Business Economic Research, Spring, 79-83.
Rumelt, R. P., 1974, Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rumelt, R. P., 1982, Diversification Strategy and Profitability, Strategic Management Journal, 3, 360.
Servaes, H., 1996, The Value of Diversification During the Conglomerate Merger Wave, Journal of Finance, 51, 1201-1225.
Teece, D. J., 1982, Towards An Economic Theory of the Multiproduct Firm, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3. 264-305.
Varadarajan, P. and V. Ramamujam, 1987, Diversification and Performance: A Reexamination Using A New Two-Dimensional Conceptualization of Diversity in Firm, Academy of Management Journal, 30, 380-393.
Villalonga, B., 2000, Does Diversification Cause the Diversification Discount ?, Working paper, California University.
Wernerfelt, B. and C. A. Montgomery, 1986, What Is An Attractive Industry ?, Management Science, 32, 1223-1230.
Weston, J. F. and S. K. Mansinghka, 1971, Tests of the Efficiency Performance of Conglomerate Firms, Journal of Finance, 26, 919-936.
Williamson, P. J. and E. Oliver, 1976, Economic Organization: Firms, Markets and Policy Control, New York University Press, NY.
Williamson, P. J. and C. C. Markides, 1994, Related Diversification, Core Competence and Corporate Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 15, 149-165.