(3.238.186.43) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/02/25 02:15
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:古淳仁
研究生(外文):Chun-Jen Ku
論文名稱:台灣上市公司轉投資行為之研究
論文名稱(外文):The Reinvestment Behavior of Taiwan Listed Companies
指導教授:胡星陽胡星陽引用關係
指導教授(外文):Shing-Yang Hu
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:財務金融學研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:財務金融學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2010
畢業學年度:98
語文別:中文
論文頁數:58
中文關鍵詞:轉投資內部人集團企業
外文關鍵詞:ReinvestmentInsiderBusiness Group
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:378
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
轉投資對企業來說是一項重要的活動,規模龐大者,甚至形成了所謂的「集團企業」。錯綜複雜的股權結構及母子公司間的交叉持股是這些集團企業給人的第一印象,事實上,一間公司轉投資的項目可能多如繁星,我們可以發現,母公司對每一間子公司的持股率卻不盡相同,而在眾多子公司中,有屬於母公司為了拓展事業版圖而創立之多角化經營者,也有屬於母公司為了強化本業而設置之集中化經營者。 這其中的差別,是不是因為母公司的內部人基於自利的動機所造成,是本研究想要討論的主題。
本研究試圖從母公司持股率、轉投資事業與母公司之業務關聯及子公司是否為上市櫃公司等變數來觀察子公司經營績效之變化情形,結果發現在樣本不分組的情況下,母公司持股率與多角化經營對子公司的獲利能力有正面顯著的影響;而在將樣本依母公司持股率分組過後,母公司持股率介於25%~50%之間,母公司持股率對子公司的會計報酬率有負向的影響,符合本研究假說一,多角化經營對子公司獲利依然有正向顯著的影響;母公司持股率介於75%~100%之間,則得出與樣本不分組相似的迴歸結果,但子公司是否為上市櫃公司對盈餘的影響在以上幾個部分卻都沒有得出顯著的結果。
由以上結果我們除了得出母公司持股率增加可能對子公司獲利有正面效果外,也證實了股權結構與公司績效存在非線性關係的可能性,而母公司多角化經營對子公司績效的正相關則是本研究的另一個發現。
最後,本研究為了消除離群值(Outliers)對模型可能造成的誤判,所以進行了穩健迴歸模型(Robust Regression)之分析,發現母公司持股率對子公司獲利有負面影響,上市櫃子公司的獲利也明顯較其餘子公司來得好,多角化經營對子公司也有負向顯著的影響,完全符合本研究的三個假說。


Reinvestment is an important source of business diversification. “Business Group” was formed through these investment decisions made by parent company. Complicated ownership structure and the cross-shareholdings among business group was our first impression about them. A company may have so many subsidiaries that we couldn’t even recognize them. The interesting point is, the parent companies are always holding unequal shares for different subsidiaries. One kind of subsidiaries is diversified firm and the other is focused firm. Which factors caused these differences was what this thesis desired to discuss.

This paper tried to observe the return of subsidiaries (AAR). See if it was influenced by ownership by parent company (OPHPC), dummy variable for diversification (FVD), and dummy variable for listed company (LCN). We found that OPHPC and FVD were positively significant in the “All Samples” group. OPHPC was negatively significant and FVD was positively significant in the”25%-50%” group. The “All sample” group got the similar result with “75%-100%” group. LCN was not significant in all these groups.
We could conclude that the OPHPC might have significant non-linear relationship with AAR. FVD was obvious positively significant which supported the hypothesis II.

In order to eliminate the bias introduced by “Outliers”, we used the “Robust Regression” model to analyze. OPHPC was negatively significant which supported our hypothesis I, FVD was negatively significant which also corresponded the hypothesis II, and LCN was positively significant which supported our hypothesis III.


口試委員會審定書 i
誌謝 ii
摘要 iii
Abstract iv
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究架構與流程 2
第二章 相關法規及文獻探討 5
第一節 轉投資的定義及會計處理 5
第二節 多角化的定義與動機 6
第三節 多角化與公司價值的關聯 11
第四節 公司績效與股權結構之間的關聯 13
第五節 上市或上櫃對子公司的影響 17
第三章 研究方法 22
第一節 假說建立 22
第二節 資料來源與樣本選擇 24
第三節 研究設計 26
第四章 實證結果與分析 36
第一節 全部樣本的迴歸結果 36
第二節 將母公司持股率分組的迴歸結果 39
第三節 上市櫃子公司及公開或是非公開發行子公司的迴歸結果 47
第四節 穩健迴歸分析(Robust Regression) 51
第五章 結論與建議 52
第一節 研究結論 52
第二節 研究限制及後續研究建議 54
參考文獻 55




