請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/27904
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 陳文華老師 | |
dc.contributor.author | Chao Yu-Tzu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 趙禹姿 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-12T18:27:05Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2007-08-28 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2007-08-28 | |
dc.date.issued | 2007 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2007-08-09 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 中文文獻
1. 王怡人 (民84年),「企業特性、研究發展與經營績效關係之研究」,國立台灣大學商學研究所碩士論文。 2. 林立峰 (民90年),「我國上市電子公司研發支出與股價之關聯性」,國立中山大學財務管理研究所碩士論文。 3. 洪紫芳 (民90年),「公司價值、研發與生產力之關係」,私立朝陽科技大學財務金融研究所碩士論文。 4. 胡家菱 (民93年),「專利權及專利引用資訊對公司價值的影響--台灣上市公司實證(1990~1999年)」,國立台灣大學財務金融研究所碩士論文。 5. 張恩浩 (民80年),「研究發展之影響因素及其與績效關係之研究」,國立台灣大學商學研究所碩士論文。 6. 黃雅苓 (民88年),「研究發展支出與經營績效關係及其費用化之探討-以台灣上市公司電子業與非電子業為例」,國立政治大學會計研究所碩士論文。 7. 陳金瑩 (民93年),「無形資產與廠商市場價值」,國立台灣大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。 8. 陳洋億 (民95年),「研發強度、公司績效與大陸投資動機關係之研究」,國立中興大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。 9. 歐進士 (民87年),「我國企業研究發展與經營績效關聯之實證研究」,中山管理評論,第六卷第二期,頁357-386。 10. 鄭志明 (民93年),「台灣IC設計產業之績效評估制度探討」,國立台灣大學會計研究所碩士論文。 11. 謝佳珍 (民95年),「研發支出對公司績效反應之效率性研究─以美國生物科技產業為例」,私立元智會計研究所碩士論文。 12. 顏曉筠 (民94年),「高科技電子產業研發投入對公司價值之縱橫門檻分析」,私立淡江大學財務金融研究所碩士論文。 REFERENCES Acs, Z. J. & Audretsch, D. B (1998). “Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical analysis,” American Economic Review, 78(4): p678-690. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D.B. and Feldman, M.P. (1994). “R&D Spillover and Recipient Firm Size,” Review od Economics and Statistics, 76(2): p336-340. Baruch, L, & Sougiannis, T. (1996). “The capitalization, amortization, and value-relevance of R&D,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, p.107-138. Baysinger, B., & Hoskisson, R. (1989). “Diversification Strategy and R&D Intensity in Multiproduct Firms,” Academic Management Journal, 32 (2): p310-332. Bean, & Alden, S. (1995). “Why Some R&D Organization Are More Productive Than Others,” Research-Technology Management, January-February: p25-29. Berger, P.G. (1993). “Explicit and Implicit Tax Effects of the R&D Tax Credit. Journal of Accounting Research,” 31(2): p121-171. Branch, B.(1974), “Research and Development Activity and Profitability :A Distributed Lag Analysis”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol.82(5), p. 999-1011. Bronwyn H. Hall, (1999). “Innovation and Market Value,” NBER Working Paper No.6984, February. Bronwyn H. Hall (1993). “The Stock Market’s Valuation of R&D Investment During the 1980’s,” American Economic Review, 83, p.259-264. Chakravarthy, B.S. (1986). “Measuring strategic performance,” Strategic Management Journal, September-October: p437-458. Chuang, Y.C., & Lin, C.M. (1999). “Foreign Direct Investment, R&D and Spillover Efficiency: Evidence from Taiwan's Manufacturing Firms,” The Journal of Development Studies, 35 (4): p117-137. Cohen, W.M (1989). “Innovation and Learning: The two faces of R&D,” Economic Journal, 99, p. 569-596. