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 U0002-1401201017175400
中文論文名稱 我國銀行業盈餘管理動機、內部關聯性與監督機制對盈餘管理影響之研究
英文論文名稱 The Influences on Earnings Management of Earnings Management Motivations, Internal correlation and Monitoring Mechanisms in the Taiwanese Banking Industry.
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 會計學系碩士在職專班
系所名稱(英) Department of Accounting
學年度 98
學期 1
出版年 99
研究生中文姓名 王富源
研究生英文姓名 Fu-Yuan Wang
學號 793470203
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2010-01-14
論文頁數 70頁
口試委員 指導教授-黃振豊
指導教授-蔡信夫
委員-許和鈞
委員-蔡瑤昇
委員-林孟彥
中文關鍵字 裁決性應計數  盈餘管理  股權結構  監督機制  高階管理階層異動 
英文關鍵字 Discretionary Accruals  Earnings Management  Ownership Structure  Monitoring Mechanism  Change of High Ranking Management 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學商學
中文摘要 本研究係從銀行業盈餘管理動機、銀行業內部關聯性及外部監督機制三個構面切入,探討管理當局是否有利用裁決性壞帳或買賣有價證券損益兩項銀行業常用的盈餘管理工具從事盈餘管理,研究範圍及對象以民國88年至民國97年之國內上市(櫃)及金控旗下銀行為樣本,共計24家行庫。

隨著企業營運規模持續擴大,高階管理階層的經營績效便容易成為各方關注的焦點,依DeAngelo(1988)提出的論點,外部競爭者常會以企業盈餘不佳為由攻擊現任管理階層,而現任管理當局為保衛對企業之經營權,常會藉由操弄盈餘的方式美化其經營績效,因此,經營績效與盈餘管理可謂息息相關。此外,以往學者對於高階管理階層異動議題多聚焦於與公司績效間關聯性,研究結論並無一致,一派學者認為當公司經營績效下降時,公司會以更換高階管理階層方式來提昇績效;而另一派學者則認為當公司更換高階管理階層後,反而會導效公司經營績效滑落,因為繼任者會有洗大澡(Take a bath)的盈餘管理現象。本研究於高階管理階層異動該項變數與盈餘管理具相關性時,將進一步分析高階管理階層異動與否之樣本銀行於各構面之差異性,並觀察其內部股權結構變化及外部監督機制是否能有效發揮。

實證結果發現:(一)銀行業盈餘管理動機構面:高階管理階層確有利用裁決性壞帳與買賣有價證券損益二項銀行業常用的盈餘管理工具從事盈餘管理,與相關文獻及本研究假說預期相同有買回股權、現金增資、損益平穩及高階異動四項變數;但符合資本適足率該項變數則與相關文獻及預期相反,可能因樣本銀行之資本適足率已逾法規門檻且偏高,高階管理階層便有從事盈餘管理降低過高資本適足率之動機。(二)銀行內部關聯性構面:當樣本銀行為金控成員時,因各子公司間資源較多且能分享,使得高階管理階層有利用該項優勢從事盈餘管理的情形。另外,高階管理階層雖具家族成員背景,不容易因績效不佳而被撤換,但實證顯示部分樣本銀行雖具家族成員背景,卻因案而遭解職或因經營績效不佳而遭併購,使管理經層雖有家族成員背景仍難逃被撤換。(三)外部監督機制構面:當樣本銀行公股持股比重越高,則公股代表介入董事會程度越深,越能抑制管理階層從事盈餘管理;而董監事質押比率越高時,受金融監理機構及社會大眾關注程度也越高,致使董監事股權質押比率高的行庫其盈餘管理程度不升反降。

此外,本研究進一步探討高階管理階層異動年度與盈餘管理之差異性,實證發現董事會人數多或政府持股比率越高的樣本銀行,於高階管理階層未異動年度,確實能發揮其外部監督的功能,有效抑制高階管理階層從事盈餘管理。
英文摘要 The research focuses on three dimensions of earnings management motivations in banking, bank’s internal correlation and external monitoring mechanisms to explore whether senior management involves in earnings management with discretionary bad debts or Securities Gain and Loss which are common in earnings management in banking industry. The study covers 24 domestic TWSE (OTC) listed banks and banks under financial holding companies from 1999 to 2008.

