隨著老年人口比例上升，預期退休人口也不斷增加，對於勞工退休基金（以下簡稱勞退基金）的管理也更加被重視，期望有更好的績效，而伴隨著諸多優點，國內政府開始採取「委外代操」的方式管理國內勞退基金，但效果不如預期，需要一個更佳的評選代操機構標準。本研究採用的MCDM法能找出各項因素的相對關係，並計算出各項因子權重，找出關鍵評選準則，並根據各項因子權重排列出方案的優劣順序，並做出最佳的決策，很適用於需要考量各項因素的委外代操評選決策。
　　首先，以共同基金績效為中心，透過回顧過去文獻找出哪幾項構面最常被學者所提及，從中我們找出了「受託機構概況」、「經理人能力與投資策略」、「公司治理」三項構面，並進一步的深入探討，找出了「機構內部資源」、「過去基金績效」、「公司財務表現」、「經理人能力」、「投資策略」、「道德規範」、「風險管理機制」七項次因子；隨後，進行專家問卷訪談回收16份有效問卷，應用DEMATEL法計算出各項準則的關聯性，發現「經理人能力」有最高的影響力，代表若欲改善其他準則可以優先改善此項，而「投資策略」擁有最大關聯性，表示此項為專家學者認為較重要的評選準則；再來應用DANP法求出各項準則權重，得出「投資策略」及「風險管理機制」有較高權重，而「財務概況」則相對其他準則來說較不被重視；最後應用VIKOR法進行三家投信的績效評估，得出C投信同時擁有最高總績效值及最低平均差距（gaps）為相對最佳決策。
　　本次研究結果推論，政府評選基金代操機構時，應該更加注重投信機構的策略執行及管理層面，而非財報或規模大小等機構本身營運狀況層面，因為一個良好的策略足以彌補內部資源不利的條件；同時，本研究證實MCDM能有效運用在評選代操機構上，為一優良的決策工具，且能用來做為改善績效的參考指標。

With the increase in the proportion of the elderly population,the population who expected to retire is also continue to increase,and also the Labor Pension Fund management is more valued.Expect to have better performance,the domestic government began to take "Outsourcing Fiduciary "approach in the management of domestic labor pension fund with many  advantages. However,the effect is not as good as expected.We need a better standard whitch selection the fiduciary agency. MCDM method used in this study can identify the relative relationship between the factors,calculate the weight of each factor,identify the key selection criteria,and according to the factor weights to array the sequence of the programs.Finally,choose the best decisions.It is applicable to the outsourcing selection decisions that need various factors to be considered.
　　First,through past literature to find out which of several facets has been studied by scholars that based on the performance of mutual funds.We find out the "Trustee overview", "Manager capability and investment strategies", "Corporate governance" three dimensions,and further in-depth discussion to find out the "Internal resources", "Past fund performance","Financial performance", "Manager ability", "Investment strategy", "Ethics", "Risk management mechanism", seven minor factors. Subsequently,recover 16 valid questionnaires by expert questionnaire interviews,and application DEMATEL method to calculate the relevance of the criterions.We found that "Manager capability " has the highest influence, if you want to improve other criteria,you can priority to improve this criterion."Investment strategy" has the largest association, which represents the experts believe this is a more important selection criterion.Next,use the DANP method to calculate the weights of the criterions,found"Investment Strategy" and "Risk management mechanisms" have higher weights,and "Financial Review" has not being taken seriously which relatives other criterion.Finally,use the VIKOR method to evaluation performance of the three investment trusts.We found the C Investment Trust has both the highest value and the lowest average total performance gaps,which is the optimal decision relatively.
　　The results of this study inferences,when government selection the fund’s fiduciary agency should pay more attention to the implementation of strategies and management in investment trust, rather than the financial statements or the size of the scale themselves,such as the level of operating conditions. Because a good strategy is sufficient to compensate the unfavorable conditions of internal resources; Meanwhile,the study confirmed the MCDM method can used in the selection of fiduciary trust effectively.This is a good decision-making tools, and can be used as a reference index to improve performance.

