跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.220.255.141) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/11/13 10:40
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:沈安安
研究生(外文):An-An Shen
論文名稱:不同海外涉入程度下國有股與國內機構法人股對績效的影響
論文名稱(外文):The Performance Implication of Equity of State and Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor under Different Foreign Involvement
指導教授:潘偉華潘偉華引用關係
指導教授(外文):Wei-Haw Pan
口試委員:吳學良陳致遠潘偉華
口試委員(外文):Wu, H. LChih-Yuan ChenWei-Haw Pan
口試日期:2014-07-28
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立雲林科技大學
系所名稱:企業管理系
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:企業管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2014
畢業學年度:103
語文別:英文
論文頁數:38
中文關鍵詞:國有股非國有合格境內機構投資者海外涉入程度績效
外文關鍵詞:state equityqualified domestic institutional investorforeign involvementperformance
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:230
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:6
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
自從1970 年代起, 中國經濟改革, 帶來一股企業私有化的浪潮。同時,中國
國內市場競爭漸趨激烈加上政府政策上推動,拓展海外事業,成為中國企業成長
的重要策略之一。因此本項研究主在探討國有股與非國有合格境內機構投資者,
其海外涉入程度和績效的關係。此篇研究使用自2004 至2011 年來自4 個不同產
業共647 家5,170 的觀察樣本,並透過面板數據分析 (panel data regression)做為研究
方法來檢驗假說。
此篇研究結果顯示,國有股和非國有合格境內機構投資者都對績效呈現U
型關係,當加入海外涉入檢視時不同程度投入之間的影響,發現高國有股,其績
效表現會呈現U 型關係;相反地,發現高國有股,其績效表現呈現負斜率關係。
另外,不論高、低非國有合格境內機構投資者,其績效表現呈現U 斜率關係。
Since the economic reform in 1970s, it brings about the stream of privatization.
At the same time, because of fierce competition in domestic market as well as the
impetus of strategy from government, international expanding become an important
strategic. This study applies panel data regression techniques to examine the
relationship between ownership, including state equity and qualified domestic
institutional investor, and firm performance on 5,170 firm-year observations of Chinese
listed firms during 2004–2011. We then discuss the relationship between their foreign
involvement and performance of firm.
The analysis shows a U-shaped relationship between SE and firm performance
and a U-shaped relationship between QDII and firm performance. The degree of foreign
involvement is used as a moderator to test the previous two relationships. With higher
degree of foreign involvement, there is a U-shaped relationship between state equity and
performance while it shows negative relationship in lower degree of foreign
involvement. Both higher and lower the degree of foreign involvement, there is a
systematic U-shaped relationship between QDII and performance.
中文摘要 ............................................................................................................................i
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. iii
List of Table ...................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figure ..................................................................................................................... v
Chapter One: Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................... 2
Chapter Two: Literature & Hypotheses Building ............................................................. 3
2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 3
2.2 State equity and Performance ............................................................................. 3
2.3 Non-state Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor and Performance.............. 5
2.4 Foreign Involvement and Performance .............................................................. 6
2.4.1 The positive argument ............................................................................. 7
2.4.2 The negative argument ............................................................................ 7
2.4.3 Compromise argument ............................................................................ 8
2.5 The Moderating Effect of the degree of Foreign Involvement on Ownershipperformance
Relationship ......................................................................................... 9
Chapter Three: Methodology .......................................................................................... 11
3.1 Framework of This study .................................................................................. 11
3.2 Data Collection and Description ...................................................................... 12
3.3 Measurements ................................................................................................... 12
3.3.1 Dependent Variable ................................................................................ 12
3.3.2 Independent Variables ............................................................................ 12
3.3.3 Moderator .............................................................................................. 13
3.3.4 Control Variables ................................................................................... 13
3.4 Descriptive statistics ......................................................................................... 14
3.5 Profile of Key Independent Variables ............................................................... 15
Chapter Four: Results ..................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Heteroscedasticity analysis: Breusch-Pagan/ Cook-Weisberg test ................... 16
4.2 Autoregression Analysis: Unit Root test ........................................................... 16
4.3 Autocorrelation Analysis: Wooldridge test ....................................................... 17
4.4 Random Effect / Fixed Effect Analysis: Hausman Test ................................... 17
4.5 Result of Regression Analyses of Ownership on Performance ........................ 18
Chapter Five: Conclusion ............................................................................................... 25
5.1 Summary ........................................................................................................... 25
5.2 Limitations and suggestions for future research ............................................... 27
Reference ........................................................................................................................ 28
Appendices ..................................................................................................................... 31
1. Farok J. Contractor, Vikas Kumar, Sumit K. Kundu. (2007) Nature of the
relationship between international expansion and performance: The case of
emerging market firms, Journal of World Business 42 401–417
2. Choon-Yin, S. (2008) Partial privatization, corporate governance, and the role
of state-owned holding companies, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 13,
58-81. 24p.
