臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

　　台灣作為一海島型國家，缺乏許多天然的資源以及人力資源…等，所以一直以來台灣都屬於一個技術輸出的國家，尤其是台灣的科技重鎮「新竹科學園區」，幾乎每間公司都是以技術為導向，以2012年研發經費來說，第一名的台積電高達388億元，其次為宏達電的138億元以及聯發科的131億元，到了2014台積電的研發經費支出更高達了616億元，聯發科也高達470.47億元，再再顯示研發經費的支出對於台灣企業價值以及報酬率的重要性。
　　Louis K.C.Chan(2001)將各公司的研發費用支出分成五種程度，再將各個公司的SMB, HML, WML, UMD等數值帶入Fama-French 五因子模型，以判斷該區間的公司是否具有超額報酬，結果顯示R&D對公司是否有超額報酬的確有顯著影響；另外，林美倫(2005)也曾經以台灣資訊電子業公司為樣本，探討研發支出對經營績效及股權評價影響。
　　本研究利用類似的方法來驗證R&D是否對於股價的報酬率有影響，使用的資料為2005年至2014年間，829間電子業上市上櫃公司作為樣本。在模型的部分我們沿用郭啟賢(2013)的員工認股選擇權對公司市場價值的影響之模型，去除員工認股權之變數與年份等虛擬變數，另外加入研究與發展費用支出，使用內外生模型及樣本選擇全探討研究與發展費用支出對股票市場價值之影響。

To be an island country, Taiwan is really poor in natural resources and human resources.So Taiwan has being a technology export countries, especially the Hsinchu Science Park, almost every technology companies are oriented to research and development. In 2012, the most R&D funding company, TSMC is 38.8 billion dallars, followed by HTC, 13.8 billion dollars and MediaTek, 13.1 billion dallars,In 2014, TSMC's R & D expenditures increase to 616 billion dollars, MediaTek also up to 47.047 billion dollars,so R & D expenditure really show its important status in taiwan company.
These are five degree, which can be put into Fama – French Model, in R&D expenditure et al Louis K.C.Chan, It can help manager to judge the measure of excess profit. The results of paper show that the R&D indeed has influenced on excess profit. In addition, the research of Lin. M. L. (2005) shows that R&D has effects on business performance and equity evaluation under Taiwan electronic information industry.
Similarity, this thesis using this method to observe that the effect of R&D with excess profit, 829 company from 2005 to 2014. We also combine the model which provides by Kuo Q. X. (2013), which modify the model proposed by Olhson J.A. (1995).

目錄
第一章、 緒論……………………………………………………………1
第一節：研究動機與目的……………………………………………………1
第二節：研究架構………………………………………………………………2
第二章、 文獻回顧……………………………………………………4
第一節：研究發展費用支出與股權市場價值………………………………4
第二節：剩餘收益估價模型…………………………………………………7
第三章、 研究模型………………………………………………………9
第一節：Panel Tobit Model……………………………………………………9
第二節：Panel Data Sample Selection Model………………………………10
第三節：Panel Data Model…………………….……………………………13
第四章、 敘述統計…………………………………………………15
第一節：樣本來源……………………………………………………………15
第二節：電子產業分類………………………………………………………15
第三節：敘述統計量分析……………………………………………………16
第五章、 實證結果與分析……………………………………………21
第一節：模型設定……………………………………………………………21
第二節：實證結果……………………………………………………………21
第一項：影響研發支出之因素…………………………………………21
第二項：研發支出對股權價值之影響…………………………………29
第六章、 結論與建議………………………………………………41
附錄……………………………………………………………………43
參考文獻………………………………………………………………52

