淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-1301202012374600
中文論文名稱 股利政策在不同公司規模下對公司績效之影響探討:以台灣電子業上市(櫃)公司為例
英文論文名稱 The Impact of Dividend Policy on Corporate Performance under Different Firm Size: Evidence from Listed Electronic Companies in Taiwan.
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 淡江大學暨澳洲昆士蘭理工大學財金全英語雙碩士學位學程
系所名稱(英) TKU-QUT Dual Master Degree Program In Finance (English-Taught Program)
學年度 108
學期 1
出版年 109
研究生中文姓名 郭俐伶
研究生英文姓名 Li-Ling Kuo
學號 606670189
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2020-01-04
論文頁數 67頁
口試委員 指導教授-聶建中
委員-陳達新
委員-謝志柔
中文關鍵字 股利政策  公司規模  公司績效  縱橫平滑移轉模型 
英文關鍵字 Dividend Policy  Firm Size  Corporate Performance  Panel Smooth Transition Regression Model (PSTR) 
學科別分類
中文摘要 本研究以台灣電子業上市上櫃公司為例,探討股利政策對公司績效在不同公司規模下之非線性關係。本研究採用Gonza′lez, Teräsvirta and van Dijk (2004, 2005) 所發展之縱橫平滑移轉迴歸模型(Panel Smooth Transition Regression Model, PSTR),以公司規模作為模型中的門檻變數,觀察公司績效是否存在平滑移轉效果,並進一步分析平滑移轉效果下現金股利、股票股利、負債比、研發費用比與大股東持股比對公司績效之變化與影響。實證結果顯示,公司規模對於公司績效存在平滑移轉效果。其中,現金股利對公司績效無相關,股票股利與大股東持股比對公司績效在門檻值之上或下對公司績效呈現正相關,而負債比、研發費用比則對公司績效存在負相關。除現金股利變數外,其餘變數對ROE之影響皆為顯著,然而,所有的變數之係數值在門檻值之下者,其量皆大於在門檻值之上之係數值,表示變數對於公司規模大於門檻值之區間影響相較於小於門檻值之區間影響為小。顯示出改變現金股利、股票股利、負債比、大股東持股比與研發費用比對於規模較大的電子業公司之ROE影響較為有限。
英文摘要 This study explores the nonlinear effect of dividend policy on corporate performance under different firm size. Taking listed electronic companies in Taiwan Stock Exchange for example. This study uses Panel Smooth Transition Regression Model (PSTR) developed by Gonza′lez, Teräsvirta and van Dijk (2004, 2005), and takes firm size as the threshold variable in the model. Observing the smooth transfer effect of firm size on corporate performance, and analyzing the changes of cash dividend, stock dividend, debt ratio, research and development expenditure ratio and major shareholder holding ratio on corporate performance under the condition of smooth transfer effect. The study result shows that the firm size has a smooth transfer effect on the corporate performance, and other variables have impacts on the corporate performance. The cash dividend has no correlation with corporate performance. The stock dividend, major shareholder holding ratio have positive correlations with the corporate performance of listed electronic companies in Taiwan, while the debt ratio and the research and development expenditure ratio have negative correlations. Except for the cash dividend, other variables have significant impacts on ROE. However, all the correlation coefficient below the threshold variable have a larger magnitude than the one above the threshold variable. This result shows that cash dividend, stock dividend, debt ratio, research, and development expenditure ratio and major shareholder holding ratio have a stronger effect on small size electronic companies’ corporate performance.