目錄	I
表目錄	II
圖目錄	IV
第一章　序論	1
第一節　研究背景與動機	1
第二節　研究目的	2
第三節　研究方法	3
第四節　研究流程	4
第二章　文獻探討	6
第一節　我國勞退基金委外發展概況	6
第二節　選擇代操投信機構考量因素	8
第三節　選擇代操投信機構考量因素之次因子	11
第四節　三家投信的詳細資料	18
第三章　研究方法	25
第一節　研究架構	25
第二節　研究方法	27
第三節　問卷設計與資料來源	33
第四章　實證分析	34
第一節　資料來源與一致性檢定	34
第二節　DEMATEL－評估各準則間之關係	34
第三節　DANP－評估各準則權重	42
第四節　VIKOR－評選最佳決策	46
第五節　比較學者與業者對評選準則的重視度	48
第五章　結論與建議	50
第一節　研究結論	50
第二節　研究限制及未來研究建議	51
參考文獻	52
附錄	56

表目錄
表2-1　各學者所提出之考量因素構面次數表	9
表2-1　各學者所提出之考量因素構面次數表（續）	10
表2-2　評選受託機構構面與相關文獻	11
表2-3　各學者所提及受託機構概況次因子	12
表2-3　各學者所提及受託機構概況次因子（續）	13
表2-4　各學者提及基金經理人能力與策略運用之次因子	14
表2-4　各學者提及基金經理人能力與策略運用之次因子（續）	15
表2-5　各學者提及公司治理之次因子	16
表2-6　評選受託機構相關研究構面及次因子彙整資料	17
表2-6　評選受託機構相關研究構面及次因子彙整資料（續）	18
表2-7　各投信次因子詳細資料	19
表2-7　各投信次因子詳細資料（續）	20
表2-7　各投信次因子詳細資料（續）	21
表2-7　各投信次因子詳細資料（續）	22
表2-8　各投信之次因子優劣排序	23
表2-8　各投信之次因子優劣排序（續）	24
表4-1　問卷來源	34
表4-2　一致性分析	34
表4-3　Z矩陣　直接影響關係矩陣	35
表4-4　X矩陣　正規化的影響關係矩陣	35
表4-4　X矩陣　正規化的影響關係矩陣（續）	36
表4-5　T矩陣　總影響關係矩陣	36
表4-6　T矩陣　構面關係矩陣	36
表4-6　T矩陣　構面關係矩陣（續）	37
表4-7　各準則之影響及被影響程度	37
表4-8　各構面之影響及被影響程度	37
表4-8　各構面之影響及被影響程度（續）	38
表4-9　A構面評估準則數據	39
表4-9　B構面評估準則數據	40
表4-10　C構面評估準則數據	40
表4-11　Unweighted矩陣　未加權超級矩陣	43
表4-12　Weighted矩陣　加權超級矩陣	43
表4-13　Llimit矩陣　極限矩陣	44
表4-14　勞退基金選擇代操投信公司考量因素準則權重排序	44
表4-14　勞退基金選擇代操投信公司考量因素準則權重排序（續）	45
表4-15　勞退基金選擇代操投信公司考量因素A構面準則權重排序	45
表4-16　勞退基金選擇代操投信公司考量因素B構面準則權重排序	45
表4-17　勞退基金選擇代操投信公司考量因素C構面準則權重排序	46
表4-18　勞退基金選擇代操投信公司考量因素構面間權重排序	46
表4-19　評選投信各準則評分總合平均表	47
表4-20　總績效評估表	48
表4-21　學者與業者評選準則權重比較表	49

圖目錄
圖1-1　研究流程圖	5
圖2-1　舊制勞退基金運用比例圖	7
圖2-2　新制勞退基金運用比例圖	7
圖3-1　研究架構圖	26
圖4-1　構面因果邏輯關係圖	38
圖4-2　A構面下評估準則因果邏輯關係圖	39
圖4-3　B構面下評估準則因果邏輯關係圖	40
圖4-4　C構面下評估準則因果邏輯關係圖	41
圖4-5　所有評估準則因果邏輯關係圖	42

一、英文部分
1.Aebi, V., Sabato, G., & Schmid, M. （2012）. Risk management, corporate governance, and bank performance in the financial crisis. Journal of Banking & Finance, 36（12）, 3213-3226.
2.Aglietta, M., Briere, M., Rigot, S., & Signori, O. （2012）. Rehabilitating the role of active management for pension funds. Journal of Banking & Finance, 36（9）, 2565-2574.