As operation is getting larger and larger, performance of senior management tends to be the focus of all people. According to DeAngelo (1988), outside competitors often attack current senior management with poor profits. To defend the operation right, current senior management manipulates earnings management to make the performance better. Thus, business performance is closely related to earnings management. In the past, domestic and foreign scholars focused on business performance in issues of senior management changes. The conclusions are not consistent. One school of scholars believe, when business performance worsens, companies change senior management to enhance performance; the other hold that change of senior management only result in worse performance, as successors take a bath earnings management. This study intends to make further analysis of the differences in every dimension in the sample banks that have senior management change or not, when the variable “senior management change” has correlation with “earnings management.” also, it intends to observe whether the changes of the banks’ internal shareholding structure and their external monitoring mechanism can be exerted effectively or not.

The evidence-based results have shown: (1) Dimension of the motivation for earnings management in banking: Senior management really engages in earnings management with discretionary bad debts or Securities Gain and Loss — the two commonly-applied tools for earnings management in banking; there are four variables — stock repurchase, cash increment, income smoothing, and senior management changes — similar to the ones in related literatures and the anticipations in this study’s hypothesis. However, the variable conforming to BIS is contrary to the ones in related literatures and the anticipations, perhaps because the BIS in the sample banks have exceeded the thresholds of laws and regulations and are higher; hence, senior management will have the motivation for engaging in earnings management to reduce the excessive BIS. (2) Dimension of bank’s internal correlation: When the sample banks are members of financial holding, each subsidiary is able to own and share many more resources, so that senior management tends to engage in earnings management by utilizing such an advantage. Besides, although senior management is usually from backgrounds of family members and they may not be replaced due to poor performance, however, according to evidence-based results, even though parts of the sample banks are from backgrounds of family members, they were dismissed from office due to cases or they were merged due to poor business performance. Therefore, even though the management is from backgrounds of family members, they still may be replaced unavoidably. (3) Dimension of external Monitoring mechanism: When the sample bank has higher ratio of government shareholding, the representatives of government shareholding will intervene the board of directors more profoundly and they will be more capable to inhibit the management from engaging in earnings management. When it has higher pledged shares ratio of directors’ and supervisors’ shareholdings, it will earn much more attention from financial Monitoring institutions and the social public, so that the degree of earnings management in the bank that has higher pledged shares ratio of directors’ and supervisors’ shareholdings will descend, instead of rising.

