臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

2008年全球金融風暴之發生，對各國金融市場衝擊甚大，因此，各國政府除了推出緊急措施穩定金融市場外，更開始檢討公平價值會計之相關規範，因為他們認為公平價值會計是造成目前金融動亂之罪魁禍首。國際會計準則委員會在歐盟龐大之政治壓力下，率先於2008年10月13日發佈IAS 39與IFRS 7之修訂條文，而我國主管機關在與國際接軌之考量下，亦隨後於該年10月17日發佈財務會計準則公報第34號第二次修訂條文，允許金融資產有條件重分類，此新修訂條文並未經正常程序（due process）審議而快速通過，且可追溯至2008年7月1日開始適用。由於此新修訂條文係因應全球金融風暴而產生，且此次追溯適用之會計修訂規定對一般公認會計原則（GAAP）而言，係一項特殊情況。
本研究之目的即針對此次金融資產重分類修訂條文，探討二項議題：一為依新修訂條文採用重分類金融資產公司之實務遵循狀況；二為檢驗股市對金融資產重分類資訊之評價影響。本研究之研究對象於第一階段分析實務遵循狀況時，係以2008年第三季「首次」依新修訂條文重分類金融資產之所有上市櫃公司進行分析；另外，因此次採用金融資產重分類公司主要是以交易目的金融資產重分類至備供出售金融資產之類型為主，故探討第二階段所採用之研究對象，為針對進行此類重分類方式之非金融業上市櫃公司進行檢驗，有效樣本為89家，財務資料涵蓋期間為2007年10月1日至2008年9月30日。本研究以Ohlson評價模型進行多元迴歸分析。本研究實證結果彙總如下：
1.採用金融資產重分類公司之主要重分類類型為將交易目的金融資產重分類至備供出售金
融資產，僅有6家公司有採用其他重分類方式。另外，所有重分類公司之實務遵循狀況，
其結果可區分為兩類，第一類為適用新修訂條文無影響數者（共計48家），僅有3家有揭
露重分類相關資訊；第二類為有影響數者（共計110家），此類公司整體揭露狀況良好，
但至少有15家公司違反第34號公報之揭露要求，因此，本文實證結果可提供主管機關參
考依據，對於公司遵循會計規範現況提供回饋價值，並可對公司資訊揭露遵循更嚴格把
關，以利於投資人瞭解金融資產重分類資訊。
2.針對交易目的金融資產重分類至備供出售金融資產之重分類方式進行實證分析，結果如
下：
（1）重分類後與倘若未重分類之會計資訊對公司股價之解釋能力相當接近，分別為
0.5365與0.4959。且本研究進行Vuong（1989）Z值檢測之統計結果，發現重分類
後之會計資訊對公司股價之解釋能力優於倘若未重分類之會計資訊。
（2）投資人對於重分類損益影響數之評價異於其他損益要素資訊。若進一步考慮正負數之
盈餘門檻後，將全部樣本區分為異常盈餘由負轉負組、由正轉正組及由負轉正組等三
組樣本，則僅有由負轉負組中的重分類損益影響數，投資人對其評價異於其他損益要
素資訊。
（3）不論有無考慮盈餘門檻分組測試結果，投資人並未負面看待重分類損益影響數。因
此，本研究發現投資人似乎固著（fixate）於現行財務報表之盈餘，因重分類後之
盈餘較高而對重分類損益影響數給予正向之評價。

The 2008 global financial crisis made governments start to review fair value accounting. Under European Union enormous political pressure, International Accounting Standards Board did not deliberate through due process but declared IAS 39 and IFRS 7 Amendments quickly on October 13, 2008, allowing reclassification of financial assets. Then the Accounting Research and Development Foundation in Taiwan declared TFAS 34 Second Amendments on October 17, 2008. This is a special and important research issue that this study focuses on.
This study discusses two issues on TFAS 34 Second Amendments. First, analyzing the disclosure compliance of the reclassification rules for financial instruments; second, using a sample of non–financial companies that reclassified trading securities to available–for–sale securities and investigating market pricing of the reclassification disclosure information. This study uses Ohlson model to test market pricing of the reclassification amendments. The empirical results are the following:
1.In all 158 reclassification companies, the major type that they reclassified financial instruments is from trading securities to available–for–sale securities. And the disclosure compliance of the reclassification rules can be separated into two groups: one group has no income effects (48 companies), only 3 companies disclose related reclassification information; the other one has income effects (110 companies), the disclosure circumstances of this group is fine, but still, at least 15 companies violated the reclassification rules.
2.The empirical results on a sample of non–financial companies that reclassified trading securities to available–for–sale securities:
（1）There is little statistical difference in the explanatory power of accounting information between adoption firms and non–adoption firms of this amendment, and the former is superior to the letter .
（2）Investors value reclassification income effects differently from other income components, if considering earnings threshold separates whole sample into three small samples, then only negative to negative sample supports this conclusion.
（3）Finally, whether considering earnings threshold or not, investors don’t value reclassification income effects negatively. Therefore, this study finds that investors fixate current earnings and value income effects positively.

