臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

過去文獻顯示槓桿與公司價值間的關係沒有一致的結論，是因為未考慮產業因素而產生誤差，本研究以Tobin’s Q為公司價值的代理依變數，以公司槓桿為自變數，控制產業因素、公司規模、公司成長因素，運用複迴歸模式，評估公司槓桿、產業槓桿、槓桿偏離與公司價值、價值偏離之間的關係。以台灣上市公司作為研究對象，期間為1992年至2006年。在研究中將樣本以營收成長率、研發支出率與資本支出率，作為公司成長機會分群的基礎，結果發現產業因素扮演著關鍵角色，使研究結論相當穩定且一致，不論以市值槓桿或帳面價值槓桿分析，研究結果顯示全體樣本、高成長及低成長性公司結果皆一致，公司槓桿、產業平均槓桿與公司價值間，均呈現顯著負向關係，表示公司不論成長性高低，使得公司擁有高槓桿，不但沒有增加收益，反而只是增加資金成本，而造成降低公司價值的影響。產業平均價值對於公司價值有顯著正向影響，表示整體產業的價值與產業內個別公司的價值息息相關，所以未來公司的管理當局在決定資本結構水準與融資政策時，應審慎評估本身所處產業及考量相關產業特性因素，才能有助於公司的營運發展。

Prior literature has shown that relationship between leverage (Total market leverage, TML) and firm value(Tobin’s Q) no general conclusions. However, this literature on the leverage-value relationship seems to have ignored industry considerations. This paper estimates the relationship between leverage and firm value controlling for industry effects using a set of panel data on Taiwan stock market for the period 1995–2006. In order to explore the association between leverage and firm value, we controlled median industry leverage, growth opportunities variables, and firm heterogeneity. Following previous literature, we adopt sales growth ratio (GSR), research and development expenditure ratio (RDR) and capital expenditure ratio (CER) as proxies of growth opportunities to split the sample into high growth and low growth groups. The major findings can be summarized as follows: 1. TML is negatively associated with firm value over the entire sample and among both high growth and low growth firms. 2. TML, Industry medians leverage and firms’ leverage deviations from the industry medians (Dev) are negatively associated with firm value, and Dev are negatively associated with firm value deviation from the industry median. 3. Industry median Tobin’s Q is positive associated with firm value among both high growth and low growth firms. 4. We also use total book leverage as sensitivity analysis, the result is the same as TML. Controlling for industry leverage effects, we document that unlike prior literature, leverage is negatively associated with firm value among both high growth and low growth firms. This evidence resolves the leverage-value relationship puzzle in prior literature.

中文摘要...........................................i
英文摘要..........................................ii
誌謝..............................................iv
目錄...............................................v
表目錄...........................................vii
圖目錄..........................................viii
第一章 緒論........................................1
1.1 研究動機......................................1
1.2 研究目的......................................2
1.3 研究範圍與統計方法............................3
1.4 研究架構......................................3
1.5 研究流程......................................4
第二章 文獻探討....................................5
2.1 資本結構理論..................................5
2.2 槓桿、公司成長性與公司價值之關聯性............9
2.2.1 負債比率與公司價值的關係................9
2.2.2 負債比率與公司成長性的關係.............19
2.3 產業因素與公司槓桿...........................29
第三章 研究設計...................................33
3.1 資料範圍與選取...............................33
3.2 研究假說.....................................35
3.3 變數定義與衡量...............................37
3.3.1 依變數之衡量...........................37
3.3.2 自變數之衡量...........................38
3.3.3 控制變數之衡量.........................39
3.4 實證模型.....................................44
第四章 實證結果與分析.............................46
4.1 樣本資料來源.................................46
4.2 樣本敍述統計.................................50
4.3 相關係數矩陣分析.............................51
4.4 迴歸模式分析.................................53
4.5 敏感性分析...................................63