英文部分
1.Aaker, DA, 1984. Developing business strategies (Wiley New York).
2.Almeida, HV, and D Wolfenzon, 2006, A theory of pyramidal ownership and, Journal of Finance, forthcoming.
3.Amit, R, and J Livnat, 1988, Diversification and the risk-return trade-off, Academy of Management Journal 31, 154-166.
4.Ansoff, HI, 1957, Strategies for diversification, Harvard Business Review 35, 113-124.
5.Arbel, A, S Carvell, and P Strebel, 1983, Giraffes, institutions and neglected firms, Financial Analysts Journal 39, 57-63.
6.Baker, HK, and RB Edelman, 1992, Amex-to-nyse transfers, market microstructure, and shareholder wealth, Financial Management 21, 60-72.
7.Barry, CB, and SJ Brown, 1986, Limited information as a source of risk, The Journal of Portfolio Management 12, 66-72.
8.Berger, PG, and E Ofek, 1995, Diversification''s effect on firm value, Journal of Financial Economics 37, 39-65.
9.Bernheim, BD, and MD Whinston, 1990, Multimarket contact and collusive behavior, The RAND Journal of Economics 21, 1-26.
10.Berry, Charles Harris, 1974. Corporate growth and diversification (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.).
11.Booz, A, and I Hamilton, 1982. New products management for the 1980s (Booz Allen & Hamilton).
12.Chandler, Alfred D., 1962. Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise (M.I.T. Press, Cambridge).
13.Chen, SS, KW Ho, C Lee, and GHH Yeo, 2000, Investment opportunities, free cash flow and market reaction to international joint ventures, Journal of Banking and Finance 24, 1747-1765.
14.Comment, R, and GA Jarrell, 1995, Corporate focus and stock returns, Journal of Financial Economics 37, 67-87.
15.Copeland, T, and JF Weston, 1986. Managerial finance (Dryden Press).
16.Cravens, DW, and SH Shipp, 1991, Market-driven strategies for competitive advantage, Business Horizons 34, 53-61.
17.Denis, DJ, DK Denis, and A Sarin, 1997, Ownership structure and top executive turnover* 1, Journal of Financial Economics 45, 193-221.
18.Denis, DJ, DK Denis, and K Yost, 2002, Global diversification, industrial diversification, and firm value, Journal of Finance 57, 1951-1979.
19.Dharan, BG, and DL Ikenberry, 1995, The long-run negative drift of post-listing stock returns, Journal of Finance 50, 1547-1574.
20.Gibbons, R, and KJ Murphy, 1992, Optimal incentive contracts in the presence of career concerns: Theory and evidence, Journal of political economy 100, 468-505.
21.Gort, M, 1962, Diversification and integration in american industry, NBER Books.
22.Graham, JR, ML Lemmon, and JG Wolf, 2002, Does corporate diversification destroy value? Journal of Finance 57, 695-720.
23.Huber, PJ, 1973, Robust regression: Asymptotics, conjectures and monte carlo, The Annals of Statistics 1, 799-821.
24.Jauch, LR, and WF Glueck, 1988. Business policy and strategic management (McGraw-Hill).
25.Jensen, M, and S Richard, 1983, Ruback, 1983,“the market for corporate control: The scientific evidence,” Journal of Financial Economics 11, 5-50.
26.Jensen, MC, 1986, Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers, The American Economic Review 76, 323-329.
27.Jensen, MC, and WH Meckling, 1976, Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305-360.
28.Jensen Richard, S, and C Michael, 1983, The market for corporate control* 1:: The scientific evidence, Journal of Financial Economics 11, 5-50.
29.John, K, and E Ofek, 1995, Asset sales and increase in focus* 1, Journal of Financial Economics 37, 105-126.
30.Jose, ML, LM Nichols, and JL Stevens, 1986, Contributions of diversification, promotion, and r&d to the value of multiproduct firms: A tobin''s q approach, Financial Management 33-42.
31.Kamien, MI, and NL Schwartz, 1975, Market structure and innovation: A survey, Journal of Economic Literature 1-37.
32.Khanna, T, and K Palepu, 2000, Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified indian business groups, Journal of Finance 55, 867-891.
33.Lang, LHP, and RM Stulz, 1994, Tobin''s $ q $, corporate diversification, and firm performance, Journal of political economy 102.
34.Liebeskind, JP, and TC Opler, 1994, Corporate diversification and agency costs: Evidence from privately held firms, (Working paper, Ohio State University).
35.McConnell, JJ, and H Servaes, 1990, Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate value, Journal of Financial Economics 27, 595-612.
36.Merton, RC, 1987, A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information, Journal of Finance 42, 483-510.
37.Michel, A, and I Shaked, 1984, Does business diversification affect performance?, Financial Management 13, 18-25.
38.Montgomery, CA, 1994, Corporate diversification, The Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 163-178.
39.Morck, R, A Shleifer, and RW Vishny, 1988, Management ownership and market valuation:: An empirical analysis, Journal of Financial Economics 20, 293-315.
40.Mueller, DC, 1969, A theory of conglomerate mergers, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 643-659.
41.Pitts, RA, and HD Hopkins, 1982, Firm diversity: Conceptualization and measurement, Academy of Management Review 7, 620-629.
42.Ramanujam, V, P., varadarajan (1989),“research on corporate diversification: A synthesis”, Strategic Management Journal, Oct 523-551.
43.Sanger, GC, and JJ McConnell, 1986, Stock exchange listings, firm value, and security market efficiency: The impact of nasdaq, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 21, 1-25.
44.Shleifer, A, and RW Vishny, 1991, Takeovers in the''60s and the''80s: Evidence and implications, Strategic management journal 12, 51-59.
45.Teece, DJ, 1980, Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 1, 223-247.
46.Teece, DJ, 1982, Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 3, 39-63.


中文部分
1.牛延苓,2001,「股權結構、董事會組成與公司績效關係之研究─以高科技產業與傳統產業為例」,中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
2.李存修,1990,「企業轉投資對財務槓桿之影響」, 東海大學管理學報。
3.吳政穎,2000,「我國上市公司股權集中度、薪酬設計與公司經營績效關係之研究」,國立政治大學企業管理研究所未出版博士論文。
4.邱錦妮,2001,「高階主管風險承擔在獎酬制度、融資政策與公司績效間之關係所扮演之角色」,國立中正大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
5.陳美菁,2005,國立政治大學財務管理研究所博士論文,內部人參與投資母公司轉投資事業之研究。
6.黃媛君,2000,台灣上櫃公司轉上市的動機與股價行為的研究,國立台灣大學財務金融學研究所未出版之碩士論文。
7.蕭黎明,1992,「臺灣上市公司最高主管之報償、持股比例與公司績效之關係研究」,國立台灣大學財務金融學系研究所未出版碩士論文。



QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