臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討台灣銀行業在資本適足性之要求下，公司治理與股利政策的關係，並考量成長機會與股利政策之關係是否受到治理機制強弱之影響。實證結果顯示，股利政策若就金額大小言，當董事會規模愈小、內部人持股愈高，則股利金額愈大，但內部人持股水準偏高時，股利反而減少。其餘治理機制，即獨立董監、機構法人持股及股份盈餘權偏離差，都不會顯著影響股利金額。再者，董事會規模愈小、內部人持股和獨立董監事比例越高 (表示治理較佳)，則成長機會與股利之正相關程度會降低，意味對高成長公司，這三種治理機制會替代股利本身具有的部份治理效果。故治理機制與股利金額之關係，在成長機會不同的公司間具有差異。
股利政策若就是否發放股利言，內部人持股之影響仍與對股利金額的影響相同，即當內部人持股愈高，發放股利可能性愈高，但持股率高到一定水準，股利發放可能性會降低。機構法人持股與股份盈餘偏離差所表示的治理機制愈佳，反而股利發放可能性愈低。故不同治理機制對於股利發放可能性之影響並不相同。再者，只有內部人持股會顯著影響股利與公司成長機會之正相關，但為正向影響；換言之，成長機會較高的公司，內部人持股未達到偏高水準時，持股增加則股利發放可能性也提高，但發放金額會減少。

This study aims to examine the relationship between corporate governance and dividend policy for Taiwanese banks under capital adequacy requirements. Also, this study considers the effect of corporate governance on the relationship between firm growth opportunities and dividend policies. The empirical results indicate that in terms of dividend amount as a policy, when there is a decrease in director board size and increase in insider’s ownership, dividend amount will boost, but if insider’s ownership is at a higher level, the dividend amount will decrease. The other governance mechanisms, that is, independent director fraction, institutional investor ownership, and share-earnings bias, do not significantly affect dividend amount. Moreover, a lower director board size, higher insider ownership and higher independent director fraction can reduce the positive relationship between growth opportunities and dividend amount. This situation indicates that for banks with high growth opportunities, the three governance mechanisms can replace part of the governance effects of the dividend policy. Thus, there is a difference in the governance-dividend relation between firms with different growth opportunities.
In terms of whether paying dividends as a policy, the effect of insider’s ownership is still the same as that on the dividend amount policy. That is, a higher insider ownership will increase the probability of paying dividends.
However, when the insider ownership reaches a certain (high) level, there is a decrease in the probability of the dividend payout. Additionally, the better the governances measured as the institutional investor ownership and share-earnings bias, the lower the possibility of the dividend paying. Therefore, there is a gap in the effects of different governance mechanisms on the possibility of the dividend payout. Moreover, only the insider ownership significantly affects the positive relationship between the dividend payout possibility and bank growth opportunities, but the effect is positive. Namely, for banks with higher growth opportunities, when their insider ownerships are not at the high levels, the larger the ownerships, the higher the probability of paying dividends, but the less the dividend amounts.

誌謝..............................................I
中文摘要..........................................II
英文摘要......................................... III
表目錄.......................................... VII
圖目錄..........................................VIII
第一章 緒論........................................1
第一節 研究動機與目的................................1
第二節 研究限制.....................................3
第三節 研究流程.....................................3
第二章 文獻回顧.....................................6
第一節 銀行公司治理與股利政策的重要性...................6
第二節 銀行公司治理對股利政策的影響.....................8
第三節 銀行公司治理對成長機會與股利政策關係的影響.........11
第三章 研究設計.....................................13
第一節 樣本資料.....................................13
第二節 實證方法.....................................16
第四章 實證結果.....................................23
第一節 敘述統計分析..................................23
第二節 迴歸變數之相關係數矩陣..........................29
第三節 單變量迴歸分析結果.............................31
第四節 複迴歸分析結果................................38
第五章 結論........................................43
參考文獻...........................................45