第五章 結論與建議.................................69
5.1 研究結論.....................................69
5.2 研究貢獻.....................................71
5.3 研究限制.....................................72
5.4 未來研究建議.................................73
參考文獻..........................................74

1. 王玉珍，股權結構、董事會組成、資本結構與企業績效關係之研究，國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，2002。
2. 王媺惠，不同產業競爭狀況下企業選擇最佳負債水準方法之研究，國立中正大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，2003。
3. 李靜如，台灣上市公司使用銀行貸款、槓桿與托賓Q 關聯之實證研究，中原大學國際貿易學系碩士論文，2001。
4. 李詩將，台灣上市公司所有權結構、資本結構與公司績效間相關性研究，高雄第一科技大學金融營運系碩士論文，2001。
5. 李佳倩，產業分類對上市公司資本結構之影響--台灣實證研究，銘傳大學經濟學研究所碩士論文，2002。
6. 沈立平，台灣上市公司股權結構、財務決策與公司價值之關聯性研究，國立中正大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，2003。
7. 吳雅茹，成長機會與負債期限對公司資本結構之影響，國立高雄第一科技大學金融營運系碩士論文，2004。
8. 金玫，兩稅合一前後租稅優惠對公司價值之影響，國立中山大學財務管理學系研究所，2003。
9. 俞海琴、陳慧娟，我國上市公司成長、槓桿與托賓Q關聯之研究，風險管理學報，1(1)，81-101，1999。
10. 周小玲，我國上市上櫃公司以短支長融資行為之探討，世新大學管理學院財務金融學系碩士論文，2004。
11. 洪麗芳，股權結構、財務決策與公司績效關聯性之研究，中原大學會計學系碩士論文，2004。
12. 侯貫智，傳統產業上市公司成長、槓桿與Tobin's Q之關係研究-Panel Threshold方法與應用，逢甲大學經濟學所碩士論文，2004。
13. 施其佑，股權結構、資本結構與公司價值關聯性之研究，大同大學事業經營研究所碩士論文，2006。
14. 財政部，兩稅合一方案介紹，1998 年。
15. 陳彰文，股權結構、負債與公司價值之研究，吳鳳學報，13，143-155，2005。
16. 陳隆麒與溫育芳，國內上市公司資本結構決定因素之研究，台灣銀行季刊，53(1)，171-194，2002。
17. 張世龍，資本支出及研發支出與公司治理對企業市場評價關聯性之實證研究－以台灣上市電子公司為例，朝陽科技大學財務金融系碩士論文，2004。
18. 張雲濤，微利時代的投資法則，動靜國際有限公司，2004。
19. 辜儀芳，臺灣上市公司資本結構選擇之實證研究，國立中正大學財務金融研究所碩士論文，2002。
20. 黃玉慈，無形資產、槓桿與經營績效－發行海外可轉債與存託憑證公司之實證，中原大學國際貿易學系碩士論文，2006。
21. 黃啟倫，股權結構、關係人交易與公司績效，銘傳大學會計學系碩士論文，2006。
22. 劉正義，企業研發投資對財務政策與成長機會影響之研究－以電子資訊產業為例，東吳大學企業管理學系碩士論文，2002。
23. 劉宜和，債務結構及股權結構與公司價值之關係，國立中正大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，2006。
24. 葉銀華、邱顯比，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，台大管理論叢，7(2)，57-90，1996。
25. 簡志昇，台灣地區股票上市公司資本結構影響因素之研究，國立交通大學管理科學研究所碩士論文，1998。
26. 蔡佩真，公司成長、資本結構與公司績效之研究－以臺灣上市公司為例，國立清華大學研究所碩士論文，2001。
27. 藍瑞卿，台灣地區股票上櫃公司資本結構影響因素之探討，國立臺北大學企業管理學系碩士論文，2000。
28. 嚴月玲，資本結構、股權結構與股利政策對公司價值之影響，朝陽科技大學財務金融系碩士論文，2003。
29. Agrawal, A. and Knoeber, C. R., “Firm Performance and Mechanism to Control Agency Problem between Managers and Shareholders,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1996, pp. 377-397.
30. Aggarwal, R. and Zhao, X., “The leverage–value relationship puzzle: An industry effects resolution," Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 59, No.4, 2007, pp. 286-297.
31. Benston, G., “The Self-Serving Management Hypothesis, Some Evidence,” The Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1985, pp. 67-84.
32. Bain J. S., Industrial Organiztion, 2nd ed, New York: Wiley 1968.
33. Bradley, M., Jarrell, G. and Kim, E. H., “On the Existence of an Optimal Capital Structure: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 39, No. 3, 1984, pp. 857-878.
34. Barclay, M. J., Smith, C. W., and Watts, R., “The determinants of corporate leverage and dividend policies,” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 7, 1995, pp. 4-19.
35. Barclay, M. J. and Smith, C. W., “The Maturity Structure of Corporate Debt,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1995, pp. 609-631.
36. Barclay, M. J. and Smith, C. W., “On the Debt Capacity of Growth Options,” Journal of Business, Vol. 79, No. 1, 2006, pp. 37-59.
37. Chen, L., and Zhao, X., “Why do more profitable firms have lower leverage ratios?” Working paper, Michigan State University, 2005.
38. Chen, L., and Zhao, X., “On the relation between the market-to-book ratio, growth opportunity, and leverage ratio,” Finance Research Letters, Vol. 3, 2006, pp. 253-266.
39. Durand, D., “Costs of Debt Equity Funds for Business: Trends and Problem of Mesurement,” Nationaln Bureau of Economic Research, New York, 1952, pp. 215-247.