論文目次 目錄
目錄 I
表目錄 III
圖目錄 IV
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 研究架構 5
第二章 文獻回顧 8
第一節 股利政策理論 8
第二節 股利政策與公司績效之關聯 10
第三節 公司規模與公司績效之關聯 12
第四節 股利政策與公司規模之關聯 13
第五節 其他變數與公司績效之關聯 14
第三章 研究方法 20
第一節 變數定義 21
第二節 縱橫單根檢定 (Panel Unit Root Test) 27
第三節 縱橫平滑移轉迴歸模型 31
第四節 縱橫平滑移轉迴歸模型之設定 37
第四章 實證結果與分析 42
第一節 資料樣本說明 42
第二節 資料之敘述統計 44
第三節 縱橫單根檢定 46
第四節 實證結果與分析 49
第五章 結論與建議 56
第一節 結論 56
第二節 建議 58
參考文獻 59


表目錄
表3-1-1 電子業各年度現金股利及股票股利發放金額平均 23
表4-1-1 研究樣本數篩選統計(產業別) 43
表4-1-2 研究樣本數篩選統計(上市別) 43
表4-2-1 各變數之敘述統計 45
表4-3-1 各變數之縱橫單根檢定 47
表4-3-2 各變數之一次差分項縱橫單根檢定 48
表4-4-1 股利政策對台灣電子業公司績效之同質性檢定 50
表4-4-2 轉換模型選定 51
表4-4-3 台灣電子業公司規模對公司績效之移轉區間個數檢定 52
表4-4-4 台灣電子業公司規模對公司績效(ROE)之模型估計結果 54
表4-4-5 台灣電子業公司規模對公司績效(ROE)模型中解釋變數之影響 55


圖目錄
圖1-3-1 研究流程架構 7
圖3-1-1 支付現金股利電子業公司數之變化(2004年至2018年) 24
圖3-1-2 支付股票股利電子業公司數之變化(2004年至2018年) 24
圖3-3-1 m=1之轉換模型 35
圖3-3-2 m=2之轉換模型 36

參考文獻 參考文獻
一、英文文獻
1. Ali, S. A. & Sami, M. A. (2018), “Factors affecting profitability in Malaysia”, Journal of Economic Studies, 45(3), 442-458.
2. Andrews, D. W. K. & Ploberger, W. (1994), “Optimal Tests When a Nuisance Parameter is Present Only under the Alternative”, Econometrics, 62, 1383-1414.
3. Ayuba, H., Bambale, A. J., Murtala, A. & Sulaiman, S. A. (2019), “Effects of Financial Performance, Capital Structure and Firm Size on Firms' Value of Insurance Companies in Nigeria”, Journal of Finance, Accounting & Management, 10(1), 57-74.
4. Azhar, K. A. & Ahmed, N. (2019), “Relationship between firm size and profitability: investigation from textile sector of Pakistan”, International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 11(2), 62-73.
5. Baker, H. K., N, J. D., Weerakoon Banda, Y. K. & Athambawa, A. A. (2019), “Dividend policy determinants of Sri Lankan firms: A triangulation approach”, Managerial Finance, 45(1), 2-20.
6. Baker, H. K. & Powell, G. E. (2012), “Dividend policy in Indonesia: Survey evidence from executives”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, 6(1), 79-92.
7. Baker, M. & Wurgler, J. (2004), “A Catering Theory of Dividends”, Journal of Finance, 59(3), 1125-1165.
8. Bhattacharya, S. (1979), "Imperfect information, dividend policy and the 'bird in the hand' fallacy", Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 259-270.
9. Boubaker, S., Manita, R. & Rouatbi, W. (2019), “Large shareholders, control contestability and firm productive efficiency”, Annals of Operations Research, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03402-z
10. Brav, A., Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R. & Michaely, R. (2005), “Payout policy in the 21st century”, Journal of Financial Economics, 77(3), 483-527.
11. Brawn, D. A. & Sevic, A. (2018), “Firm size matters: Industry sector, firm age and volatility do too in determining which publicly-listed US firms pay a dividend”. International Review of Financial Analysis, 58, 132-152.
12. Chan, K., Lin, Y. H. & Wang, Y. (2015), “The information content of R&D reductions”, Journal of Empirical Finance, 34, 131-155.
13. Chen, X., Kim, J., Wang, S. S. & Xu, X. (2007), “Firm performance and the ownership of the largest shareholder”, Corporate Ownership and Control, 4(3), 126-138.
14. Davies, R. B. (1977), "Hypothesis Testing When a Nuisance Parameter is Present Only Under the Alternative”, Biometrika, 64, 247-254.
15. Davies, R. B. (1987), "Hypothesis Testing When a Nuisance Parameter is Present Only Under the Alternative", Biometrika, 74, 33-43.
