臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

隨著世界貿易的日漸發達，經濟變化的腳步亦越來越快，企業唯有不斷投資以維持企業的永續經營，而在不斷投資的過程之中，往往需要考慮不同的資金取得方式以求最低資金取得成本。依據融資順位理論，企業在籌措資金時，會預期採用最低資金成本，可增加公司價值及股東利益極大化的方案作為優先考量 。這裡所謂的企業投資機會亦可稱為企業之成長(Myers and Majluf, 1984)。然而企業在面臨不同成長機會時，對於資金需求及配置可能有不同的考慮因素。
本研究以台灣上市櫃公司作為研究對象，研究期間由2010年至2015年，樣本頻率為年資料，共計六年期間。資料來源為台灣經濟新報資料庫(Taiwan Economic Journal Database, TEJ)上市櫃之各公司年度現金流量表、資產負債表及損益表。並參考Shyam-Sunder and Myers (1999)之模型作為基礎，加入控制變數與其他變數之多元迴歸模型。此外，亦依據資料之特性，運用同時考慮時間序列(Time Series)和橫斷面(Cross-Section)資料的追蹤資料分析(Panel Data Analysis)來進行迴歸分析以檢驗假說。並採用Mundlak在1978年所提出的Hausman Test，來判斷模型應採用固定效果或隨機效果的估計模式。
本研究經由實證驗證三項假說以探討企業成長機會與其負債水準之關係結論一：台灣地區上市櫃公司融資情況可能符合融資順位理論
結論二：高成長企業由於考量未來投資的資金需求及財務寬鬆政策，寧可
放棄低成本的負債融資，傾向採用發行新股的方式來籌措資金，
因此不符合融資順位理論。
結論三：低成長企業，為了提高其獲利能力，往往會優先考慮利用低成本
的負債融資，因此符合融資順位理論

Along with the increasingly developed world trade and the accelerating steps of economic changes, the enterprise has to continuously invest to maintain the business continuity. During the process of continuous investment, the enterprise has to consider various alternatives of financing plan in order to obtain funding at the lowest cost. Based on Pecking Order Theory, enterprises expect to increase the company value and maximize the shareholders’ benefit with lowest cost while raising funds. The enterprise investment opportunity can also be called the growth of business (Myers and Majluf, 1984). However, the enterprise may have different considerations of the funding requirement and allocation when the growth opportunity comes.
This study collected whole Taiwan stock listed companies’ information (2010~2015, totally 6 years) of cash flow statements, balance sheet statements and income statements from Taiwan Economic Journal Database (TEJ) and also referred to the regression model of Shyam-Sunder and Myers(1999) plus adding the multiple regression control variables in it. In addition, according to the characteristic of data, this study used the Panel Data Analysis method which combined the consideration of the tracking of sequence (Time Series) and cross section (Cross-Section) at the same time to execute the regression analysis in order to examine the hypothesis. This study also adopted the Hausman Test put forth by Mundlak in 1978, to evaluate the model should be adopted by the fixing effect or random effect model.
This study identified three hypotheses by empirical probing the relationship between business growth and its debt level.
Conclusion 1:
The stock listed companies in Taiwan may conform the Pecking Order Theory.
Conclusion 2:
High growth enterprises rather bear higher cost to issue new stock shares than borrowing lower cost money from financial institutions when considering funding needs and financial easing policy, which may not conform the Pecking Order Theory.
Conclusion 3:
Low growth enterprises may consider to borrow lower cost money from financial institutions to increase their profitability, which may conform the Pecking Order Theory.

目錄
口試委員審定書i
誌謝ii
摘要iii
Abstractiv
目錄v
表目錄vii
圖目錄viii
第壹章　緒論1
第一節　研究背景與動機1
第二節　研究流程4
第三節　章節架構5
第貳章　文獻探討6
第一節　融資順位6
第二節　企業成長16
第三節　研究假說20
第參章　研究方法21
第一節　樣本與資料來源21
第二節　實證模型22
第三節　統計方法27
第肆章　實證結果與分析30
第一節　敘述性統計 30
第二節　差異性檢定 33
第三節　追蹤資料單根檢定結果36
第四節　Hausman檢定結果37
第五節　迴歸結果41
第伍章　結論50
參考文獻52

表目錄
表1 影響企業投資與融資決策相關之文獻整理14
表2 透過企業成長觀點之文獻整理19
表3 操作性變數定義與說明24
表4 敘述性統計31
表5 Pearson相關係數32
表6 差異性檢定35
表7 追蹤資料單根檢定36
表8 Hausman檢定結果－總樣本38
表9 Hausman檢定結果－高成長機會之樣本39
表10 1Hausman檢定結果－低成長機會之樣本40
表11 企業成長與企業融資行為之關係-總樣本43
表12 企業成長與企業融資行為之關係-應變數為長期負債46
表13 企業成長與企業融資行為之關係-應變數為總負債49


圖目錄
圖1 研究流程4

中文部分
1.洪榮華、李易政、陳香如、謝可杉，2009，家族企業特性與負債水準關係之研究，商管科技季刊, 第10卷第3期：491-525。
2.曾昭玲、周小玲，2007，企業成長機會之於融資政策及股利政策影響之多期性研究，東吳經濟商學學報，第57期：49-77。
3.張力、蔡函芳、林翠蓉、王禹軒、洪榮華，2013，家族企業與經理人過度自信對其舉債決策之影響，中山管理評論，第33卷第1期：123- 163。
4.詹錦宏、張文榮，2009，有拗折點的融資順位模型--台灣地區上市公司資本結構之實證研究會計學報，第 1 卷第 2 期：37-61。
5.劉正田，2002，無形資產、成長機會與股票報酬關係之研究，會計評論，第 35 期：1 - 29。
6.蔡盈如、陳怡珮、洪榮華、黃信達，2015，「中國股權分置改革對於公司之投資與現金流量敏感度之影響」，證券市場發展季刊，27卷4期：81 - 117。