第一章 緒論 - 1 -
第一節 研究背景與動機 - 1 -
第二節 研究範圍與研究目的 - 3 -
第三節 研究架構與流程 - 5 -
第二章 金融資產重分類之修訂及實務遵循狀況 - 7 -
第一節 金融資產重分類修訂之背景與評論 - 7 -
第二節 我國財務會計準則公報第34號有關金融資產重分類之修訂 - 13 -
第三節 我國上市櫃公司之實務遵循狀況 - 19 -
第三章 文獻探討 - 38 -
第一節 會計變動之股價反應相關文獻 - 38 -
第二節 公平價值資訊之攸關性 - 41 -
第三節 Ohlson 模型及相關實證文獻 - 45 -
第四章 研究方法 - 55 -
第一節 研究假說 - 55 -
第二節 實證模型 - 59 -
第三節 樣本選取與資料來源 - 64 -
第五章 實證結果與分析 - 66 -
第一節 相關變數基本分析 - 66 -
第二節 多元迴歸結果分析 - 72 -
第三節 敏感性測試 - 78 -
第六章 結論與建議 - 86 -
第一節 研究結論 - 86 -
第二節 後續研究建議 - 89 -
參考文獻 - 90 -
附錄 - 95 -

中文部分：
1.王志偉，2008，投資人對員工分紅存在功能性固著之研究，國立台北大學會計學研究所
碩士論文。
2.李建然、劉正田及葉家榮，2005，人力資本市場評價–員工分紅入股之實證研究，公司
治理學刊，第三卷第一期，第47頁至第74頁。
3.林美倫，2007，智慧資本對總經理薪酬與公司價值之攸關性，國立雲林科技大學管理研
究所博士班論文。
4.林松宏，2004，遞延所得稅評價之延究，國立成功大學會計學研究所博士論文。
5.財團法人會計研究發展基金會，2008，財務會計準則公報第三十四號：金融商品之會計
處理準則。
6.財團法人會計研究發展基金會，2005，財務會計準則公報第三十六號：金融商品之表達
與揭露。
7.陳怡庭，2006，適用「第34號公報：金融商品之會計處理準則」對於上市公司股價的影
響－以台灣傳統產業為例，國立台灣大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
8.陳紫雲，2008，全球公平價值會計大戰，會計研究月刊276卷。
9.陳紫雲，2008，放寬公平價值會計IASB獨立性受質疑，會計研究月刊 277卷。
10.張仲岳，2008，金融危機 錯在會計？會計研究月刊276卷。
11.張青霞，2001，兩稅合一制度下「股東可扣抵稅額」於企業評價之角色– Ohlson模
型之應用，國立政治大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
12.梁瓊如與蔡彥卿，2000，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告–財務會計準
則公報第27號規範揭露資訊之攸關性研究–公平價值資訊之檢驗。
13.梁素梅，2003，未分配盈餘課稅之股權評價效果，中山大學財務管理學系碩士論文。
14.郭子慧，2003，員工分紅配股與權益評價，國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
15.彭火樹，2005，股價與盈餘關係之研究：盈餘與權益帳面價值定式問題之再考量，會
計評論，第40期，第69頁至第90頁。
16.劉正田，1997，研究發展支出之效益及其資本化會計資訊對股票評價攸關性之研究，
國立政治大學會計研究所博士班論文。