16. DeAngelo, H., DeAngelo, L.A. & Stulz, R. (2006), "Dividend policy and the earned/contributed capital mix: a test of the life-cycle theory", Journal of Financial Economics, 81(2), 227-54.
17. Easterbrook, F. H. (1984), “Two agency-cost explanations of dividends”, American Economic Review, 74(4), 650-659.
18. Fama, E. F. & French, K. R. (2001), “Disappearing Dividends: Changing Firm Characteristics or Lower Propensity to Pay?”, Journal of Financial Economics, 60, 3-43.
19. Farrukh, K., Irshad, S., Shams, K. M., Ishaque, S. & Ansari, N. (2017), “Impact of dividend policy on shareholders wealth and firm performance in Pakistan”, Cogent Business & Management, 4(1).
20. Forte, R. & José, M. T. (2019), “The relationship between debt and a firm’s performance: The impact of institutional factors”, Managerial Finance, 45(9), 1272-1291.
21. Gonza'les, A., Teräsvirta, T. & van Dijk, D. (2005), “Panel Smooth Transition Regression Models”, Quantitative Finance Research Centre, 165, 1-33.
22. Gordon, M. J. (1963), “Optimal investment and financing policy”, The Journal of Finance, 18(2), 264-272.
23. Granger, C. W. J. & Newbold, P. (1974), “Spurious Regression in Econometrics”, Journal of Econometrics, 2, 111-120.
24. Granger, C. W. J. & Teräsvirta, T. (1993), “Modelling Nonlinear Economic Relationships”, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. Hadri, K. (2000), “Testing for Stationarity in Heterogeneous Panel Data”, Econometrics Journal, 3, 148-161.
26. Hansen, B. E. (1996), "Inference When a Nuisance Parameter is not Identified Under the Null Hypothesis", Econometrica, 64, 413-430.
27. Hansen, B. E. (1999), “Threshold Effects in Non-Dynamic Panels: Estimation, Testing, and Inference”, Journal of Econometrics, 93(2), 345-368.
28. Hatem, B. S. (2017), “Influence of debt maturity on firm performance: An international comparison”, International Journal of Economics and Finance, 9(5), 106-113.
29. Hauser, R. & Thornton Jr, J. H. (2017), “Dividend policy and corporate valuation”, Managerial Finance, 43(6), 663-678.
30. He, T. T., Li, W. X. B. & Tang, G. Y. N. (2012), “Dividend, controlling shareholders and firm performance: An investigation of large firms on the Hong Kong stock exchange”, Annals of Financial Economics, 8(2), 1-33.
31. Husna, A. & Satria, I. (2019), “Effects of return on asset, debt to asset ratio, current ratio, firm size, and dividend payout ratio on firm value”, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 9(5), 50-54.
32. Hsiao, C. (1986), “Analysis of Panel Data”, Econometric Society Monographs, Cambridge; New York and Sydney: Cambridge University Press, 11.
33. Ibhagui, O. W. & Olokoyo, F. O. (2018), “Leverage and firm performance: New evidence on the role of firm size”, North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 45, 57-82.
34. Ismail, I. (2014), “The effect of company size and leverage towards company performance: After Malaysian economic crisis”, International Journal of Management and Innovation, 6(2), 32-48.
35. Jansen, E. S. & Teräsvirta, T. (1996), “Testing Parameter Constancy and Super Exogeneity in Econometric Equations”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 58(4), 735-763.
36. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C., Schmidt, P. & Shin, Y. (1992), “Testing the Null Hypothesis of Stationarity against the Alternative of a Unit Root: How Sure are We that Economic Time Series have a Unit Root?”, Journal of Econometries, 54(1-3), 159-178.
37. Lie, E. (2005), “Financial Flexibility, Performance, and the Corporate Payout Choice”, The Journal of Business, 78(6), 2179-2201.
38. Lin, J. S. B. & Liu, C. (2015), “R&D, corporate governance, firm size and firm valuation: evidence from Taiwanese companies”, International Journal of Corporate Governance, 6(2), 87-97.
39. Lintner, J. (1964), “Optimal dividends and corporate growth under uncertainty”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 78(1), 49-95.