3. Capar and. Kotabe. (2003) The relationship between international
diversification and performance in service firms, Journal of International
Business Studies. 34: 345-355
4. Yi Liu, Yuan Li, Jiaqi Xue, Ownership, strategic orientation and
internationalization in emerging markets, Journal of World Business
5. David, P., Hitt, M. A., & Gimeno, J. (2001) The role of institutional investors
in influencing R&D, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 144-157.
6. Zulima Fernandez and Maria Jesuis Nieto. (2006) Impact of ownership on the
international involvement of SMEs, Journal of International BusinessS
tudies( 2006) 37, 340-351
7. Alan M. Rugman and Chang Hoon Oh, The international competitiveness of
Asian firms , Journal of strategy and Management
8. Douma, S., George, R., & Kabir, R. (2006) Foreign and domestic ownership,
business group, and firm performance: Evidence from large emerging market,
Strategic Management Journal, 27, 637-657.
9. Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Johnson, R. A., & Grossman, W. (2002)
Conflicting voices: The effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and
internal governance on corporate innovation strategies, Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 697-716.
10. Kim, W. S.and E. Lyn. (1987) Foreign direct investment theories, entry
barriers, and reverse investments in U.S. Manufacturing Industries, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 18, summer, pp. 53-66
11. Kochhar, R. & P. David. (1996) Institutional investors and firm innovation: A
12. test of competing hypotheses, Strategic Management Journal, 17, 73-84.
13. Kim, W. C., P. Hwang, & W. P. Burgers. (1989) Global diversification strategy
and corporate profit performance. Strategic Management Journal, 10:45-57
Martin, S., 1979. Entry barriers, concentration, and profits. Southern
Economic Journal, 471-488.
14. Zuobao Weia,, Oscar Varela. (2002) State equity ownership and firm market
performance: evidence from China’s newly privatized firms, Global Finance
Journal 14 (2003) 65– 82
15. Miller, J. C. and B. Pras. (1980) The Effects of Multinational and Export
Diversification on the Profit Stability of U.S. Corportations. Social Economic
Journal, 46:pp.792-805.
16. Melicher, R. W., D. F. Rush & D. N. Winn. (1972) Industrial concentration,
financial structure and profitability. Financial Management, 48-53.
17. Porter, M. E. (1990) The competitive advantage of nations.(cover story),
Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 73-93.
18. Filatotchev, I., & S. Toms. (2006) Corporate governance and financial
constraints, Journal of Management Studies, 43, 407-433
19. Peterson, M. F., J.-L. Arregle, X. Martin. (2012) Multilevel models in
international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 43,
451–457
20. Shenghui Tong and Eddy Junarsin. (May - August 2013) Do Private Firms
Outperform SOE Firms after Going Public in China Given their Different
Governance Characteristics? Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business
Vol. 15, No. 2 133 – 170
21. Paul Cox, Stephen Brammer, Andrew Millington, An Empirical Examination
of Institutional Investor Preferences for Corporate Social Performance
22. Tihanyi, L., R. A. Johnson, R.E. Hoskisson, & M. A. Hitt ( 2003) Institutional
ownership differences and international diversification: The effects of boards
of directors and technological opportunity, Academy of Management Journal,
6, 195-211.
23. Wang, J. (2007) Strategic Challenges and Strategic Responses: The
Transformation of State-owned Enterprises, Oxford: Chandos, hardback,
229pp.
24. Wiersema, M.F. and H.P. Bowen. (2008) Corporate diversification: the impact
of foreign competition, industry globalization, and product diversification.
Strategic Management Journal, 29: 115–132
25. Daqing Qi, Woody Wu, Hua Zhang. (2000) Shareholding structure and
corporate performance of partially privatized firms: Evidence from listed
Chinese companies, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 8 _2000. 587–610
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top