從債務資金成本角度重新審視資本維持原則之合理性

Abstract

資本維持原則(capital maintenance rule)係指公司存續中，應維持相當於資本額之財產，以具體財產充實抽象資本之原則。對於資本維持原則之妥適性，無論係於我國或國外，均存在許多論辯。支持資本維持原則之論者，認為此原則可以透過限制公司之資金運用緩解股東與債權人之間利害衝突所生之「籌資代理成本」，進而保障公司債權人，尤其是針對無締約籌碼之弱勢債權人，予以最基本之保障，而其限制資金運用之手段，即係以資本額作為其限制之標準；反對資本維持原則之論者，則認為股東與債權間之利害衝突，可以透過債權人與公司之締約內容自行獲得緩解，無需法律介入，且縱然承認應有法律介入，透過法規之統一規範模式，實忽略債權人與公司之個別異質性，如此欠缺彈性之規範方式，不但無法有效保障債權人，尚造成公司資金運用上之障礙。 有鑒於我國公司法中，亦存有許多以資本維持原則為其立法基礎之規範，本研究以有息負債利率作為債務資金成本之代理變數，分別測試其與該等規範中之限制手段之相關性，其中包含債務資金成本是否受公司資本額、股利支付率、法定盈餘公積資訊之影響。研究結果顯示，我國實收資本額對於債務資金成本之影響並不顯著，故我國公司法中對於實收資本額之規範，似有檢討之必要；股利支付率、法定盈餘公積對於債務資金成本則為顯著，惟此是否即得認為該等制度能有效保障債權人，則尚有待後續研究進一步分析。

There has been an ongoing dispute throughout the world regarding the Capital Maintenance Principle. Some suggest that through the restrictive measure on the usage of company capital established under this principle will have some effect on reducing the “financial agency cost” generated by the conflict of interest among creditors and shareholders. This would also in some extent provide a minimum protection to the creditors especially for creditors with a weaker bargaining power. However, others suggest that the conflict of interest among the creditors and shareholders can be reduced merely through contracting and the need of regulation intervention will be unnecessary. Even if the need of regulation has been approved, the unified measure taken under the Capital Maintenance Principle would not be a relevant protection to the creditors, since both creditors and companies comes in heterogeneous forms. Ignoring this critical aspect of the contracting bodies by implementing a regulation lacking elasticity, not only is it irrelevant to most of the creditors, it also increases the barrier for companies that are in need of capital usage. Since the Taiwanese company law has also adopted numerous restrictive measures under the Capital Maintenance Principle, this paper wish to test the feasibility of certain items used under these restrictions, namely Capital Stock, Dividend Declare Rate and Legal Reserve. By comparing these items to the cost of debt measured by the INTEXP, we discovered that the effect of Capital Stock is not significant, thus a regulation reform concerning the Capital Stock restriction should be in place；whereas Dividend Declare Rate and Legal Reserve has a significant effect on cost of debt, however whether these restrictive measures are adequate remain unresolved and would require further research to shed light on these issues.