跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.221.73.157) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/06/20 12:05
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:李富川
研究生(外文):FU-CHUAN LI
論文名稱:建構企業生命週期之融資策略
論文名稱(外文):The Study of Relations between Enterprises'Life Cycle and Financing Strategy
指導教授:李孟峰李孟峰引用關係
指導教授(外文):MENG-FENG LI
口試委員:李孟峰林靖蘇聖珠
口試委員(外文):MENG-FENG LICHING LINSHENG-CHU SU
口試日期:2013-05-31
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北大學
系所名稱:統計學系
學門:數學及統計學門
學類:統計學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2013
畢業學年度:101
語文別:中文
論文頁數:62
中文關鍵詞:目標調整理論融資順位理論資本結構因數分析集群分析生命週期
外文關鍵詞:Target-adjustment theoryPecking order theoryCapital structureFactor analysisCluster analysisLife cycle
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:328
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
資本結構會影響企業資金成本,進而改變企業價值,健全的資本結構對企業成敗不言可喻。在尋找最佳資本結構過程中,其中以靜態抵換理論(Static trade-off theory)與融資順位理論(Pecking order theory)為兩大主流。靜態抵換理論主張提高負債固然產生稅盾利益,卻也帶來槓桿成本,而最適資本結構的形成,即在使用負債所帶來的利益與成本之間的抵換(Trade off)過程,達到一個均衡的最適資本結構,此即所謂的靜態抵換理論,亦稱為目標調整理論(Target Adjustment Theory);融資順位理論則主張優先使用內部資金,接下來是負債,最後才考慮外部資金,才是符合利益最大之融資政策。
Shyam-Sunder and Myers(1999) 實證有關融資順位理論在一階公司融資條件下較優異,以及簡單目標調整在獨立條件下有較好績效,針對兩者同時檢定,融資順位係數和顯著性幾乎不會改變,而目標調整績效則降低。Frank and Goyal(2003)以橫斷面實證有關1971-1998年美股上市公司融資赤字,淨權益發行比淨負債發行關係更加密切,目標調整與融資順位同時檢定下,融資赤字額外增加較小的解釋力,但融資赤字無法挑戰傳統槓桿廻歸因子的角色。融資順位降低檢定力是受到1980s-1990s有許多小型公司和獲利不佳企業在1990s公開上市交易所導致,以及權益更顯重要是主要因素。
本研究針對上述研究結果,探討台灣股市是否與美國股市相同,本研究嘗試從微觀的企業生命週期角度,探討融資策略形成過程。將樣本分為四期,以多變量因素分析萃取潛伏變數;其次,依潛伏變數進行集群分析;第三,判別分析探討模型配適度,第四,建立兩大假說,最後,以廻歸分析探討各週期融資策略。
檢定結果,(1) 企業在制定融資政策顯示大都遵循目標資本結構,在融資順位方面,支持假說一:成長越高以及規模越大公司,則越會遵行融資順位理論之推論。在目標調整方面,支持假說二:企業年齡越低以及有形資產越大,越會遵行目標資本結構之推論。(2) 目標調整與融資順位同時檢定結果,與Shyam-Sunder and Myers(1999)及Frank and Goyal(2003) 結論類似,並不穩健,但包括落後槓桿之傳統廻歸較包括內部資金缺口之傳統廻歸檢定力強,與Shyam-Sunder and Myers(1999)及Frank and Goyal(2003)結論不同。此外,企業在不同時空,融資策略會跟著改變,企業的各種財務指標隱含不同財務策略。

