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 U0002-2101201010054800
中文論文名稱 公司多角化經營對財務績效之非線性影響關係探討
英文論文名稱 Nonlinear Analysis on the Effect of Diversification on Firm Value
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 財務金融學系碩士在職專班
系所名稱(英) Department of Banking and Finance
學年度 98
學期 1
出版年 99
研究生中文姓名 熊彥傑
研究生英文姓名 Yen-Chien Hsiung
學號 796530185
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2010-01-04
論文頁數 39頁
口試委員 指導教授-聶建中
共同指導教授-莊孟翰
委員-聶建中
委員-莊孟翰
委員-許振明
委員-沈中華
委員-張志宏
中文關鍵字 多角化  銷貨比重  財務績效  跨國企業  縱橫平滑移轉模型 
英文關鍵字 Diversification  Sales-ratio  Financial performance  Multinational company  Panel smooth transition regression 
學科別分類
中文摘要 本研究旨在探討台灣上市跨國企業在產品多角化及國際化策略下不同財務屬性上對公司價值產生之影響。以往文獻針對多角化與公司價值影響關係之探討,多以因素間的交互關係或以傳統迴歸進行分析,而忽略了變數間可能存在非線性且非對稱性的關係,然而,吾人臆測多角化因子對公司價值之影響變化並非同質的,因此,本研究以縱橫平滑移轉迴歸模型探討公司多角化程度對公司價值產生影響。本研究以銷貨比重代表多角化程度,臆測銷貨比重可能存在門檻,當代表多角化程度的銷貨比重大於門檻時,將會導致所選取控制變數對公司績效之非線性影響衝擊。
研究結果顯示,銷貨比重與資產報酬率與每股盈餘間確實存在非線性門檻關係,而其影響關係發生異質之門檻分別為49.645%及63.965%。其門檻前後,控制變數對其被解釋變數的影響方向皆相同,其中,負債比率與公司績效成反比,而營收成長與公司績效成正比。然而,此對應效果之影響幅度在門檻之上時將降低。此現象顯示,公司多角化程度高低,對公司績效的影響方向皆相同,而多角化程度較高時,其影響幅度會降低。
另以淨值報酬率當作公司績效來進行探討時,實證結果雖然同樣發現負債比率與公司績效成反比,且營收成長與公司績效成正比,但銷貨比重與公司績效間並不存在非線性關係。此現象顯示若以淨值報酬率之角度作考量,公司多角化的程度並不為公司績效帶來非線性之異質影響。
英文摘要 The purpose of this research is to investigate the effects of financial characteristics on financial performance for the diversification and internationalization of the multinational companies (MNCs). We believe that the relationships between diversification and financial performance are not in a homogenous behavior. However, the nonlinear and asymmetrical relationships between diversification and firm value are usually neglected by the methodologies of factor analysis and traditional regression. Therefore, we apply the panel smooth transition regression (PSTR) to catch the nonlinear and asymmetrical phenomenon for our research. We use the sales-ratio as the proxy for the term of diversification. We also hypothesize that there exists threshold values of sale-ratio which results the effects of financial characteristics on firm value in a nonlinear way.
The empirical result shows that there exists a nonlinear relationship when sales-ratio used as a threshold variable and ROA and EPS used as the explained variables. The threshold values of sales-ratio are 49.645% and 63.965% for cases of ROA and EPS, respectively. For both cases, the effects of financial characteristics on financial performance are on the same direction, but the degree of impact is lower in the higher regime.
Moreover, when ROE is used to proxy for the financial performance, the evidence shows that there exists no nonlinear phenomenon happened for the relationship between diversification and firm value. No matter in which cases, the effects of each of the control variables of debt-ratio and sales-growth on firm value are negative and positive, respectively.