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). “Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D,” Management Science, 48: p1–23. Daly, D. (1996). “Performance measurement and management,” Management accounting, September: p65-66. David P, Hitt MA, Gimeno J. (2001). The influence of activism by institutional investors on R&D. Academy of Management Journal 44(1): p134–157. Fornell, C., & Larsker, D.F. (1981). “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Resesrch, 18: p39-50. Fors, G. (1997). “Utilization of R&D Results in the Home Country and Foreign Plants of Multinationals”. The Journal of Industrial Economics, June (2): P341-358. Franko, L. (1989). Global Corporate Competition: “Who’s Losing, and the R&D Factor in One Reason Why”. Strategic Management Journal, 10(5): p449-474. Germeraad Paul (2003). “Measuring R&D in 2003,” Research Technology Management, 46(Nov/Dec), p.47. Geert, J.M.B., & Edwin, J.N. (2004). Performance effects of using the Balanced Scorecard: a note on the Dutch experience. Long Range Planning, 37: p335–349. Griliches, Z. (1981). “Market value, R&D, and patents,” Economic Letters, Vol.7, p.183-187. Griliches, Z., Hall, B. H., and Pakes, A. (1991). “R&D, Patents, and Market Value Revisited: Is there Evidence of A Second Technological Opportunity Related Factor,” NBER Working paper NO.2624. Hausman, J., Hall, B. H., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica, 52: p909–938. Helfat CE. (1994). “Firm-specificity in corporate applied R&D,” Organization Science 5(2): p173–184. Hill CWL, Snell SA. (1988). “External control, corporate strategy, and firm performance in research-intensive industries,” Strategic Management Journal 9(6): p577–590. Hirschey, M., & Weygandt J. Jerry (1985). “Amortization Policy for Advertising and Research and Development Expenditures,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1). Hitt, M., Hoskisson, R., & Hitt, M. (1988). “Strategic Contril Systems and Relative R&D Investment in Large Multiproduct Firms.” Strategic Management Journal, 9(6): p605-621. Hitt, M., Ireland, R., Duane, R., & Harrison, J. (1991). “Effects of acquisitions on R&D Inputs and Outputs.” Academic Management Journal, 34(3): p693-706. Howe, J.D., & McFetridge, D.G. (1976). “The determinants of R&D expenditures,” Canadian Journal of Economics, 9: p57-71. Jaffe, Adam. (1986).”Technological Opportunity and Spillover of R&D: Evidence from Firms’ Patents, Profits, and Market Value,” American Economic Review 76: p984-1001. Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and ppillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits and market value. American Economic Review, 76: p984–1001. John B. G., Jr.; Alden S. Bean; Steven Andrews (1987). “R&D Management and Corporate Financial Policy,” Management Science, Vol. 33, No. 11, p1419-1427. Johnson, L. D., & Pazderks Bohumir (1993). “Firm Value and Investment in R&D,” Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 15-24. Lall, S. (1983). “Determinants of R&D in an LDC --- The Indian Engineering Industry,” Economics Letters, 13: p379-383. Lichtenberg, F., & Siegel, D. (1991). “The Effects of Leveraged Buyouts on Productivity --- New Evidence Using Linked R&D-LDR Data,” Economic Inquiry, 29: p203-228. Lin, B.W., & Chen, J.S. (2005). “Corporate technology portfolios and R&D performance measures: a study of technology intensive firms,” R&D Management, 35(2): p150-170. Mank, D.A., & Nystrom, H.E. (2001). “Decreasing returns to shareholders from R&D spending in the computer industry,” Engineering Management Journal, 13(3): p3–8. Martin, J D., Kensinger J. W., S. H. Chan (1990). “Corporate research and development expenditures and share value,” Journal of Finance Economics, 26, p.255-276. McNair, C.J., Lynch, R.L., & Cross, K.F. (1990). “Do financial and non-financial performance measures have to agree?,” Management Accounting, November: p28–36. Morbey, G. (1988). “R&D: Its Relationship to Company Performance,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5(3): p191-200. Morbey, G., & Reithner, R. (1990). “How R&D Affects Sales Growth, Productivity and Profitability,” Res.