關鍵字:目標調整理論、融資順位理論、資本結構、因數分析、集群分析、生命週期。
Capital structure will affect the cost of capital; thereby changing the enterprise value, a sound capital structure for business success not self-evident. In the process of looking for an optimal capital structure, Static trade-off theory and Pecking Order theory are the two mainstreams. Static tradeoff theory pointed that to raise the debt although generate tax shield interest , but also brings leverage costs, and optimal capital structure formation, that between the process of benefits of using the liability and cost trade-off, to achieve a equilibrium optimal capital structure, namely the so-called static tradeoff theory, also known as the Targeted Adjustment Theory ; pecking order theory is advocated priority to use internal funds, followed by debt, and finally to consider external funding before is consistent with the interests of the largest financing policy.
Shyam-Sunder and Myers (1999) argue that the pecking order is an excellent first-order descriptor of corporate financing behavior, the simple target adjustment model, when tested independently, also seems to perform well. When the two models are tested jointly, the coefficients and significance of the pecking order models change hardly at all. Frank and Goyal (2003) the cross-sectional evidence in about American stocks of listed companies the relationship between financing deficit and net equity than net debt issuance closer in 1971-1998 years. The target adjustment and pecking order test at the same time, the financing deficit adds a small amount of extra explanatory power, but the financing deficit does not challenge the role of the conventional leverage factors. the financing deficit smaller additional explanatory power, but financing deficit can not challenge the traditional role of leverage regression factor. Pecking order test power is reduced by 1980s-1990s that due to there are many small companies or poor profit publicly traded in the 1990s, as well as the more important that the equity issue is a major factor.
Based on the findings of this study to explore whether the Taiwan stock market the same as the U.S. stock market, In this thesis, the multivariate factor analysis is used to extract latent variables; second, cluster analysis is used with latent variables; third, discriminate analysis discuss the fitness of the model; forth, establish two hypotheses; Finally, regression analysis is used to discuss the financial strategy in each cycle.
The conclusions of this study is (1) the enterprises in establish financing policies show mostly follows the target capital structure, in the pecking order, support a hypothesis: the higher growth and larger company, the more will comply pecking order theory of inference. The target adjustment, support hypothesis two: the lower the firm age and tangible assets, the more will comply target capital structure inference. (2) The target adjustment and pecking order at the same time test results, with Shyam-Sunder and Myers (1999) and Frank and Goyal (2003) concluded similar does not robust, but including the traditional lag leverage regression than to including internal funding deficit compared to the traditional regression testing power magnitude, with Shyam-Sunder and Myers (1999) and Frank and Goyal (2003) conclusions are different. In addition, companies in different time, financing strategy will follow the change; the enterprises of various financial indicators imply different financial strategies

Key words: Target-adjustment theory, Pecking order theory, Capital structure, Factor analysis, Cluster analysis, Life cycle.
目錄
第 1 章 緒論 1
1.1研究背景與動機 1
1.2研究目的 7
1.3研究限制 8
第 2 章 文獻探討 8
2.1資本結構理論(Capital structure theory) 8
2.1.1股利政策(Dividend policy) 9
2.2 靜態抵換理論(Static trade-off theory) 11
2.2.1財務危機成本(Financial distress costs) 11
2.1.2代理成本(Agency costs) 12
2.3 融資順位理論(Pecking order theory) 14
2.4企業生命週期(Enterprise life cycle) 16
第 3 章 研究方法 18
3.1資料來源 19
3.2研究流程 22
3.3研究變數定義與計算方式 22
3.4因素分析(Factor analysis) 23
3.5集群分析(Cluster analysis) 24
3.6判別分析(Discriminate analysis) 25
3.7目標調整理論實證模型 26
3.8融資順位理論實證模型 27
3.9目標調整與融資順位聯合實證模型 29
3.10實際內部資金缺口與預期內部資金缺口之比較 31
3.11研究假說建立 31
第 4 章 實證結果 33
4.1因素分析(Factor analysis) 34
4.2集群分析(Cluster analysis) 35
4.3判別分析(Discriminate analysis) 37
4.4目標調整理論實證分析 39
4.5融資順位理論實證分析 43
4.6目標調整理論與融資順位理論聯合實證分析 44
4.7實際內部資金缺口與預期內部資金缺口之比較分析 46
4.8假說檢定結果 48
第 5 章 結論 49
5.1研究發現 49
5.2管理意涵 50
文獻參考 53
附錄A 因素組型矩陣與獨特性 57
附錄B 潛伏變數中位數敏感度分析雷達圖 58
附錄C 馬氏機率函數 58
附錄D 目標調整理論與融資順位理論檢定之各週期融資策略彙總 59
附錄E 包含內部資金缺口及落後槓桿傳統廻歸之各週期融資策略彙總 59




圖目錄

圖 1: 研究流程 22
圖 2: 潛伏變數中位數雷達圖 37



表目錄
表 1: 一般規模資產負債表 20
表 2: 生命週期階段財務特性與策略關係 32
表 3:因素結構矩陣 35
表 4: 潛伏變數之中位數 36
表 5: 個別準則變數之邊際檢定 37
表 6: 生命週期決定因素之研究假說 39
表 7: 單變量檢定 39
表 8: 歸類矩陣 40
表 9: 目標調整與融資順位理論 41
表 10: 目標調整與融資順位理論之傳統廻歸 45
表 11: 實際內部資金缺口與預期內部資金缺口之傳統廻歸 47