英文部分：
1.Ahmed, A. S., C. Kilic, and G. J. Lobo, 2006. Does recognition versus disclosure matter? Evidence from value–relevance of banks' recognized and disclosed derivative financial instruments. The Accounting Review, Vol. 81, 567–88.
2.Amir, E., M. Kirschenheiter, and K. Willard. 1997. The valuation of deferred taxes. Contemporary Accounting Research 14 (Winter): 597–622.
3.Ashton, R. H. 1976. Cognitive changes induced by accounting changes: Experimental evidence on the financial fixation hypothesis. Journal of Accounting Research (Supplement 1976): 1–17.
4.Ball and Brown, 1968. An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers. Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 6, No.2, 159–178.
5.Barth, Beaver and Landsman, 1996. The relevance of the value relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting: another view. Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 31, 77–104.
6.Barth, Clinch and Shibano, 2003. Market effects of recognition and disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 41, No. 4, 581–609.
7.Bell, T.B., W.R. Landsman, B.L. Miller, and Shu Yeh. 2002. The valuation implication of employee stock option accounting for profitable computer software firms. The Accounting Review 77 (4) : 971–996.
8.Bernard, V. L. 1992. Stock price reactions to earnings announcements. In R. Thaler (Ed.), Advances in behavioral finance 303–340. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
9.Bernard, V.L. 1995. The Feltham–Ohlson framework: implications for empiricists. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (2): 733–747.
10.Black, F. 1986. Noise. Journal of Finance, Vol. 41, No. 3, 529–543.
11.Chen, K. C. W. and M. P. Schoderbek. 2000. The 1993 tax rate increase and deferred tax adjustments. Journal of Accounting Research 38 (spring): 23–44.
12.Collins, D., E. Mayhew, and I. Weiss. 1997. Changes in the value–relevance of earnings and book values over the past forty years. Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 24, 39–67.
13.Cutler, Poterba and Summers, 1991. Speculative dynamics and the role of feedback traders. Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 58, 529–546.
14.De Bondt and Thaler, 1985. Does the Stock Market Overreact? Journal of Finance, Vol. 40, No. 3, 793–805.
15.Dechow, P. M. 1994. Accounting earnings and cash flows as measures of firm performance: The role of accounting accruals. Journal of Accounting and Economics 18: 3-42.
16.Degeorge, F., J. Patel, and R. Zeckhauser. 1999. Earnings management to exceed thresholds. Journal of Business 72 (1): 1-33.
17.DeLong, Shleifer, Summers and Waldmann, 1990. Noise trader risk in financial markets. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, 703–738.
18.Duangploy and Helmi, 2003. SFAS No. 133: Effect on 25 Large Banks. Bank Accounting & Finance, Vol. 16, 7–13.
19.Duncker, 1945, On problem solving, Psychilogical Monographs, 58, No.5.
20.Eccher, Ramesh and Thiagarajan, 1996. Fair value disclosures by bank holding companies. Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 22, 79–117.
21.Fama, 1970. Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. Journal of Finance, Vol. 25, 383–417.
22.Feltham, G. A., and J. A. Ohlson. 1995. Valuation and clean surplus accounting for operating and financial activities. Contemporary Accounting Research 11: 689–732.
23.Financial Accounting Standards Board, 1990. Statements of Financial Accounting Standards No. 105：Disclosure of Information about Financial Instruments with Off–Balance–Sheet Risk and Financial Instruments with Concentrations of Credit Risk.
24.Financial Accounting Standards Board, 1991. Statements of Financial Accounting Standards No. 107：Disclosures about fair value of financial instruments.
25.Financial Accounting Standards Board, 1993. Statements of Financial Accounting Standards No. 115：Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity. Securities.
26.Financial Accounting Standards Board, 1998. Statements of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133：Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities.
27.Fuerst and Kang. 2000. Corporate governance, expected operating performance, and pricing. Working paper, Yale School of Management, New Haven.
28.Hirshleifer and Teoh, 2003. Limited attention, information disclosure, and financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 36, 337–386.
29.Ijiri, Y., R. K. Jaedicke, and K. E. Knight. 1966.The effects of accounting alternatives on management decisions. Research in Accounting Measurements. Evanston, IL: American Accounting Association.
30.International Accounting Standards Board, 32. International Accounting Standards NO. 32：Financial Instruments: Presentation – Disclosure provisions superseded by IFRS 7 effective 2007.
31.International Accounting Standards Board, 1999. International Accounting Standards No. 39：Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement.
32.International Accounting Standards Board, 2005. International Financial Reporting Standards No. 7：Financial Instruments: Disclosures.
33.Nelson, 1996. Fair value accounting for commercial banks：An empirical analysis of SFAS No.107. Accounting Review, Vol. 71, 161–182.
34.Ohlson, J. A. 1995. Earnings, equity book values, and dividends in equity valuation. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (2)66–687.
35.Park, 2005. The Economic Consequences of FAS–133 for Bank Holding Companies. Bank Accounting & Finance, Vol. 18, 19–48.
36.Scott. William R. 2006. Financial accounting theory. 4th edition. Pearson Prentice Hall.
37.Vuong, Q. H., 1989, Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses, Econometrica, 57, pp. 307–333.