40. Fama, E. F., and French, K., “Industry costs of equity,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 43, No. 2, 1997, pp. 153-193.
41. Frank, M. Z., and Goyal. V. K., “Capital structure decisions: Which factors are reliably important?” Review of Financial Studies, 2003.
42. Fries, S., Miller, M. and Perraudin, W., “Debt in industry equilibrium,” Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 10, 1997, pp.39-67.
43. Graham, J. R., “How big are the tax benefits of debt?” Journal of Finance, Vol. 55, No. 5, 2000, pp. 1901-1942.
44. Homaifar, G., Zietz, J. and Benkato, O., “An Empirical Model of Capital Structure：Some New Evidence,” Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 21, 1994, pp. 1-14.
45. Hovakimian, A., Opler, T. and Titman, S., “The debt-equity choice,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 36, 2001, pp. 1-24.
46. Hovakimian, A., “The role of target leverage in security issues and repurchase,” Journal of Business, Vol. 77, No. 4, 2004, pp. 1041–1072.
47. Hovakimian, A., “Are observed capital structures determined by equity market timing?” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis Vol. 41, 2006, pp. 221-243.
48. Jensen, M. C., “Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers,” American Economic Revies, Vol. 76, 1986, pp. 323-339.
49. Johnson, S. A., “Debt Maturity and the Effect of Growth Opportunities and Liquidity Risk on Leverage,” Review of Financial Studies, Vol.16, 2003, pp. 209-236.
50. Jung, K., Kim, Y. and Stulz, R., “Timing, investment opportunities, managerial discretion, and the security issue decision,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1996, pp. 159-185.
51. Kim, W. S. and Sorensen, E. H., "Evidence on the Impact of the Agency Costs of Debt on Corporate Debt Policy," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 21, 1986, pp. 131-144.
52. Knovenock, D. and Phillips, G. M., “Capital structure and product market behavior,” Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 10, 1997, pp. 767-803.
53. Lang, L., Ofek, E. and Stulz, R., “Leverage, investment, and firm growth,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 40, No. 1, 1996, pp. 3-29.
54. MacKay, P. and Phillips, G. M., “Is there an optimal industry financial structure?” Working paper, Southern Methodist University, 2002.
55. MacKay, P. and Phillips, G. M., “How does industry affect firm financial structure?” The Review of Financial Studies Vol. 18, No. 4, 2005, pp. 1434-1466.
56. McConnell, J. and Servaes, H., “Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate value,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1990, pp. 595-612.
57. McConnell, J. and Servaes, H., “Equity ownership and the two faces of debt,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 39, 1995, pp. 131-157.
58. Miller, M. H., “Debt and Taxes,” The Journal of Finance, Vol. 32, No. 2, 1977, pp. 261-275.
59. Miao, J., “Optimal capital structure and industry dynamics.” Journal of Finance, Vol. 60, No. 6, 2005, pp. 2621-2659.
60. Modigliani, F. and Miller, M. H., “The cost of capital, corporation finance, and the theory of investment,” American Economic Review, Vol. 48, No. 3, 1958, pp. 261-297.
61. Modigliani, F. and Miller, M. H., “Corporate income taxes and the cost of capital: A correction,” American Economic Review, Vol. 53, No. 3, 1963, pp. 433-443.
62. Myers, S.C., “Determinants of corporate borrowing,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 2, No. 5, 1977, pp. 147-175.
63. Myers, S.C. and Majluf, N. S., “Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1984, pp. 187-221.
64. Opler, T. and Titman, S., “Financial Distress and Corporate Performance,” Journal of Finance, 1994, pp. 1015-1040.
65. Ozkan, A., “Determinants of Capital Structure and Adjustment to Long Run Target: Evidence from UK Company Panel Data,” Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 28, No.1/2, 2001, pp. 175-198.
66. Ross, S.A., “The determination of financial structure: The incentive-signaling Approach,” The Bell Journal of Economics Vol. 8, No. 1, 1977, pp. 23-40.
67. Scott, D. F. and Martin, J. D., “Industry Influence on Financial Structure,” Financial Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1975, pp. 67-73.
68. Smith, C. and Watts, R. L., “The investment opportunity set, and corporate financing, dividend, and compensation policies,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 32, No. 3, 1992, pp. 262-292.
69. Spence, A. M., “Market Signalling: Information Transfer in Hiring and Related Processes,” 1974, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
70. Stulz, R., “Managerial discretion and optimal financing policies,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 26, 1990, pp. 3-27.
71. Timan, S. and Wessels, R., “The Determinants of Capital Structure Choice,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 43, No. 1, 1988, pp. 1-19.
72. White, H., “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix and A Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity,” Econometrica, Vol. 48, 1980, pp. 817-838.