3.Agnesens, J. （2013）. A statistically robust decomposition of mutual fund performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37（10）, 3867-3877.
4.An, H., Huang, Z., & Zhang, T. （2012）. What determines corporate pension fund risk-taking strategy?. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37（2）, 597-613.
5.Angelidis, T., Giamouridis, D., & Tessaromatis, N. （2012）. Revisiting mutual fund performance evaluation, 37（5）, 1759-1776.
6.Atanasova, C., & Hrazdil, K. （2010）. Why do healthy firms freeze their defined-benefit pension plans?. Global Finance Journal, 21（3）, 293-303.
7.Banegas, A., Gillen, B., Timmermann, A., & Wermers, R. （2013）. The cross section of conditional mutual fund performance in European stock markets.Journal of Financial Economics, 108（3）, 699-726.
8.Bender, K. A. （2009）. How are pension integration and pension benefits related?. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 49（1）, 26-41.
9.Calluzzo, P., & Dong, G. N. （2012）. Fund Governance Contagion: New Evidence on the Mutual Fund Governance Paradox.Journal of Corporate Finance.
10.Chen, H. C., & Lai, C. W. （2010）. Reputation stretching in mutual fund starts.Journal of Banking & Finance, 34（1）, 193-207.
11.Dahlquist, M., Engstrom, S., & Soderlind, P. （2000）. Performance and characteristics of Swedish mutual funds. Journal of Financial and quantitative Analysis, 35（3）, 409-423.
12.Dass, N., Nanda, V., & Wang, Q. （2013）. Allocation of decision rights and the investment strategy of mutual funds. Journal of Financial Economics. ,110（1）, 254-277.
13.Davis, J. L. （2001）. Mutual fund performance and manager style. Financial Analysts Journa,57（1）, 19-27.
14.Du, D., Huang, Z., & Blanchfield, P. J. （2009）. Do fixed income mutual fund managers have managerial skills?. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 49（2）, 378-397.
15.Dutta, A. （2002）. Persistence in mutual fund returns revisited: An examination of growth mutual funds from 1988-1996.EFMA 2002 London Meetings.
16.Ellul, A., & Yerramilli, V. （2013）. Stronger risk controls, lower risk: Evidence from US bank holding companies. The Journal of Finance., 68（5）, 1757-1803.
17.Feng, J., He, L., & Sato, H. （2011）. Public pension and household saving: Evidence from urban China. Journal of Comparative Economics, 39（4）, 470-485.
18.Friis, L. B., & Smit, E. （2004）. Are some fund managers better than others? Manager characteristics and fund performance. South African Journal of Business Management, 35（3）, 31-40.
19.Golec, J. H. （1996）. The effects of mutual fund managers' characteristics on their portfolio performance, risk and fees. Financial Services Review, 5（2）, 133-147.
20.Gordon, L. A., Loeb, M. P., & Tseng, C. Y. （2009）. Enterprise risk management and firm performance: A contingency perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 28（4）, 301-327.
21.Gottesman, A. A., & Morey, M. R. （2006）. Manager education and mutual fund performance. Journal of empirical finance, 13（2）, 145-182.
22.Gottesman, A., & Morey, M. （2012）. Mutual fund corporate culture and performance. Review of Financial Economics, 21（2）, 69-81.
23.Huang, C. Y., Shyu, J. Z., & Tzeng, G. H. （2007）. Reconfiguring the innovation policy portfolios for Taiwan's SIP Mall industry. Technovation, 27（12）, 744-765.
24.Hainaut, D., & Devolder, P. （2007）. Management of a pension fund under mortality and financial risks. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 41（1）, 134-155.
25.Haslem, J. （2005）. Investing in'Fiduciary'Mutual Funds: How to Improve the Odds. Journal of Investing, 14（4）, 63-68.
26.Heijdra, B. J., & Romp, W. E. （2009）. Retirement, pensions, and ageing.Journal of Public Economics, 93（3）, 586-604.
27.Hori, S., & Shimizu, Y. （1999）. Designing methods of human interface for supervisory control systems. Control Engineering Practice, 7（11）, 1413-1419.