論文目次 目 錄
致謝辭…………………………………………………………………i
中文摘要………………………………………………………………ii
英文摘要………………………………………………………………iii
目錄……………………………………………………………………iv
圖目錄…………………………………………………………………vi
表目錄…………………………………………………………………vi
第壹章 緒論…………………………………………………………… 1
第一節 研究動機……………………………………………………… 1
第二節 研究目的……………………………………………………… 3
第三節 研究架構……………………………………………………… 3
第貳章 文獻探討……………………………………………………… 5
第一節 多角化的定義………………………………………………… 5
第二節 多角化動機…………………………………………………… 5
第三節 多角化策略分類與衡量……………………………………… 7
第四節 企業多角化之績效…………………………………………… 8
第參章 研究方法……………………………………………………… 11
第一節縱橫單根檢定………………………………………………… 11
第二節縱橫平滑移轉迴歸模型……………………………………… 13
第三節 縱橫平滑移轉迴歸模型之設定……………………………… 18
第肆章 資料來源與處理……………………………………………… 23
第伍章 實證結果與分析……………………………………………… 24
第陸章 結論與建議…………………………………………………… 28
第一節 結論…………………………………………………………… 28
第二節 研究建議……………………………………………………… 29
參考文獻……………………………………………………………… 30
圖 目 錄
圖1-3-1流程架構……………………………………………………… 4
圖3-2-1 m=1之平滑移轉轉換模型………………………………… 16
圖3-2-2 m=2之平滑移轉轉換模型………………………………… 17
圖5.1 銷貨比重對資產報酬率之轉換函數………………………… 38
圖5.2 銷貨比重對淨資產報酬率之轉換函數……………………… 38
圖5.3 銷貨比重對每股盈餘之轉換函數…………………………… 39
表 目 錄
表4.1 各變數之基本統計量………………………………………… 34
表5.1 銷貨比重對資產報酬率之同質性檢定……………………… 34
表5.2 銷貨比重對資產報酬率之轉換區間個數檢定……………… 34
表5.3 銷貨比重對資產報酬率之模型估計結果…………………… 35
表5.4 銷貨比重對淨值報酬率之同質性檢定……………………… 35
表5.5 銷貨比重對淨值報酬率之模型估計結果…………………… 36
表5.6 銷貨比重對每股盈餘之同質性檢定………………………… 36
表5.7 銷貨比重對每股盈餘之轉換區間個數檢定………………… 36
表5.8 銷貨比重對每股盈餘之模型估計結果……………………… 37
表5.9 控制變數對企業財務績效之區間影響……………………… 37
參考文獻 1. 經濟部統計處,中華民國‧台灣地區製造業多角化暨國際化調查報告,民國八十八年,2-17。
2. Afza, T., C. Slahudin and M. S. Nazir, 2008. Diversification and Corporate Performance: An Evaluation of Pakistani Firms, South Asian Journal of Management, 15(3), 7-12.
3. Amit, R., and J. Livnat, 1988. Diversification and the Risk-Return Trade-Off, Academy of management, 31 (1), 154 – 166.
4. Andrews, D. W. K. and W. Ploberger, 1994. Optimal tests when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative, Econometrica, 62, 1383.
5. Baglioni, A., 2009. Deregulation, Consolidation and Diversification of the Italian Banking System, Economia e Politica Industriale, 36(3), 7-19.
6. Berry, C. H., 1975. Corporate Growth and Diversification, NJ: Princeton University Press, Princeton.
7. Bettis, R. A. and V. Mahajan, 1985. Risk /Return Performance of Diversified Firms, Management Science, 31 (7), 785-799.
8. Booz, Allen and Hamilton, 1985. A Survey of European Chief Executives, Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., New York.
9. Burch, T. R. and V. Nanda, 2003. Divisional Diversity and the Conglomerate Discount: Evidence from Spinoffs, Journal of Financial Economics, 70, 69-98.
10. Chang, S. C. and C. F. Wang, 2007. The Effect of Product Diversification Strategies on The Relationship Between International Diversification and Firm Performance.” Journal of World Business, 42, 61-79.
11. D’Aveni, R. A. and D. J. Ravenscraft, 1994. Economics of Integration versus Bureaucracy Cost: Does vertical integration improve performance?, Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1167-1206.
12. Davies, R. B., 1977. Hypothesis testing when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative, Biometrika, 64, 247-254.
13. Davies, R. B., 1987. Hypothesis testing when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative. Biometrika, 74, 33-43.