英文部分
1.Antoniou, A., Guney, Y.and Paudyal, K., 2008. The determinants of capital structure: capital market-oriented versus bank-oriented institutions. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 43, pp.59-92.
2.Brigham, E. and Ehrhardt, M., 2013. Financial management: Theory & practice. Cengage Learning.
3.Denis, D.K. and McConnell, J.J., 2003. International corporate governance. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 38, pp.1-36.

4.Fazzari, S., Hubbard, R.G.and Petersen, B.C., 1988. Financingconstraints and corporate investment. National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Mass., USA.
5.Firth, M., Lin, C. and Wong, S.M., 2008. Leverage and investment under a state-owned bank lending environment: Evidence from China. Journal of Corporate Finance 14, pp.642-653.
6.Firth, M., Malatesta, P.H., Xin, Q., and Xu, L., 2012. Corporate investment, government control, and financing channels: Evidence from China''s Listed Companies. Journal of Corporate Finance 18, pp.433-450.
7.Heaton, J.B., 2002. Managerial optimism and corporate finance. Financial Management, pp.33-45.
8.Hoshi, T., Kashyap, A.and Scharfstein, D., 1991. Corporate structure, liquidity, and investment: Evidence from Japanese industrial groups. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, pp.33-60.
9.Hovakimian, G., 2009. Determinants of investment cash flow sensitivity. Financial Management 38, pp.161-183.
10.Hubbard, R.G., 1998. Capital-Market Imperfections and Investment. Journal of Economic Literature 36, pp.193-225.
11.Im K.S., Pesaran M.H., and Shin Y. 2003. Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous
Panels. Journal of Econometrics 115 (revise version of 1997’s work), pp.53-74
12.Jensen, M.C., 1986. Agency cost of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. Corporate Finance, and Takeovers. American Economic Review 76.
13.Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H., 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3, pp.305-360.
14.Judge, G.G., Griffiths W.E., Hill R.C., and Lee T., 1980. The theory and practice of econometrics. Wiley
15.Kaplan, S.N. and Zingales, L., 1997. Do investment-cash flow sensitivities provide useful measures of financing constraints? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, pp.169-215.
16.Kester, W.C., 1986. Capital and ownership structure: A comparison of United States and Japanese manufacturing corporations. Financial Management, pp.5-16.
17.Lamont, O., Polk, C.and Saaá-Requejo, J., 2001. Financial constraints and stock returns. Review of Financial Studies 14, pp.529-554.
18.Levin A., Lin C.F., Chu C.J., 2002. Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics 108 (revise version of 1992’s work), pp.1-24
19.Lin, S.h. and Hu, S.y., 2007. A family member or professional management? The choice of a CEO and its impact on performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review 15, pp.1348-1362.
20.Lin, Y. h., Hu, S. y., and Chen, M. s., “Testing Pecking Order Prediction From The Viewpoint of Managerial Optimism: Some Empirical Evidence From Taiwan,” Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1-2, 2008, pp. 160-181.
21.Lin, Y. H., Hu, S. Y., and Chen, M. S., “Managerial Optimism and Corporate Investment: Some Empirical Evidence From Taiwan,” Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Vol. 13, No. 5, 2005, pp. 523-546.
22.Malmendier, U. and Tate, G., 2005. CEO Overconfidence and Corporate Investment. The Journal of Finance 60, pp.2661-2700.
23.Modigliani, F. and Miller, M.H., 1958. The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. The American economic review 48, pp.261-297.
24.Myers, S.C., 1977. Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics 5, pp.147-175.
25.Myers, S.C. and Majluf, N.S., 1984. Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics 13, pp.187-221.
26.Nooteboom, B., 1993. Firm size effects on transaction costs. Small business economics 5, pp.283-295.
27.Prowse, S.D., 1990. Institutional investment patterns and corporate financial behavior in the United States and Japan. Journal of Financial Economics 27, pp.43-66.
28.Rajan, R.G. and Zingales, L., 1995. What do we know about capital structure? Some evidence from international data. The Journal of Finance 50, pp.1421-1460.
29.Rajan, R.G. and Zingales, L., 1996. Financial dependence and growth. National bureau of economic research.
30.Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W., 1997. A Survey of Corporate Governance. The Journal of Finance 52, pp.737-783.
31.Shyam-Sunder, L. and Myers, S.C., 1999. Testing static tradeoff against pecking order models of capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics 51, pp.219-244.
32.Tobin, J., 1969. A General Equilibrium Approach To Monetary Theory. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 1, pp.15-29.
33.Tong, G. and Green, C.J., 2005. Pecking order or trade-off hypothesis? Evidence on the capital structure of Chinese companies. Applied Economics 37, pp.2179-2189.

34.Tsai, Y.-J., Chen, Y.-P., Lin, C.-L., and Hung, J.-H., 2014. The effect of banking system reform on investment–cash flow sensitivity: Evidence from China. Journal of Banking & Finance 46, pp.166-176.