Besides, this study has made further exploration of the differences between years of senior management change and earnings management. The evidence-based results have shown: In terms of the sample banks that have many more directors or higher ratios of government shareholding, they can really exert their external monitoring functions in the years without senior management change, able to effectively inhibit senior management from engaging in earnings management.
論文目次 第一章 緒 論.........................................................................................................1
第一節 研究動機...................................................................................................1
第二節 研究目的...................................................................................................2
第三節 研究流程...................................................................................................3
第四節 論文架構...................................................................................................4
第二章 文獻探討...................................................................................................5
第一節 銀行業盈餘管理動機與盈餘管理關係............................................................5
第二節 銀行內部關聯性與盈餘管理關係.................................................................11
第三節 外部監督機制與盈餘管理關係....................................................................17
第四節 銀行業盈餘管理的工具..............................................................................22
第三章 研究方法.................................................................................................28
第一節 觀念性架構與研究假說..............................................................................28
第二節 實證變數之操作型定義..............................................................................31
第三節 研究模型..................................................................................................37
第四節 樣本選取與資料來源.................................................................................38
第四章 實證結果分析...........................................................................................39
第一節 敘述性統計及共線性分析...........................................................................39
第二節 裁決性壞帳與各構面變數之線性迴歸分析....................................................42
第三節 買賣有價證券與各構面變數之線性迴歸分析.................................................48
第四節 額外分析-高階管理階層異動與各構面變數之線性迴歸分析.............................54
第五章 結論與建議...............................................................................................58
第一節 研究結論及管理意涵..................................................................................58
第二節 研究限制..................................................................................................61
第三節 研究建議..................................................................................................62
參考文獻.............................................................................................................63

圖目錄
【圖1-3-1】研究流程圖.............................................................................................3
【圖3-1-1】研究架構圖............................................................................................28

表目錄
【表2-1-1】一般產業盈餘管理動機彙整表..............................................................5
【表2-2-1】代理成本來源彙整表.............................................................................13
【表2-4-1】銀行業會計操弄目的彙整表.................................................................25
【表3-2-1】實證變數之定義與衡量彙總表.............................................................36
【表3-4-1】國內上市(櫃)銀行/金控彙整表.............................................................38
【表4-1-1】變數基本統計量.....................................................................................39
【表4-1-2】自變數之變異數膨脹係數(VIF)............................................................41
【表4-2-1】裁決性壞帳對各構面變數之迴歸分析結果.........................................46