(一)中文部分
1.李鴻志、許碧書（1993），淺析我國中小企業研發面之投資，台灣經濟研究月刊，16(12)，59-64。
2.林美倫（2007），研發支出對經營績效及股權評價影響之研究，台南科大學報，26，115-134。
3.林裕淩、蕭志同、朱博湧（2001），新興工業化國家研發支出因素之研究 - 以台灣科學園區為例，科技管理學刊，6(2)，71-88。
4.馬維揚（1997），影響我國高科技廠商研究發展因素之探討─以新竹科學園區為例，台灣經濟金融月刊，35(5)，75-91。
5.馬維揚、林卓民、楊永列（2003），「決定高科技產業研究發展支出因素之探討」，產業論壇，5(2)，193-221。
6.許碧書，（1995），我國中小企業研發投資，台灣經濟研究月刊，18(9)，63-69。
7.傅鍾仁、張福星（2003），生產力與盈餘資訊於我國電子業股權之評價分析，第四屆實證經濟學論文研討會。
8.歐進士（1998），我國企業研究發展與經營績效關聯之實證研究，中山管理 評論，6(2)，357-386。
9.鄭嘉珮、劉錦添（1994），台灣廠商研究發展支出的分析，臺灣銀行季刊，45(2)，138-152。
(二)英文部分
1.Bharadwaj, A. S., S. G. Bharadwaj, and B. R. Konsynski. (1999), Information technology effects pm firm performance as measured by Tobin’s q, Management Science, 45 (7), 1008-1024.
2.Brynjolfsson, E., and L. Hitt. (1996), Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending, Management Science, 42, 541-558.
3.Chan, L. K., Lakonishok, J. and Sougiannis, T. (2001). The stock market valuation of research and development expenditures. The Journal of Finance, 56(6), 2431-2456.
4.Chan, S. H., J. D. Martin and J. W. Kensinger (1990), Corporate research and development expenditures and share value, Journal of Financial Economics, 26, 255-276.
5.Devaraj, S., and R. Kohli. (2003), Performance impacts of information technology: Is actual usage the missing link?, Management Science ,49(3), 273-89.
6.Grabowski, H. G. and D. C. Mueller (1978), Industrial research and development, intangible capital stock, and firm profit rates. Bell Journal of Economics, 9, 328-343.
7.Green, J. P., A. W. Stark and H. M. Thomas (1996), UK evidence of market valuation of research and development expenditures, Journal of Business and Accounting, 23, 191-216.
8.Hall, B. H., (1993), The stock market’s valuation of R&D investment during the 1980’s, American Economic Review, 83, 259-264.
9.Heckman, J. (1979), Sample selection bias as a specification error, Econometrica, 47, 153-61.
10.Howe, J.D. and D.G. McFetridge, The Determinants of R&D Expenditures, Canadian Journal of Economics, 9, 57-71.
11.Jensen, M. C. (1993), The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems, Journal of Finance, 48, 831–880.
12.John, B.M. and S.A.Y. Lin (1983) The impact of market structure on the firm’s allocation of resources to research and development, Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 23, 28-43.
13.John, L. and S. Martin (1986), Market structure, firm structure and research and development, Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 26(1), 31-44.
14.Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton. (2005), The balanced-scorecard: measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review, 83(7), 172.
15.Kothari, S.P., and J. L. Zimmerman (1995), Price and return models, Journal of Accounting & Economics, 20(2), 155-192.
16.Kyriazidou, E. (1997), Estimation of a panel data sample selection model, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 65, 1335-1364.
17.Landsman, W. R., K. V. Peasnell, P. F. Pope, and S. Yeh. (2006) Which approach to accounting for employee stock options best reflects market pricing?, Review of Accounting Studies, 11, 203-245.
18.Lev, B., and P. Zarowin (1999), The boundaries of financial reporting and how to extend them, Journal of Accounting Research, 37(2), 353-389.
19.Li, H. (2002). Employee stock options, residual income valuation and stock price reaction to SFAS 123 footnote disclosures, Residual Income Valuation and Stock Price Reaction to SFAS, 123.
20.Mansfield, E. (1964), Industrial research and development expenditure: determinants, prospects, and relation of size of firm and inventive output, Journal of Political Economics, 72, 319-340.
21.Mansfield, E. (1981), How economists See R&D, Harvard Business Review, 59, 98-106.
22.Michael, W. and A. Lopez (1983), The determinants of research and Development Intensity in the UK, Applied Economics, 15, 379-391.
23.Mukhopadhyay, T., S. Rajiv, and K. Srinivasan. (1997), Informaiton technology impact on process output and quality, Management Science, 43(12), 1645-1659.
24.Ohlson, J. A. (1995) Earnings, book values, and dividends in equity valuation,Contemporary Accounting Research, 11, 661-687.
25.Porter, M. E., (1992), Capital disadvantage: America’s failing capital investment system, Harvard Business Review, 70(5), 65-82.
26.Scherer, F. M. (1965), Firm size, market structure, opportunity and output of patented innovations, American Economic Review, 55, 1097-1125.
27.Schumpeter, J.A. (1950), Capitalism, socialism and democracy, 3rd.Ed, New York: Harper and Row.
28.Sougiannis, T. (1994), The accounting based valuation of corporate R&D, The Accounting Review, 69(1), 44-68.