-Technology Management, 33(3): p11-14. Morris G. D. & Eric Press. (2005). “When Does R&D Expense Distort Profitability Estimates?,” Journal of Applied Finance, 15(2): p 76. Pakes, A. and Griliches, Z. (1980). “Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first look.” Pakes, A. (1985). “On patents, R&D, and the stock Market Rate of Return,” Journal of Political Economy, 93, p390-409. Sampson, R. C. (2007). “R&D alliances and firm performance: the impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation,” Academic of Management Journal, 50, p. 364-386. Sampson, R. C. (2005). Experience effects and collaborative returns in R&D alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 26: p1009–1031. Scherer, F.M. (1965). “Firm size, market structure, opportunity and the output of patented innovations,” American Economic Review, 55: p1097-1125. Schmookler, J. (1950). “Invention and Economic Growth, Cambridge,” Harvard University Press. Shaver, J. M. (1998). Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Science, 44: p571–585. Sougiannis Theodore, (1994). “The Accounting Based Valuation of Corporate R&D” The Accounting Review, Vol69, p.44-68. Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, R. (1986). “Measurement of business performance in strategy research.” Academy of Management Review, 11. October: p801-814. Veugelers, R, (1996). “Domestic R&D in the presence of multinational enterprises,” International Journal Organization, 8: 1-17. Walz, U. (1997). “Innovation, Foreign Direct Investment and Growth. Economica,” 64: p63-79. Yasemin Y. Kor and Joseph T. Mahoney (2005). “Research Notes and Commentaries How Dynamics, Management, and Governance of Resource Deployments Influence Firm-level Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, p489–496. Yew Kee Ho; Mira Tjahjapranata; Chee Meng Yap (2006). “Size, Leverage, Concentration, and R&D Investment in Generating Growth opportunities,” The Journal of Business; 79, 2; p. 851 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/27904 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 創新活動在近年來成為愈來愈多公司的重心,一方面由於創新活動可使公司之競爭力維持在一定的水準,使公司之技術持續進步,甚而造成其他競爭業者欲進入該產業的門檻,經由本研究探討臺灣公司投入研發支出來進行創新活動的同時,投資者是否也同樣地可在臺灣公司財務報表上觀察到公司進行創新活動所達成的公司績效。
本研究透過公司會計與經濟帳面價值之概念經實證結果發現,臺灣公司投入研發支出對公司本身的績效無法真實地反應在公司之財務報表上,更進一步指出當臺灣公司研發資產比重高和公司其研發支出成長率與財報資產報酬率間的差距越高時,會導致公司其財報資產報酬率與研發調整資產報酬率之間的差距越大,亦即公司實質上之內部績效與財務報表上所觀察到的公司績效會有顯著地不同。而當上述兩個變數其數值愈接近於零時,便可得出財報資產報酬率與研發調整資產報酬率之間的差距越小,即公司實質上之內部績效與財務報表上所觀察到的公司績效未有顯著地不同。 除此之外,在實證的過程中也發現到公司其研發調整的資產報酬率也會隨著研發支出成長率和財報資產報酬率間之差距下降而降低。因此即使公司研發支出資產比的平均值很大,研發調整資產報酬率仍會呈現下降的趨勢;當公司研發成本成長率和財報資產報酬率固定不變時,公司其研發調整資產報酬率的平均數會隨研發支出資產比下降而下降,且本研究很清楚地發現,資產報酬率和成長率的差距都是在探討公司投入研發支出是否造成其內部實質上之績效與財務報表上觀察到之績效產生差異時必須被考慮到變數。 本研究以臺灣上市、上櫃及興櫃公司為研究對象,使用2002年-2006年連續擁有研發費用的上市、上櫃及興櫃公司作為做為實證研究對象之樣本,而樣本的組成與大小則依研發支出假設的使用年限而定。 本研究也指出在臺灣上市、上櫃及興櫃公司中,幾乎所有產業皆有進行投入研發支出之情形,只是投入研發支出比重的高低在各產業中有所不同,而在投入研發支出比重較高之公司多屬資訊電子業及化學產業,並列出臺灣公司研發支出比重較高之公司列表,以供後續研究者參考。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Innovation activities have been more and more important in many companies, not only because innovations could make companies more competitive, keep companies’ technology progress, but also establish the entry barrier for the industry which companies belong to. This article mainly discuss that whether investors could see real returns in company at the companies’ financial reports as Taiwan companies spend research and development expenses.