28.Hsu, L. Y., Horng, S. J., He, M., Fan, P., Kao, T. W., Khan, M. K., & Chen, R. J. （2011）. Mutual funds trading strategy based on particle swarm optimization. Expert Systems with Applications, 38（6）, 7582-7602.
29.Huang, J., Sialm, C., & Zhang, H. （2011）. Risk shifting and mutual fund performance. Review of Financial Studies, 24（8）, 2575-2616.
30.Ibbotson, R., & Patel, A. （2002）. Do winners repeat with style?Yale ICF Working Paper No. 00-70.
31.Jana, Y. C., & Hmgb, M. W. （2003）. Mutual fund attributes andperformance.Financial Services Review, 12（2）, 165-178.
32.Josa-Fombellida, R., & Rincon-Zapatero, J. P. （2006）. Optimal investment decisions with a liability: The case of defined benefit pension plans. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 39（1）, 81-98.
33.Kacperczyk, M., Sialm, C., & Zheng, L. （2005）. On the industry concentration of actively managed equity mutual funds. The Journal of Finance, 60（4）, 1983-2011.
34.Kakabadse, N., Kakabadse, A., & Kouzmin, A. （2003）. Pension Fund Trustees:: Role and Contribution. European Management Journal, 21（3）, 376-386.
35.Opricovic, S. （1998）. Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems.Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade, 2（1）, 5-21.
36.Pollet, J. M., & Wilson, M. （2008）. How does size affect mutual fund behavior?.The Journal of Finance, 63（6）, 2941-2969.
37.Premachandra, I. M., Zhu, J., Watson, J., & Galagedera, D. U. （2012）. Best-performing US mutual fund families from 1993 to 2008: Evidence from a novel two-stage DEA model for efficiency decomposition. Journal of Banking & Finance.36（12）, 3302-3317.
38.Saaty, T. L. （1996）. Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process.RWS :TheUniversity of Pittsburgh.
39.Selen, J., & Stahlberg, A. C. （2007）. Why Sweden's pension reform was able to be successfully implemented. European Journal of Political Economy, 23（4）, 1175-1184.
40.Tsai, T. J., Yang, C. B., & Peng, Y. H. （2011）. Genetic algorithms for the investment of the mutual fund with global trend indicator. Expert Systems with Applications, 38（3）, 1697-1701.
41.Vidal-Garcia, J., & Vidal, M. （2012）. Seasonality and idiosyncratic risk in mutual fund performance. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(3), 613-624.
42.Vidal-Garcia, J. （2012）. The persistence of European mutual fund performance.Research in International Business and Finance, 28（c）,45-67.
43.Wu, W. W., & Lee, Y. T. （2007）. Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Systems with Applications, 32（2）, 499-507.
44.Yang, Y. P. O., Shieh, H. M., Leu, J. D., & Tzeng, G. H. （2008）. A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications.International Journal of Operations Research, 5（3）, 160-168.
45.Zalewska, A. （2006）. Is locking domestic funds into the local market beneficial? Evidence from the Polish pension reforms. Emerging Markets Review, 7（4）, 339-360.
46.Zhao, X., Wang, S., & Lai, K. K. （2011）. Mutual funds performance evaluation based on endogenous benchmarks. Expert Systems with Applications, 38（4）, 3663-3670.
二、中文部分
1.李宗偉，2009，科技政策與計畫之結構評估模式，交通大學科技管理研究所學位論文
2.林宗明，2005，管理問題因果複雜度分析模式建立之研究: 以 DEMATEL 為方法論 ，中原大學企業管理學系碩士論文
3.李金英，2007，退撫基金委外遴選決策：以投信公司屬性與經營績效之觀點，國防管理學院，國防財務資源研究所碩士論文
4.顏立志，2005，退休基金內部經營與委託經營之分析探討－以勞工保險基金為例，銘傳大學財務金融學系碩士在職專班碩士論文
5.劉佩蓉，2003，公務人員退休撫卹基金國內委託經營受託機構評選標準之探討，國立台北大學企業管理學系碩士論文
6.賴紹宗，2003，臺灣證券投資信託事業經營績效分析--- DEA模式實證結果與分析，國立臺灣大學財務金融學研究所碩士論文
7.譚宇傑&陳偉慶，2009，使用 DEMATEL 來探討 ICASH 的未來發展和行銷策略，2009年服務業行銷研討會論文集