【表4-2-2】裁決性壞帳與各構面變數假說之實證結果彙整.................................47
【表4-3-1】買賣有價證券損益對各構面變數之迴歸分析結果.............................52
【表4-3-2】買賣有價證券損益與各構面變數假說之實證結果彙整.....................53
【表4-4-1】高階管理階層異動與否之變數基本統計量.........................................54
【表4-4-2】高階管理階層異動對各構面變數之迴歸分析結果.............................56
【表4-4-3】高階管理階層異動與各構面變數假說之實證結果彙整.....................57
參考文獻 中文文獻:
◆ 方順逸(2002),「銀行財務績效與董事會特性之關聯性-以上市上櫃公民營銀行為例」,臺灣大學會計研究所碩士論文。
◆ 王本鈞(2004),「考慮風險下的銀行績效評估」,東吳大學經濟研究所碩士論文。
◆ 王玉珍(2002),「股權結構、董事會組成、資本結構與企業績效關係之研究」,中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
◆ 王泰昌、鄭博文(1993),「代理問題與代理成本(上)、(下)」,會計研究月刊,第93、94期,P155-160、P123-127。
◆ 王克陸、彭雅惠、陳美燁(2007)「台灣金控子公司銀行經營績效之評估-使用DEA方法」,科技管理學刊,第12卷第2期,P1-27。
◆ 何里仁(2003),「公司治理之資訊透明度與績效評核關聯性之研究」,逢甲大學會計與財稅研究所碩士論文。
◆ 李佳玲(2002),「公司績效與高階管理者離職之實證研究」,證券櫃檯,第67卷,P46-56。
◆ 李佳玲、葉穎蓉與何晉滄(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13卷第1期,P75-106。
◆ 李馨蘋,劉清明(2007),「從公司治理與企業績效之觀點看高階主管異動之因素」真理財經學報,第16期,P1-22。
◆ 李馨蘋、何喜將(2007),「銀行業之公司治理機制如何影響銀行風險承擔行為」,會計與公司治理,第4卷第2期,P1-22。
◆ 李馨蘋、莊宗憲(2007),「公司治理機制與公司績效之實證研究」,東吳經濟商學學報,第51期,P1-27。
◆ 林宜勉(2004),「會計方法選擇與盈餘管理:以折舊方法為例」,會計與公司治理,第1卷第1期,P73-94
◆ 林宜勉、陳育成、張瑞娟(2003),「股票買回、股票選擇權與盈餘管理」,會計理論與實務研討會論文集,P103-125。
◆ 林修葳、陳育成(1997),「國內商業銀行呆帳及票券買賣損益策略性調控問題之實證研究」,臺大管理論叢,第8卷第2期,P36-66。
◆ 林穎芬(1998),「台灣上市公司控管機制之研究-探討家族與非家族企業高階主管薪酬與離職的控管效果」,中山大學企業管理研究所博士論文。
◆ 孫秀蘭(1996),「董事會制度與經營績效之研究」,台灣大學財務金融研究所碩士論文。
◆ 高蘭芬與邱正仁(2002),「董監事股權質押對會計盈餘與股票報酬相關性之影響」,臺大管理論叢,第13卷第1期,P127-162。
◆ 張杏如(2007),「台灣銀行產業盈餘管理之季別分析」,東華大學企業管理所碩士論文。
◆ 張訓華(1990),「股權結構、董事會組成與企業當年度財務績效-以77年度會計報酬率為準」,東吳大學管理學研究所碩士論文。
◆ 張雅琳(2004),「我國企業獨立董事機制與經營績效之關聯性研究」,大葉大學會計資訊研究所碩士論文。
◆ 張漢傑(2004),「財報資訊九大必讀重點」,會計研究月刊,P42-47。
◆ 莊文源(2001),「從股權結構與資本市場誘因探討我國銀行業之盈餘管理行為」,政治大學會計研究所碩士論文。
◆ 許恆瑜(2000),「台灣票券金融業盈餘操縱決策影響因素之實證研究」,中山大學財務管理研究所碩士論文。
◆ 陳正平(1978),「企業主持人特徵與策略選擇及企業績效間關係之研究」,政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
◆ 陳育成(2002),「台灣金融業的呆帳管理及相關研究」,管理評論,第21卷第4期,P1-17。
◆ 陳育成、李秀英、李珮芬(2005),「商業銀行加入金融控股公司盈餘管理之實證研究」,華人前瞻研究,第1卷第2期,P25-42。
◆ 陳建宏(2001),「公司經理人異動對股東財富與公司經營績效影響之研究」,朝陽科技大學財務金融研究所碩士論文。
◆ 陳淑玲(1999),「我國銀行業裁決性決策與資本、盈餘、租稅目的間關係之研究」,東吳大學會計研究所碩士論文。
◆ 陳慶隆(2007),「選擇性新會計準則實施時點對策略性會計報導與資訊攸關性的影響」,台灣管理學刊,第7卷第1期,P43-72。
◆ 陳曉蓉(2003),「臺灣銀行業公司治理機制與風險承擔行為之關係」,風險管理學報,第5卷第3期,P363-391。
◆ 陳錦村、葉雅薰(2002),「公司改組、監督機制與盈餘管理之研究」,會計評論,第34期,P1-29。
◆ 曾國烈(2006),存款保險資訊季刊,第19卷第4期,P1-3。
◆ 黃劭彥、吳東憲、林家安(2009)「台灣上市櫃銀行代理成本與風險管理之研究」,會計與財金研究,第2卷第1期,P37-56。
◆ 黃志仁、廖彩伶、陳于格(2009)「現金增資之盈餘管理行為:裁決性應計項目之與業外損益之整合性決策」,當代會計,第10卷第1期,P63-98。
◆ 黃品悅(2005)「企業高階管理者退休與異動對市場反應與企業績效之影響」,成功大學會計研究所碩士論文。
◆ 黃思嘉(2000)「股權結構與組織策略對銀行信用風險之衝擊」,中央大學財務管理研究所碩士論文。
◆ 黃德芬(2005)「資本適足性管制變革對銀行壞帳提列暨沖銷決策之影響」,管理學報,第22卷第1期,P29-43。
◆ 楊淑華(1992)「從代理理論觀點探究上市公司股權集中度與經營績效及市場評價的關係」,淡江大學金融研究所碩士論文。
◆ 楊朝旭與蔡柳卿(2003)「總經理更換與相對績效評估」,人力資源管理學報,第3卷第1期,P63-80。
◆ 葉上葆、曹常鴻、蔡如蕙(2007)「高階管理者更迭與繼任型態及人力資本對公司經營績效與盈餘管理間關係之研究」,經營管理論叢,P307-326。
◆ 熊大中(2000)「我國企業財務危機與董監股權質押關聯性之研究」,成功大學會計研究所碩士論文。
◆ 劉啟群(1999)「我國金融業會計損益項目季別分析:盈餘管理間接測試法」,會計評論,第31期,P63-79。
◆ 劉順仁(1997)「美國銀行控股公司呆帳承認決定因素之實證研究」,會計評論,第30期,P33-77。
◆ 蔣蕙嬣(2004)「不同主體結構下的金控公司效率分析」,高雄第一科技大學金融營運研究所碩士論文。
◆ 廖桂櫻(2008)「台灣地區金控子公司銀行與非金控銀行績效績效評估-以資料包絡法探討」,世新大學財務金融研究所碩士論文。
◆ 歐陽豪與莊雙喜(2007)「公司治理、相對績效與高階管理階層離職關係之實證研究」,亞太經濟管理評論,第11卷第1期,P53-86。
◆ 蔡柳卿與陳慧慧(2006)「公司治理對總經理更換-公司績效敏感性之影響:台灣上市公司之證據」,管理研究學報,第6卷第2期,P273-305。
◆ 蔡啟瑩(2007)「台灣銀行業公司治理對授信品質的影響」,東吳大學國際貿易研究所碩士論文。
◆ 鄭美麗(2002)「臺灣上市公司高階管理者替換之研究-以會計績效為例」,中正大學財務金融研究所碩士論文。
◆ 蕭淑貞(2005)「公司治理內外部機制對裁決性支出水準之影響」,淡江大學會計研究所碩士論文。
◆ 蕭燕錫(1994)「管理會計第五波-代理理論」,會計研究月刊,第103期,P122-130。
◆ 薛秀正(1996)「台灣地區公民營銀行經營績效比較之研究」,中正大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
英文文獻:
◆ Abbott, Parker and Peters. 2000. “The effects of audit committee activity and independence on corporate fraud.”, Managerial Finance, 26(11), 55-67.