This article refers to Danielson and Press (2005), calculate companies’ accounting book value and their economic book value, and use Taiwan’s listed companies which have continuous R&D expense during year 2002-2006 as research samples. We find that Taiwan listed companies have different returns between companies’ internal returns and companies’ financial report returns. We also noted that for R&D expenses, firms with high levels of R&D intensity and a great difference between eh firm’s growth rate and its ROA has large distortion on firm’s ROA. This article showed that the average ROA adjustment decreases with difference between firm’s R&D expense growth rate and its ROA. Thus, the average ROA adjustment drops progressively, even though the average values of R&D/Assets remain large. The average ROA adjustment also drops as R&D/Assets declines, holding differences between firm’s R&D expense growth rate and ROA constant. This article identifies two observable firm characteristics that must both be present for R&D expenses to distort return on assets (ROA): large R&D expenditures and a sizable difference between ROA and the firm’s growth rate. This article also notes that in Taiwan listed companies, almost every industry involves in R&D expenditures to do innovation activities. Not every industry have large R&D/Assets ratio. We find that in Taiwan’s listed companies, chemical and electrical companies have higher R&D/Assets ratio. In order to offer reference to other researchers, this article also shows exhibits listed higher those have higher R&D/Asset ratio of Taiwan’s listed companies. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-12T18:27:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-96-R93741049-1.pdf: 337834 bytes, checksum: 60c5e866720c23d91ef80920755ea01a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目 錄
第一章 前言 第一節 研究動機………………………………………………………………1 第二節 研究目的………………………………………………………………2 第三節 研究對象與研究方法…………………………………………………2 第四節 本文架構………………………………………………………………3 第二章 文獻回顧……………………………………………………………………4 第三章 研究說明與模型 第一節 研究對象與樣本敘述……………………………………………10 第二節 研究模型………………………………………………………………11 第四章 實證結果與分析 第一節 樣本敘述統計…………………………………………………………19 第二節 辨識公司………………………………………………………………21 第五章 結論與建議 第一節 研究結論………………………………………………………………30 第二節 研究限制與建議………………………………………………………31 參考文獻 中文文獻………………………………………………………………………………33 英文文獻………………………………………………………………………………35 附錄……………………………………………………………………………………43 表目錄 表1 變數定義……………………………………………………………………12 表2 估計值……………………………………………………………16 表2-A 研發年限2年之公司會計與經濟帳面價值比估計值 …………16 表2-B 研發年限5年之公司會計與經濟帳面價值比估計值 …………16 表3 研發費用樣本之敘述性統計………………………………………………20 表4 財報與研發調整資產報酬率差之分析……………………………………22 表4-A 低度研發密集公司…………………………………………………………22 表4-B 中度研發密集公司…………………………………………………………22 表4-C 高度研發密集公司…………………………………………………………24 表5 高研發資產比之公司產業…………………………………………………26 表5-A A群組具高研發資產比之公司產業別……………………………………26 表5-B A群組與B群組中具高研發資產比之公司產業別………………………27 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 研發費用密集度與公司績效之關係--台灣上市、上櫃及興櫃公司實證(2002~2006年) | zh_TW |
dc.title | The relationship between
R&D expenses intensity and firm’s profitability | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 95-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳忠仁老師,施人英老師 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 研發支出,資產報酬率,財務會計準則, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | R&D expenses,ROA,financial accounting principle, | en |
dc.relation.page | 48 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2007-08-09 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 商學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 商學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-96-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 329.92 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。