本研究係以國內可轉換公司債率(可轉換公司債發行金額除以總資產)對每股盈餘的變化，並分析負債比率、股價淨值比及股利政策等控制變數對每股盈餘是否存在著非線性的關係。在研究方法上採用Gonzalez, Terasvirta and Dijk(2004, 2005) 所發展的縱橫平滑移轉迴歸模型(Panel Smooth Transition Regression Model, PSTR)，以可轉換公司債除以總資產為模型中的轉換變數，觀察台灣上市櫃公司發行國內轉換公司債除以總資產對每股盈餘，是否存在平滑移轉效果(smooth transition threshold effect)，亦為可轉換公司債率是否為每股盈餘產生變化轉折的重要因素，本研究是以274家台灣上市櫃公司發行國內可轉換公司債為研究對象，以2004年至2007年的年資料，作為探討可轉換公司債率對每股盈餘影響程度。

根據實證結果顯示，得知可轉換公司債率對每股盈餘之間確實具有平滑移轉效果，存在一個轉換門檻值－37.5%，當可轉換公司債率低於門檻值時，負債比率對每股盈餘並無影響，股價淨值比對每股盈餘為正相關，而股利政策對每股盈餘也存在正相關；當可轉換公司債率高於門檻值時，負債比率對每股盈餘轉為負相關，股價淨值比對每股盈餘也是轉為負相關，而股利政策對每股盈餘仍存在正相關，亦表示當股利政策愈高對每股盈餘之影響愈明顯。

Using a CBs/TA ratio, derived from dividing the amount of domestic convertible bonds(CBs) issued by a certain company with its total book asset at the end period, this research analyses whether a company’s debt ratio(DEB), market-to-book ratio(MB) and dividend policy(DIV) exists nonlinear-regression relationships with its earnings per share(EPS) under different level of CBs/TA ratio. We adopt the Panel Smooth Transition Regression Model(PSTR) developed by Gonzalez, Terasvirta and Dijk(2004, 2005), and select the CBs/TA ratio as the transformation variable to ascertain whether the CBs/TA ratio has a smooth transition threshold effect on, ie. plays a key factor to cause the transformation of, the response variable, EPS. Our modeling samples contain 274 listed companies in Taiwan Stock Exchange or GreTai Securities Market with domestic convertible bonds issuing during 2004 to 2007, and financial ratios are calculated with calendar year-end data.

Demonstrated by our empirical analysis, the CBs/TA ratio do possesses a smooth transition threshold effect on earnings per share, with a transformation threshold value at 37.5%. In more specific, when the CBs/TA ratio falls bellow the transformation threshold value, debt ratio is irrelevant to EPS, and both market-to-book value and dividend policy have positive correlation with EPS. Once the CBs/TA ratio exceeds 37.5%, both debt ratio and market-to-book value turn out to be negative correlative to EPS. Dividend policy, however, remains positive and suggests the higher the dividend payment the greater impact on earnings per share.

目錄
                 頁次
第一章、緒論	1
第一節  研究背景	1
第二節  研究動機	2
第三節  研究目的	4
第四節  研究架構與流程	5

第二章、可轉換公司債介紹與文獻探討	7
第一節  可轉換公司債之相關法令規章	7
第二節  可轉換公司債介紹與重要發行條款	8
第三節  可轉換公司債之發行市場狀況	13
第四節  國內外有關可轉換公司債的文獻	15

第三章、變數定義與研究方法	22
第一節  資料期間及樣本選取	22
第二節  變數之設定	22
第三節  研究方法	25

第四章、實證結果與分析	34
第一節  各變數之基本敘述統計量	34
第二節  縱橫單根檢定之實證結果.	36
第三節  縱橫平滑移轉模型之實證結果	37

第五章、結論與建議	42
第一節  研究結論	42
第二節  建議	43

參考文獻	44
附錄 	
附錄一：2008年12月14日至2009年12月31日前
到期或可賣回之可轉換公司債統計表	48
附錄二：2010年1月1日至2010年12月31日前到
期或可賣回之可轉換公司債統計表	52
附錄三：公司法－轉換公司債相關條文	54
附錄四：證券交易法－轉換公司債相關條文	56
附錄五：中華民國證券商業同業公會「承銷商會員輔導
發行公司募集與發行有價證券自律規則」－轉換公司債
相關條文	58

表目錄           
                           
表　2-1：各項融資管道之分析	9
表　2-1：台灣上市櫃公司2004年至2008年9月30日國內外籌資件數統計表	13
表　2-2：台灣上市櫃公司2004年至2008年9月30日國內外籌資金額統計表	14
表4-1：各變數之敘述統計資料	35
表4-2：縱橫單根檢定結果	36
表4-3：可轉換公司債除以總資產對每股盈餘之線性檢定	37
表4-4：可轉換公司債除以總資產對每股盈餘之轉換模型選取37
表4-5：可轉換公司債除以總資產對每股盈餘之轉換區間個數檢定38
表4-6：可轉換公司債除以總資產對每股盈餘之模型估計結果	38
表4-7：可轉換公司債除以總資產對每股盈餘模型中解釋變數之影響   39