◆ Agrawal, A., C. Knoeber. 1996. “Firm performance and mechanisms to control agency problems between managers and shareholders.”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , 31, 377-397.
◆ Alchian, A. A., and Demsetz, H. 1972.“Production, information costs and economic organization.”, American Economic Review, 62, 777-795.
◆ Amihud, Y. and B. Lev. 1981. “Risk reduction as a managerial motive for conglomerate mergers.”, The Bell Journal of Economics , 12, (Aut.), 605-617.
◆ Bacon, J. 1973. “Corporate Directorship Practices: Membership and Committees of the Boards.”, The Conference Board, New York.
◆ Barnhart, Scott Wen. and S. Rosenstein. 1998. “Board Composition, Managerial Ownership, and Firm Performance: An Empirical Analysis.”, The Financial Review, 33, 1-16.
◆ Bartov, E. 1993. “The timing of asset sales and earnings manipulations.”, The Accounting Review, 68 , 840-855.
◆ Beasley, M. S., J. V. Carcello, D. R. Hermanson, and P. D. Lapides. 2000. “Fraudulent Financial Reporting: Consideration of Industry Trains and Corporate Governance Mechanisms.”, Accounting Horizons, 441-454.
◆ Beatty, A., S. L. Chamberlain and J. Magliolo. 1995. “Managing Financial Reports of Commercial Banks:The Influence of Taxes, Regulatory Capital, and Earnings.”, Journal of Accounting Research, 33(2), (Autumn), 231-261.
◆ Beatty, R. P., and E. J. Zajac. 1987. “CEO Change and Firm Performance in Large Corporations:Succession Effects and Manager Effects.”, Strategic Management Journal , 8, 305-317.
◆ Beaver, W. H., S. G. Ryan, and J. M. Wahlen. 1997. “When Is Bad News Views as Good News?”, Financial Analysis Journal, 53, (Jan./Feb. ), 45-54.
◆ Beidleman, C. R. 1973. “Income smoothing: the role of management.”, The Accounting Review, 48, 653-667.
◆ Bell, D. N., and P. R. Bible. 1987. “Income Taxes: the Transition to the Liability Method.”, Financial Executive, (Nov./Dec.), 53-57.
◆ Berle, A., and G. Means. 1932. “The Modern Corporation and Private Property.”, MeMillian, New York.
◆ Bhat, V. N. 1996. “Banks and income smoothing: an empirical analysis.”, Applied Financial Economics, 6, 505-510.
◆ Brunello, G, C. Graziano, and B. M. Parigi. 2003. “CEO Turnover insider-Dominated Boards: The Italian Case.”, Journal of Banking and Finance, 27, 1027-1051.
◆ Chaganti, R., and F. Damanpour. 1991. “Institutional ownership. capital structure, and firm performance, Strategic.”, Management Journal , 12, (Oct.), 479-491.
◆ Coase. 1937. “The Nature of the Firm.”, Economics, 386-405.
◆ Daley, L. A. and R. L. Vigeland. 1983. “The effects of debt covenants and political cost on the choice of accounting methods : The case of accounting for R&D costs.”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5, 195-211.
◆ David B. Farber. 2005. Restoring Trust after Fraud:Does Corporate Governance Matter?”, The Accounting Review, 80(2), (Apr.), 539-561.
◆ DeAngelo, L. E. 1988. “Managerial competition, information costs, and corporate governance: The use of accounting performance measures in proxy contests.”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 10, 3-36.
◆ Dechow, P. M., arid R. 0. Sloan. 1991. “Executive Incentives and the Horizon Problem: An Empirical Investigation.”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 14(1), 51-89.
◆ DeFond, M. L. and J. Jiambalvo. 1994. “Debt Covenant Violation and Manipulation of Accruals Accounting Choice in Troubled Companies.”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 17, 145-176.