14. Gonzalez, A., T. Terasvirta and D. V. Dijk, 2004. Panel Smooth Transition Regression Model and an Application to Investment Under Credit Constraints, Working papers.
15. Gonzalez, A., T. Terasvirta and D. V. Dijk, 2005. Panel Smooth Transition Regression Models, Working papers.
16. Granger, C. W. J. and T. Terasvirta, 1993. Modelling Nonlinear Economic Relationships, Oxford University Press.
17. Hansen, B. E., 1996. Inference when a nuisance parameter is not identified under the null hypothesis, Econometrica, 64, 413.
18. Hansen, B. E., 1999. Threshold Effects in Non-dynamic Panels: Estimation, Testing, and Inference, Journal of Econometrics, 93, 345-368.
19. Im, K. S., M. H. Pesaran and Y. Shin, 2003. Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels, Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74.
20. Jang, S. L. and M. H. Wang, 2000. Industrial Diversification and Its Impact on Productivity in Taiwan’s Electronics Industry, to be presented at 2000 Taipei International Conference on Industrial Economics, sponsored by Academic Sinica, June.
21. 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.
22. Lang, L.H.P. and R. M. Stulz, 1994. Tobin's Q, Corporate Diversification and Firm Performance, Journal of Political Economy , 102(6), 1248-1280.
23. Levin, A. and C. F. Lin, 1992. Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-sample Properties, University of California, San Diego.
24. Levin, A., C. F. Lin and C. S. J. Chu, 2002. Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-sample Properties, Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1-24.
25. Lundbergh, S., T. Terasvirta and D. V. Dijk, 2003. Time-varying Smooth Transition Autoregressive Models, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 21, 104–121.
26. Luukkonen, R., P. Saikkonen and T. Terasvirta, 1988. Testing Linearity Against Smooth Transition Autoregressive Models, Biometrika, 75, 491–499.
27. Maddala, G. S. and S. Wu, 1999. A comparative study of unit root tests with panel dataand a new simple test, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61, 631-652.
28. Markides, C. C. and P. J. Williamson, 1994. Related Diversification, Core Competences and Corporate Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 149-165.
29. Montgomery, C. A., 1979. Diversification, Market Structure, and Firm Performance: An Extension of Rumelt’s Work, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University.
30. Montgomery, C. A., 1985. Product-Market Diversification and Market Power, Academy of Management Journal, 28, 789-798.
31. Pitts, R. A. and H. D. Hopkins, 1982. Firm Diversity: Conceptualization and Measurement, Academy of Management Review, 7 (4) , 620-629.
32. Reed, R. and G. A. Luffman, 1986. Diversification: The Growing Confusion, Strategic Management Journal, 7, 29-35.
33. Rumelt, R. P., 1974. Strategy, Structure and Economic Performance, MA: Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
34. Schmid, M. M. and I. Walter, 2009. Do Financial Conglomerates Create or Destroy Economic Value?, Journal of Financial Intermediation, 18(2), 193-216.
35. Suzuki, Y., 1980. The Strategy and Structure of Top 100 Japanese Industrial Enterprises, 1950-1970, Strategic Management Journal, 1, 265-292.
36. Teece, D. J., 1982. Towards an Economic Theory of the Multiproduct Firms, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 39-63.
37. Terasvirta, T., 1994. Specification, Estimation and Evaluation of Smooth Transition Autoregressive Models, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89, 208–218.
38. 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.
39. Tsai, W. H., Y. C. Kuo and J. H. Huang, 2009. Corporate Diversification and CEO Turnover in Family Businesses: Self-Entrenchment or Risk Reduction?, Small Business Economics, 32(1), 57-76.
40. Van Lelyveld, I and K. Knot, 2009. Do Financial Conglomerates Create or Destroy Value? Evidence for the EU, Journal of Banking and Finance, 33(12), 2312-21.
41. Weston, J.F. and S.K. Mansinghka, 1971. Tests of the Efficiency Performance of Conglomerate Firms, Journal of Finance, 26(4), 919-936.
42. Wrigley, L., 1970. Divisional Autonomy and Diversification, Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard Business School.
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2015-03-04公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2010-03-04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