文獻參考
李存修, 1991 ,股票股利及現金增資之除權與股價行為理論與實證,台大管理論叢第 2 期,頁1 -40 。
周文賢, 2003 ,多變量統計分析,智勝。
洪永昌,2004,企業生命週期與融資決策,國立台灣科技大學財務金融所未出版碩士論文。
許明雄, 2000 ,企業生命週期特性與股利政策關聯性之探討,政治大學會計研究所未出版碩士論文。
張南寧, 2002 ,台灣地區上市公司資本結構之實證研究,長庚大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
辜儀芳, 2001 ,臺灣上市公司資本結構選擇之實證研究,中正大學財務金融研究所未出版碩士論文。
陳順宇,2001,多變量分析,華泰。
陳雄山, 1992 ,連鎖企業生命週期與經營策略之研究,國立成功大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
Adizes, I. 1979. Organizational passages-diagnosing and treating life cycle problems
of organizations. Organizational Dynamics: 3-24.
Barclay, M.J., Smith, C.W., 1995a. The maturity structure of corporate debt. Journal
of Finance 50,609–631.
Barclay, M.J., Morellec, E., Smith, C.W., 2001. On the debt capacity of growth
options. Unpublished working paper.University of Rochester, NY.
Bender & Ward , 2002. Corporate financial strategy. Butterworth Heinemann.
Chandler, A.D.1962.Strategyand structure. Cambridge: Mass, MIT press.
Chirinko, R.S., Singha, A.R., 2000. Testing static tradeoff against pecking order
models of capital structure: a critical comment. Journal of Financial Economics
58,417–425.
Donaldson, G, 1961. Corporate Debt Capacity: A Study of Corporate Debt Policy and
the Determination of Corporate Debt Capacity. Harvard Graduate School of
Business Administraion.
Farrar, D., and L. Selwyn. 1967. Taxes, Corporate financial policy and return to
investors. National Tax Journal: 444-454.
Fama E., French K. 1992.The cross-section of Expected Stock Returns. Journal of Finance.47 (2), 427-465.
Fama E., French K. 2002. Testing trade-off and pecking order predictions abouto
dividends and debt. The review of financial studies 15(1), 1-3 3.
Frnak M., Goyal V. 2003. Testing pecking order theory of capital structure. Journal
of Financial Economics 67, 217-248.
Gordon, M. J. 1963. Optimal investment and financial policy. Journal of Finance 18:
264-272.
Gupta, Y. P., and D. C. W. Chin. 1993. Strategy making and environment: an
organizational life cycle perspective. Technovation 13(1): 27-44.
Gupta, Y. P., and D. C. W. Chin. 1994. Organization life cycle: a review and proposed
directions for research. The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business 30(3): 269-294.
Haire, M. 1959. Biological models and empirical history of the growth of
organizations. Modern Organizational Theory. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Harris, M., and Raviv, A. 1991. The theory of capital structure. Journal of Finance 46,
297–356.
Havakivaiman, A., and Li, 2011.In search of conclusive evidence: How to test for
adjustment to target capital structure. Journal of corporate finance 17, 33-44.
Jensen, M., and W. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency
costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economic 3(4): 60-69.
Kazanjian, R. K., and R. Drazin. 1989. An empirical test of a stage of growth
progression model. Management Science 35(12): 1489-1503.
Lakonishok, J. and B. Lev. 1987. Stock split and stock dividends: why, who and when
Journal of Finance 42(4): 913-932.
Lintner, J. 1956. Distribution of incomes of corporations among dividends, retained
earnings and taxes. American Economic Review 46(2): 97-113.
M. H. Miller and M.S. Scholes. 1978. Dividends and Taxes. Journal of Financial
Economics 6 333-364.
Modigliani, F., and M. H. Miller. 1958. Corporate income taxes and the cost of
capital: a correction. American Economic Review 48: 261-297.
Myers, S.C., Majluf, N., 1984. Corporate financing and investment decisions when
firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial
Economics 13, 187–221.
Modigliani, F., and M. H. Miller. 1961. Dividend policy, growth and the valuation of
shares. Journal of Business 34(4): 411-433.
Myers, S.C., 1977. Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics
5, 147-175.
Myers, S.C., 1984. The capital structure puzzle. Journal of Finance 39, 575-592.
Pashley & philippatos, 1990. Voluntary divestitures and corporate life cycle:
some empirical evidence. Applied Economics 22: 118 1-1196.
Robinson, K. C. 1999.An examination of the influence of industry structure on eight
alternative measures of new venture performance for high potential independent
new ventures, Journal of Business Venturing 14(2): 165-187.
Myers, S.C., 2001. Capital structure. Journal of Economic Perspectives 15, 81–102.
Smith, K. G., T. R. Mitchell, and C. E. Summer. 1985. Top level management
priorities in different stages of the organization life cycle. Academy of
Management Journal 28(4): 779-820.
Shyamn-Sunder, Lakshrni and Stewart C. Myers, 1999. Testing static tradeoff against
pecking order models of capital structure, Journal of Financial Economics 51,
219-244.
Torbert, W. R. 1974. Pre-bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic stages of organization
development. Interpersonal Development 5: 1-25.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top