40. Lundbergh, S., Teräsvirta, T. & van Dijk, D. (2003), “Time-Varying Smooth Transition Autoregressive Model”, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 21, 104-121.
41. Luukkonen, R., Saikkonen, P. & Teräsvirt, T. (1988), “Testing Linearity Against Smooth Transition Autoregressive Models”, Biometrika, 75, 491- 499.
42. Mahirun, M. & Kushermanto, A. (2018), “Capital structure, investment opportunity set, growth sales, firm size and firm value: R&D intensity as mediating”, Acces la success acces la success. Calitatea, 19(164), 117-122.
43. Mak, Y. T. & Li, Y. (2001), “Determinants of corporate ownership and board structure: Evidence from Singapore”, Journal of Corporate Finance, 7(3), 235-256.
44. Mao-Feng, K., Hodgkinson, L. & Jaafar, A. (2019), “Ownership structure, board of directors and firm performance: Evidence from Taiwan”, Corporate Governance, 19(1), 189-216.
45. Miller, M. & Modigliani, F. (1961), “Dividend policy, growth, and the valuation of shares”, Journal of Business, 34, 411-433.
46. M’rabet, R. & Boujjat (2016), “The Relationship Between Dividend Payments and Firm Performance: A Study of Listed Companies in Morocco”, European Scientific Journal, 12(4), 469-482.
47. Niresh, J. A. & Velnampy, T. (2014), “Firm size and profitability: A study of listed manufacturing firms in Sri Lanka”, International Journal of Business and Management, 9(4), 57-64.
48. Olawale, L. S., Ilo, B. M. & Lawal, F. K. (2017), “The effect of firm size on performance of firms in Nigeria”, Aestimatio: The IEB International Journal of Finance, 15, 2-21.
49. Peng, C., Wei, A., Chen, M. & Huang, W. (2018), “Synergy between R&D and advertising on shareholder value: Does firm size matter?”, Revue Canadienne des Sciences De l'Administration/Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 35(1), 47-64.
50. Phillips, P. C. B. & Perron, P. (1988), “Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression”, Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
51. Setayesh, M., Rezaie, G. & Kazemnezhad, M. (2016), “Corporate governance, investment in research and development and company performance: A data envelopment analysis approach based on data from a developing country”, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(3), 1114-1122.
52. Song, X. (2015), “Monitoring or tunneling by large shareholders: Evidence from China private listed companies”, China Finance Review International, 5(2), 187-211.
53. Teräsvirta, T. (1994), “Specification, Estimation, and Evaluation of Smooth Transition Autoregressive Models”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89, 208-218.
54. Teräsvirta, T. (1998), “Modelling Economic Relationships with Smooth Transition Regressions”, Handbook of Applied Economic Statistics, 507-552.
55. Ting, I. W. K., Kweh, Q. L. & Somosundaram, K. (2017), “Ownership concentration, dividend payout and firm performance: The case of Malaysia”, Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies, 54(2), 269-280.
56. Trabelsi, D., Aziz, S. & Jean, J. L. (2019), “A behavioral perspective on corporate dividend policy: evidence from France”, Corporate Governance, 19(1), 102-119.
57. Tripathy, N. (2019), “Does dividend payout policy matter for firm performance in India?”, International Journal of Corporate Governance, 10(2), 134-148.
58. Uwuigbe, U., Jafaru, J. & Ajayi, A. (2012), “Dividend policy and firm performance: A study of listed firms in Nigeria”, Accounting and Management Information Systems, 11(3), 442-454.
59. Yazdanfar, D. & Öhman, P. (2015), “Debt financing and firm performance: An empirical study based on Swedish data”, The Journal of Risk Finance, 16(1), 102-118.
二、中文文獻
1. 周秀霙,黎致平,鍾俊文,(2017),”台灣電子業上市櫃公司股利政策研究”,貨幣觀測與信用評等,126,29-43。
2. 詹錦宏,林明薰,溫秀英,(2017),”台灣上市公司的股利政策與企業價值”,Soochow Journal of Accounting會計學報,7(2),65-94。
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2020-01-15公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2020-01-15起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2486 或 來信