◆ Denis, D. J. and D. K. Denis. 1995. “Performance changes following top management dismissals.”, Journal of Finance, 50, 1029-1057.
◆ Donaldson, L. and Davis, J. H. 1991. “Stewardship theory of agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns.”, Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), 49-64.
◆ Durand R. and R. Coeurderoy. 2001. “Age, order of entry, strategic orientation, and organizational performance.”, Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 471-494.
◆ Eisenberg T., S. Sundgren, and M. T. Wells. 1998. “Larger Board Size and Decreasing Firm Value in Small Firms.”, Journal of Financial Economics, 48, 35-54.
◆ Fama, E. 1980. “Agency problems and the theory of the firm.”, Journal of Political Economy, 88, 288-307.
◆ Fan, P. H. and T. J. Wong. 2002. “Corporate Ownership Structure and the Information of Accounting Earnings in East Asia.”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33, 401-425.
◆ Füerst and Kang. 2000. “Corporate governance, expected operating performance, and pricing.”, Working paper, Yale School of Management, New Haven.
◆ Gennotte, G. and D. Pyle. 1991. “Capital Controls and Bank Risk.”, Journal of Banking and Finance, 15, 805-824.
◆ Gorton, G., and R. Rosen. 1995. “Corporate control, portfolio choice, and the decline of banking.”, The Journal of Finance, 50, (Dec.), 1377-1420.
◆ Gujarathi, M. R., and R. E. Hoskin. 1992. “Evidence of earnings management by the early adopters of SFAS 96.”, Accounting Horizons, 6(4), 18-32.
◆ Hambrick, D C. and P. A. Mason. 1984. “Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers.”, Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206.
◆ Healy, P.1985. “The Effects of Bonus Schemes on Accounting Decisions.”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 7, 85-107.
◆ Healy, P. and Wahler. 1999. “A review of the Earnings Management Literature and its implications for Standard Setting.”, Accounting Horizons, 13, 365-383.
◆ Hirschman, A. O. 1970. “Exit, voice and loyalty response to decline in firms, organizations.”, Journal of financial economics, 20, 317-346.
◆ Huson, Mark R., R. Parrino, and Laura T. Starks. 2001. “Internal Monitoring Mechanisms and CEO turnover: A long-term perspective.”, The Journal of Finance, 56(d), 2265-2297.
◆ Jackson, S. B., and M. K. Pitman. 2001. “Auditors and earnings management.”, CPA Journal, 71(7), 39-44.
◆ Jensen M. and Ruback R. S. 1983. “The Market for Corporate Control :Empirical Evidence.”, Journal of Financial Economics, 5-50.
◆ Jensen M. C. and Meckling W. H. 1976. “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Cost and Ownership Structure.”, Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
◆ Jensen, M. C. 1993. “The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems.”, The Journal of Finance, (Ju1.), 831-880.
◆ Jones, J. J. 1991. “Earnings Management During Import Relief Investigation.”, Journal of Accounting Research, 29(2), 193-228.
◆ Kesner, I. F. and D. R. Dalton. 1987. “Composition and CEO duality in boards of directors:An international perspective.”, Journal of International Business Studies, 18(3), 33-42.
◆ Lipton. M. and J. Lorsch. 1992. “A Modest Proposal for Improved Corporate Governance.”, Business Lawyer , 59, 59-77.
◆ Liu and Lu. 2002. “Earning management to tunnel: Evidence from China's listed companies.”, Working paper, University of Hong Kong.
◆ Liu, S. Z. 1997. “The Determinants of Loan Impairment Recognized by the U.S. Bank Holding Companies.”, The Chinese Accounting Review, 30, 33-77.
◆ Ma, C. K. 1988. “Loan loss reserves and income smoothing: The experience in the U.S. banking industry.”, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 15, 487-497.
◆ McConnell, J. and H. Servaes. 1990. “Additional Evidence on Equity Ownership and Corporate Value.”, Journal of Financial Economics, 595-613.
◆ McNichols, M., and P. Wilson. 1988. “Evidence of Earnings Management from the Provision for Bad Debts.”, Journal of Accounting Research, 26(Supplement), 1-40.
◆ Menon, K. and J. D. Williams. 1994. “The Use of Audit Committees for Monitoring.”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 13, 121-139.