表目錄             
                           頁次
圖　2-1：台灣上市櫃公司2004年至2008年9月30日
國內外籌資件數統計表	13
圖　2-2：台灣上市櫃公司2004年至2008年9月30日
國內外籌資金額統計圖	14
圖　3-1：m=1之轉換模型	29
圖　3-2：m=2之轉換模型	30
圖　4-1：可轉換公司債除以總資產對每股盈餘
之轉換函數－門檻值37.5%	41

一、國外文獻：
Billingsley, R. S., R. E. Lamy and G. R. Thompson, 1988, “The Choice among Debt, Equity, and Convertible Books,” Journal of Financial Research, 11, 43-55.
Brennan, M.J. and E.S. Schwartz, 1977, “Convertible Bond: Valuation and Optimal Strategies for Call and Conversion,” Journal of Finance, 32, 1699-1715.
Brigham, E.1966, “An Analysis of Convertible Debentures: Theory and Some Empirical Evidence,” Journal of Finance, 21, 35-54.
Dann, L. Y. and W. H. Mikkelson 1984, “Convertible Debt Issuance, Capital Structure Change and Financing-related Information: Some New Evidence,” Journal of Financial Economics, 13, 157-186.
Green, R. 1984, “Investment Incentives, Debt and Warrants,” Journal of Financial Economics, 13, 113-136.
Gonzalez, A. T. Terasvirta and D. V. Dijk, 2004, “Panel Smooth Transition Regression Model and an Application to Investment Under Credit Constraints,” Working papers
Gonzalez, A. T. Terasvirta and D. V. Dijk, 2004, “Panel Smooth Transition Regression Model and an Application to Investment Under Credit Constraints,” Working papers
Gonzalez, A. T. Terasvirta and D. V. Dijk, 2005, “Panel Smooth Transition Regression Models,” Working papers
Granger, C. W. J. and T. Terasvirta, 1993, “Modelling Nonlinear Economic Relationships,” Oxford University Press.
Hoffmeister, J. R. 1977, “Use of Convertible Debt in the Early 1970s: A Reevaluation of Corporate Motives,” Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 17, 23-32.
Hansen, B. E. 1996, “Inference When a Nuisance Parameter is not Identified Under the Null Hypothesis,” Econometrica, 64, 413-430.
Hansen, B. E. 1999, “Threshold Effects in Non-dynamic Panels: Estimation, Testing, and Inference,” Journal of Econometrics, 93, 345-368.

Hansen, R. and C. Crutchley 1990, “Corporate Earnings and Financings: An Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Business, 63, 347-371.
Im, K. S. M. H. Pesaran and Y. Shin 2003, “Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels,” Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74.
Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Mecking 1976, “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure,” Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
Jansen, E. S. and T. Terasvirta, 1996, “Testing Parameter Constancy and Super Exogeneity in Econometric Equations,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 58, 735–763.
Kim Y.C. and R. M. Stulz 1992, “Is There a Global Market for Convertible Bonds?” Journal of Business, 65, 75-91.
Lewis, C. R. Rogalski, and J. Seward 1999, “Is Convertible Debt a Substite for Straight Debt or for Common Equity？” Financial Management, 5-27.
Lewis, C. R. Rogalski and J. Sevard 2001, “The Long-Run Performance of Firms that Issue Convertible Debt: An Empirical Analysis of Operating Characteristics and Analyst Forecasts,” Journal of Corporate Finance,7,447-474.
Levin, A. and C. F. Lin, 1992, “Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-sample Properties,” University of California, San Diego.
Levin, A. C. F. Lin and C. Chu, 2002, “Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-sample Properties,” Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1–24.
Lundbergh, S. T. Terasvirta and D. V. Dijk, 2003, “Time-varying Smooth Transition Autoregressive Models,” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 21, 104–121.
Luukkonen, R. P. Saikkonen and T. Terasvirta, 1988, “Testing Linearity Against Smooth Transition Autoregressive Models,” Biometrika, 75, 491–499.
Maddala, G. S. and S. Wu, 1999, “A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61, 631-652.
McLaughlin, R. A. Safieddine and G. Vasudevan 1998, “The Long-Run Performance of Consvertible Debt Issures,” The Journal of Financial Research, 21,373-388
Miller, M. H.and F. Modigliani, 1961, “Dividend policy, growth, and the value of shares,” JOURNAL OF Business, 34,411–433.
Modigliani, Fand M. Miller 1963, “The Taxes and the cost of Capital,” American Economic Reviews, 53, 433–443.
Modigliani, F. and M. H. Miller, 1958, “The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance and the Theory of Investment,” American Economic Review 48, 261–297.
Stein, J. C. 1992, “Convertible Bonds as Backdoor Equity Financing,” Journal of Financial Economics, 32, 3-21.
Teoh, Siew Hong, Ivo Weleh, and T.J. Wong, 1998,“Earnings management and the underperformance of seasoned equity offerings,” Joumal of Financial Econmics, 50, 63-99.
Terasvirta, T. 1994, “Specification, Estimation and Evaluation of Smooth Transition Autoregressive Models,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89,208–218.
Terasvirta, T. 1998, “Modelling Economic Relationships with Smooth Transition Regressions,” in Handbook of Applied Economic Statistics, ed. by A. Ullah and D. E. A. Giles, 507–552. New York: Marcel Dekker.