一、中文部分
1.王翔民，2004，「公司治理與公司績效之交互作用對股利政策之衝擊」，國立成功大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
2.余惠芳、王永昌，2011，財務預警與公司治理—台灣傳統產業之實證研究，「應用經濟論叢」，第九十期，頁211-243。
3.洪振虔，1989，「台灣地區上市公司股利發放之探討」，國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
4.洪麗芳，2004，「股權結構、財務決策與公司績效關聯性之研究」，私立中原大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
5.洪雪媚，2004，「新巴賽爾資本協定對國內中小企業影響之實證研究」，台灣大學國際企業學系碩士論文。
6.李佳玲、葉穎蓉、何晉滄，2005，績效、公司治理與高階管理者離職關係之實證研究，「中山管理評論」，第十三卷第一期，頁75- 106。
7.林育廷，2007，再思銀行業公司治理之特殊性-兼論資訊揭露機制之建立，「中原財經法學」，第十八期，頁191-241。
8.林妙雀、顏怡音、陳雪芳，2008，公司治理與財務健全度對企業價值影響之研究－多元適應性雲形迴歸之運用，「中山管理評論」，第十 六卷第四期，p787-822。
9.邱麗卿、謝易達，2009，管理者固守職位與股利決策之台灣實證研究，「華人前瞻研究」，第五卷第二期，頁119-142。
10.俞海琴，1994，內部人士持股比率與融資策略關係之實證研究，「管理評論」，第十三卷第二期，頁109-131。
11.黃仁德、曾令寧，2003，「現代銀行監理與風險管理」，臺北市，台灣金融研訓院。
12.葉銀華、李存修、柯承恩，2002，「公司治理與評等系統」，臺北市，商智文化。
13.葉銀華，2004，「透視上市公司」，臺北市，先覺出版社。
14.張錦娥，1993，「所得稅對資本結構及股利政策影響之研究」，東吳大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
15.陳瑞斌、許崇源，2007，公司治理結構與資訊揭露之關聯性研究，「交大管理學報」，第二十七卷第二期，頁55-109。
16.陳美華、洪世炳，2005，公司治理、股權結構與公司績效關係之實證研究，「企業管理學報」，第六十五期，頁129-153。
17.陳舒怡，1997，「上市公司發放現金股利與無償配股問題之研究」，東吳大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
18.楊燿禎，2000，「管理者持股、風險與財務決策關聯性之研究」，國立東華大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
19.鄭明祺，1993，「我國上市公司代理問題對投資、融資決策與股利政策之影響」，中原大學企業管理研究所。
20.謝銘智，1998，「股利政策與公司特性之關連性」，國立政治大學會計學研究所碩士論文。
21.戴正雄，2006，「公司治理對股利政策與庫藏股決策之影響」，輔仁大學會計研究所碩士在職專班論文。
二、英文部分
22.Ang, J., R. Cole and J. Lin, 2000, Agency costs and ownership structure, Journal of Financial, 55(1), pp. 81-106.
23.Bacon, J., 1973, Corporate directorship practice: member and committees of the board, New York: The conference board, Working Paper.
24.Baltagi, B. H., 2005, Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 3rd edition.
25.Claessens, S., S. Djankov, J. Fan and L. H. P. Lang, 2002, Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholdings, Journal of Finance, 57, pp. 2741-2771.
26.Cremers, M. and V. B. Nair, 2005, Governance mechanisms and equity prices, Journal of Finance, 60(6), pp. 2859-2894.
27.DeAngelo, H., L. DeAngelo and R. M. Stulz, 2006, Dividend policy and the earned/contributed capital mix: a test of the life-cycle theory, Journal of Financial Economics, 81, pp. 227-254.
28.Easterbrook, F. H., 1984, Two agency-cost explanations of dividends, American Economic Review, 74(4), pp. 650-659.
29.Fama, E. F. and R. K. French, 2001, Disappearing dividends: changing firm characteristics or lower propensity to pay? Journal of Financial Economics, 60, pp. 3-43.
30.Farinha, J., 2002, Dividend policy, corporate governance and the managerial entrenchment hypothesis: an empirical analysis, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 30(9-10), pp. 1173-1209.
31.Gaver, J. and K. Gaver, 1993, Additional evidence on the association between the investment opportunity set and corporate financing, dividend and compensation policies, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 16, pp. 125-160.
32.Goergen, M., L. Renneboog and L. C. Silva, 2005, When do German firms change their dividends? Journal of Corporate Finance, 11(1-2), pp. 375-399.
33.Grullon, G. and R. Michaely, 2006, Corporate payout policy and product market competition, Working Paper.
34.Gugler, K., 2003, Corporate governance, dividend payout policy, and the interrelation between dividends, R&D, and capital investment, Journal of Banking and Finance, 27, pp. 1297-1321.
35.Hausman, J. A., 1978, Specification Tests in Econometrics, Econometric, 46, pp. 1251-1271.
36.Jensen, G. R., D. P. Solberg, and T. S. Zorn, 1992, Simultaneous determination of insider ownership, debt, and dividend policies, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 27(2), pp. 247-263.
37.Jensen, M. C., 1986, Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeover, American Economic Review, 76(2), pp. 323-329.
38.Jensen, M. C., 1993, The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems, Journal of Finance, 48, pp. 831-880.
39.Lintner, J., 1956, Distribution of incomes of corporations among dividends, retained earnings, and taxes, American Economic Review, 46(2), pp. 97-113.
40.Mitton, T., 2004, Corporate governance and dividend policy in emerging markets, Emerging Markets Review, 5, pp. 409-426.
41.Officer, M. S., 2011, Overinvestment, corporate governance, and dividend initiations, Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(3), pp. 710-724.
42.Officer, M. S., 2006, Dividend policy, dividend initiations, and governance, SSRN Working Paper.
43.Pound. J., 1988, Proxy contests and the efficiency of shareholder oversight, Journal of Financial Economics, 20, pp. 237-266.
44.Roberts, G. and L. Yuan, 2010, Does institutional ownership affect the cost of bank borrowing? Journal of Economics and Business, 62(6), pp. 604-626.
45.Rozeff, M., 1982, Growth, beta, and agency costs as determinants of dividend payout ratios, Journal of Financial Research, 5, pp. 249-259.
46.Sawicki, J., 2009, Corporate governance and dividend policy in Southeast Asia pre- and post-crisis, The European Journal of Finance, 15(2), pp. 211-230.
47.Smith, C., and R. L. Watts, 1992, The investment opportunity set, and corporate financing, dividend, and compensation policies, Journal of Financial Economics, 32(3), pp. 263-292.
48.Venkatraman, N. and V. Ramanujam, 1986, Measurement of business performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches, Academy of Management Review, 11(4), pp. 801-814.
49.Wen, H., 2009, Agency problems, product market competition and dividend policy in Japan, University of New South Wales, Working Paper.
50.Yermack, D., 1996, Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors, Journal of Financial Economics, 40(2), pp. 185-211.
51.Zahra, S. A. and J. A. Pearce, 1989, Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: a review and integrative model, Journal of Management, 15, pp. 291-301.