◆ Morck, R., Shleifer, A., R. Vishny. 1988. “Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis.”, Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 293-316.
◆ Moyer, S. 1990. “Capital Adequacy Ratio Regulations and Accounting Choices in Commercial Banks.”, Journal of Accounting Research, 13, 123-154.
◆ Patton, A. and J. C. Baker. 1987. “Why Do Not Directors Rock the Boat?”, Harvard Business Review, 65, 10-12.
◆ Perry, S., and T. Williams. 1994. “Earnings management preceding management buyout offers.”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 18, 157-179.
◆ Pfeffer, J., and A. DavisB1ake. 1986. “Administrative succession and organizational performance: How administrator experience mediates the succession effect.”, Academy of Management Journal, 29, 72-83.
◆ Pound, J. 1988. “Proxy contests and the efficiency of shareholder oversight.”, Journal of Financial Economics , 20, (Jan.-Mar.), 237-265.
◆ Rangan, S. 1998. “Earnings management and the performance of seasoned equity offerings.”, Journal of Financial Economics, 50, 101-122.
◆ Rechner, P. L. 1989. “Corporate governance: fact or fiction?”, Business Horizons, 4, 11-15.
◆ Santerre, R. E., and S. P. Neun. 1993. “Corporate Control and Performance in the 1930s.”, Economic Inquiry, 31(3), 466-480.
◆ Saunders, A. and I. Walter. 1994. “Urnversal Banking rn the Umted Ztates: What Could We Garn? What Could we lose?”, Oxford University Press Inc., New York.
◆ Schipper, K. 1989. “Commentary on Earning Management.”, Accounting Horizon, 3, 91-102.
◆ Schloes, M. S., G. P. Wilson, and M. A. Wolfson. 1992. “Firm’s Response to Anticipated Reductions in Tax Rate: The Tax Reform Act of 1986.”, Journal of Accounting Research, 33, (Supplement), 161-185.
◆ Shen, W., and Carmella, A. A., Jr. 2002. “Revisiting the performance consequences of CEO succession: The impacts of successor type, post-succession senior executive turnover, and departing CEO tenure.”, Academy of Management Journal, ,45(4), 717-733.
◆ Shleifer, A. and R.W. Vishny. 1997. “A survey of corporate governance.”, The Journal of financial, 2, 737-783.
◆ Simpson, W. G., and A. E, Gleason. 1999. “Board structure, ownership, and financial distress in banking firms.”, International Review of Economics and Finance, 8, 281-292.
◆ Taylor, R. N. 1975. “Age and experience as Determinants of managerial information processing and decision making performance.”, Academy of Management Journal, l8, 74-81.
◆ Hong, T.S., T. J. Wong, and G. R. Rao. 1998. “Are Earnings During Initial Public Offerings Opportunistic?”, Review of Accounting Studies, forthcoming.
◆ Thakor, A. V., 1996, “Financial Conglomeration: Issues and Questions,” North American Journal Economics and Finance, 7, 135-145.
◆ Venkaraman, N. 1989. “Strategic orientation of business enterprise: The construct, dimensionality, and measurement.”, Management Science, 35, 942-962.
◆ Wahlen, J. 1994. “The Nature of Information in Commercial Bank Loan Loss Disclosures.”, The Accounting Review, (Jul.), 455-478.
◆ Warner, J., J. Watts, and K. Wruck. 1988. “Stock Price and Top Management Changes.”, Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 461-492.
◆ Watts R. L. and Zimmerman, J. L. 1986. “Positive Accounting Theory.”, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
◆ Weisbach, M. 1988. “Outside Directors and CEO Turnover.”, Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 431-460.
◆ Wong, K. A. and T. C. Yek. 1991. “Shareholdings of Board of Directors and Corporate Performance from Singapore.”, Pacific Basin Capital Markets Research, 2, 211-225.
◆ Yeh, Y. H., T. S. Lee and T. Woidtke. 2001. “Family Control and Corporate Governance: Evidence from Taiwan.”, International Review of Finance , 2, 21-48.
◆ Zahra, S. A. and J. A. Pearce. 1989. “Boards of Directors and Corporate Financial Performance; a Review and integrated Model.”, Journal of Management, 15, 291-334.
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2010-01-27公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2010-01-27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 2281 或 來信