臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

　　本研究目的欲檢驗是否在台灣，金控下券商業務是否對金控子銀行的業務有提升的效果？透過探討金控下券商建立IPO承銷關係與子銀行業務關係。同時也檢驗先前借貸關係、公司信用風險、金控主體企業對金控子銀行後續授信的影響。此外，從借款客戶的角度，觀察後續借款利差的影響因素。
　　實證結果發現，金控子銀行愈不傾向放款給自己輔導上市公司且收取較高的借款利差。對於先前已存在借款關係之企業，金控子銀行會顯著地偏好繼續與其承做放款且收取較高的借款利差。就算是其先前有借貸往來關係的公司是高風險的企業，金控子銀行還是傾向進行後續放款的動作，但是要求較低的借款利差。金控子銀行偏好承做信用評等被調升的公司且給予較低的借款利差。金控子銀行繼續承做放款，其金控主體企業以銀行為主且給予較低的借款利差。
　　就控制變數的實證結果，金控子銀行放款特徵青睞有要求擔保品且要求較高的借款利差。最後只保留先前無借貸關係的樣本，得到實證結論與先前一致。

　　The goal of this paper is to examine whether underwriting business can enhance lending business in Taiwan? This study investigates the relationship between IPO underwriting and subsequent lending business. Also, this paper examines the relationship among previous lending, borrower’s credit risk, holding‘s mother enterprise, and subsequent lending business. Finally, from borrower’s view, check subsequent loan spread.
　　The evidence shows that if a holding company underwrites the IPO of a firm, it is less likely for this holding company to provide the IPO firm with future loans and to charge higher loan spread, compared to a holding company lacking such an underwriting relationship. If a holding company has previous lending with a firm, it is more likely for this holding company to provide the firm with future loans and to charge higher loan spread. Even a risky previous firm, it is more likely for this holding company to provide the firm with future loans but to charge lower loan spread. If a firm’s TCRI upgrade, it is more likely for this holding company to provide the firm with future loans and to charge lower loan spread. If a holding company’s mother enterprise is bank, it is more likely for this holding company to provide the firm with future loans and to charge lower loan spread.
　　From the results of control variables, if loan term is collateral, it is more likely for this holding company to provide the firm with future loans and to charge higher loan spread. Results do not change significantly when the sample is restricted to firms that have exclusive post-IPO loans.

中文摘要. .................................................i
英文摘要.................................................ii
致謝詞..................................................iii
目錄.....................................................iv
表目錄....................................................v
第一章 緒論...............................................1
第一節 研究背景與動機.................................1
第二節 研究目的.......................................2
第三節 論文架構.......................................6
第二章 研究文獻回顧.......................................8
第一節 商業銀行業務範疇擴大對其績效的影響.............8
第二節 先前的往來關係對於後續往來的可能性以及後續收取費用的高低..................................................9
第三節 往來關係的衡量方式............................10
第四節 TCRI信用評等制度及企業信用風險對於銀行放款決策之影響.....................................................11
第三章 選樣設計、變數定義與研究方法......................12
第一節 選樣設計......................................12
第二節 變數定義......................................13
第三節 計量分析方法..................................18
第四章 實證結果..........................................24
第一節 敘述統計......................................24
第二節 迴歸結果與分析................................28
第五章 結論與限制........................................42
第一節 研究結論......................................42
第二節 研究限制......................................44
參考文獻.................................................45

中文部分
1.陳錦村(2004)，銀行管理概要，台北：新陸書局出版。
2.王濟川與郭志剛(2004)，Logistic迴歸模型-方法及應用，五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
3.陳家彬與吳政穎(1997)，「銀行放款利率與信用評等關係之探討」，貨幣觀測與信用評等期刊，第6期，頁49-55。
4.陳家彬、賴怡洵與許茲盈(2004)，「商業銀行關係放款之實證研究」，財務金融學刊 ，第 12 卷第 2 期，頁 43-85。
5.陳家彬與賴怡洵(2003)，「銀行往來關係和授信行為之研究」，經濟論文 ，第 31 卷第 3 期，頁 497-539 。
6.陳家彬與賴怡洵（2001），「台灣地區銀行放款有無擔保之決定因素： Logit 模型之實證分析」， 管理評論 ，第 20 卷第 1 期，頁 129-159 。
7.陳曉琪(2006)，「銀行關係往來－全球國家的實證」，中興大學企業管理學系所碩士論文。
8.陳惠玲(1999)，「台灣企業信用評等(TCRI)新版方法簡介」，貨幣觀測與信用評等期刊，第16期。

英文部分
1.Bharath, S., S. Dahiya, A. Saunders and A. Srinivasan (2007),”So what do I get? The bank''s view of lending relationships,” Journal of Financial Economics 85, PP.368-419.
2.Brick, I., E. Kane and D. Palia (2007),” Evidence of jointness in the terms of relationship lending,” Journal of Financial Intermediation 16, PP.452-476.
3.Burch, T., V. Nanda and V. Warther (2005),”Does it pay to be loyal? An empirical analysis of underwriting relationships and fees,” Journal of Financial Economics 77, PP.673-699.
4.Calomiris, C. and T. Pornrojnangkool (2006),” Relationship banking and the pricing of financial services,” Working Paper, NBER.
5.Cornett, M., E. Ors and H. Tehranian (2002),” Bank Performance around the Introduction of Section 20 Subsidiary,”Journal of Finance 57, PP.501-521.
6.Diamond, D. (1991),” Monitoring and reputation: The choice between bank loans and directly placed debt,” Journal of Political Economy 90, PP.689-721.
7.Drucker, S. and M. Puri (2005),” On the benefits of concurrent lending and underwriting,” Journal of Finance 60, PP.2763-2799.
8.Ho, K., L. Chen and H. Chen (2007)”Do IPO Underwriting Relationships Affect the Subsequent Lending Business,”FMA Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, USA.
9.Leland, H. and D. Pyle (1977),”Informational asymmetries, financial structure and financial intermediation,” Journal of Finance 32, PP.371-387.
10.Panetta, F., F. Schivardi and M. Shum (2009),”Do Mergers Improve Information? Evidence from the Loan Market,”Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 41, PP.673~709.
11.Petersen, M. and R. Rajan (1994),”The benefits of lending relationships: Evidence from small business data,” Journal of Finance 49, PP.3-37.
12.Rajan, R. (1992),”Insiders and outsiders: The relationship between relationship and arms length debt,” Journal of Finance 47, PP.1367-1400.
13.Sharpe, S. (1990),”Asymmetric information, bank lending and implicit contracts: A stylized model of customer relationship,” Journal of Finance 45, PP.1069-1087.
14.Stiroh, K. and P. Strahan (2003),”Competitive Dynamics of Deregulation: Evidence from U.S. Banking,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 35, PP.801–828.
15.Sufi, A. (2007),”Information asymmetry and financing arrangements: Evidence from syndicated loans,” Journal of Finance 62, PP.629-668.
16.Tilly, R. (1989),”Banking institution in historical and comparative perspective: Germany, Great Britain and the United States in the nineteenth and early twentieth century,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 145, PP.189-209.
17.Yasuda, A. (2005),” Do bank relationships affect the firm’s underwriter choice in the corporate-bond underwriting market?” Journal of Finance 60, PP.1259-1292.