請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/24819完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 吳琮璠 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Chun-Ting Liu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 劉俊廷 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T05:56:50Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2011-08-17 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2011-08-08 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Admati, A. R., Pfleiderer, P., & Zechner, J. 1994. Large Shareholder Activism, Risk Sharing, and Financial Market Equilibrium. Journal of Political Economy, 102(6): 1097-1130.
Aharony, J., Lee, C.-W. J., & Wong, T. J. 2000. Financial Packaging of IPO Firms in China. [Article]. Journal of Accounting Research, 38(1): 103-126. Almazan, A., Hartzell, J. C., & Starks, L. T. 2005. Active Institutional Shareholders and Costs of Monitoring: Evidence from Executive Compensation. Financial Management, 34(4): 5-34. Bai, C.-E., Li, D. D., Tao, Z., & Wang, Y. 2000. A Multitask Theory of State Enterprise Reform. Journal of Comparative Economics, 28(4): 716-738. Bange, M. M., & De Bondt, W. F. M. 1998. R&D budgets and corporate earnings targets. Journal of Corporate Finance, 4(2): 153-184. Berle, A., Means, G., 1932. The Modern Corporation & Private Property. Hartcourt, Brace & World. Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. 2001. Are CEOs Rewarded for Luck? The Ones without Principles Are. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(3): 901-932. Bharath, S. T., Jayaraman, S., & Nagar, V. 2010. Exit as Governance: An Empirical Analysis. SSRN eLibrary. Bushee, B. J. (1998). The Influence of Institutional Investors on Myopic R&D Investment Behavior. The Accounting Review, 73(3): 305-333. Cadman, B. D., & Sunder, J. 2009. Investor Horizon and CEO Horizon Incentives. SSRN eLibrary. Chen, D., Jian, M., & Xu, M. 2009. Dividends for tunneling in a regulated economy: The case of China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 17(2): 209-223. Chung, R., Firth, M., & Kim, J.-B. 2002. Institutional monitoring and opportunistic earnings management. Journal of Corporate Finance, 8(1): 29-48. Claessens, S., Djankov, S., & Lang, L. H. P. 2000. The separation of ownership and control in East Asian Corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1-2): 81-112. Cyert, R. M., Sok-Hyon, K., & Kumar, P. 2002. Corporate Governance, Takeovers, and Top-Management Compensation: Theory and Evidence. [Article]. Management Science, 48(4): 453-469. Denis, D. J., Denis, D. K., & Sarin, A. 1997. Ownership structure and top executive turnover. Journal of Financial Economics, 45(2): 193-221. Dherment-Ferere, I., & Renneboog, L. 2002. Share Price Reactions to CEO Resignations and Large Shareholder Monitoring in Listed French Companies. SSRN eLibrary. Fan, J. P. H., & Wong, T. J. 2002. Corporate ownership structure and the informativeness of accounting earnings in East Asia. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33(3): 401-425. Gallagher, D. R., Gardner, P., & Swan, P. L. 2009. The Threat of Exit with Optimal Contracting: Institutional Churning Trades and Subsequent Firm Performance. SSRN eLibrary. Gillan, S. L., & Starks, L. T. 2003. A Survey of Shareholder Activism: Motivation and Empirical Evidence. SSRN eLibrary. Gopalan, R. 2008. Institutional Stock Sales and Takeovers: The Disciplinary Role of Voting with Your Feet. SSRN eLibrary. Gul, F. A., Kim, J.-B., & Qiu, A. A. 2010. Ownership concentration, foreign shareholding, audit quality, and stock price synchronicity: Evidence from China. Journal of Financial Economics, 95(3): 425-442. Hartzell, J. C., & Starks, L. T. 2003. Institutional Investors and Executive Compensation. The Journal of Finance, 58(6): 2351-2374. Haw, I.-M., Hu, B., Hwang, L.-S., & Wu, W. 2004. Ultimate Ownership, Income Management, and Legal and Extra-Legal Institutions. Journal of Accounting Research, 42(2): 423-462. Helwege, J., Intintoli, V., & Zhang, A. 2011. Voting with Their Feet or Activism? Institutional Investors Impact on CEO Turnover. SSRN eLibrary. Hirschman, A., Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA ,1971 Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. 1976. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Michael C. Jensen, A THEORY OF THE FIRM: GOVERNANCE, RESIDUAL CLAIMS AND ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS, Harvard University Press, December 2000. Jian, M., & Wong, T. 2010. Propping through related party transactions. Review of Accounting Studies, 15(1): 70. Kahn, C., & Winton, A. 1998. Ownership Structure, Speculation, and Shareholder Intervention. The Journal of Finance, 53(1): 99-129. Kang, J.-K., & Shivdasani, A. 1995. Firm performance, corporate governance, and top executive turnover in Japan. Journal of Financial Economics, 38(1): 29-58. Kato, T., & Long, C. X. 2005. CEO Turnover, Firm Performance, and Corporate Governance in Chinese Listed Firms. SSRN eLibrary. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. 1999. Corporate Ownership Around the World. [Article]. Journal of Finance, 54(2): 471-517. Lemmon, M. L., & Lins, K. V. 2003. Ownership Structure, Corporate Governance, and Firm Value: Evidence from the East Asian Financial Crisis. The Journal of Finance, 58(4): 1445-1468. Leuz, C., Nanda, D., & Wysocki, P. D. 2003. Earnings management and investor protection: an international comparison. Journal of Financial Economics, 69(3): 505-527. Li, H., & Zhou, L.-A. 2005. Political turnover and economic performance: the incentive role of personnel control in China. Journal of Public Economics, 89(9-10): 1743-1762. Maug, E. 1998. Large Shareholders as Monitors: Is There a Trade-Off between Liquidity and Control? The Journal of Finance, 53(1): 65-98. Parrino, R., Sias, R. W., & Starks, L. T. 2003. Voting with their feet: institutional ownership changes around forced CEO turnover. Journal of Financial Economics, 68(1): 3-46. Peng, M. W., & Jiang, Y. 2010. Institutions Behind Family Ownership and Control in Large Firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2): 253-273. Rajgopal, S., Venkatachalam, M., & Jiambalvo, J. J. 1999. Is Institutional Ownership Associated with Earnings Management and the Extent to which Stock Prices Reflect Future Earnings? SSRN eLibrary. Shin, J. Y. 2008. Institutional Investment Horizons and CEO Compensation. SSRN eLibrary. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1986. Large Shareholders and Corporate Control. Journal of Political Economy, 94(3): 461-488. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1997. A Survey of Corporate Governance. [Article]. Journal of Finance, 52(2): 737-783. Wahal, S., & McConnell, J. J. 2000. Do institutional investors exacerbate managerial myopia? Journal of Corporate Finance, 6(3): 307-329. Xi, C. 2006 Institutional Shareholder Activism in China: Law and Practice. International Company and Commercial Law Review, 17. Zeng, Y., & Zhang, J. 2009. The Dark Side of Institutional Shareholders Activism in Emerging Markets: Evidence from China's Non-Tradable Share Reform. SSRN eLibrary. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/24819 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究以中國深圳和上海上市公司為觀察對象,探討政府股東以及機構投資人股東於公司治理中所扮演之角色。使用Modified Jones Model,以裁量性應計項目,來衡量公司經理人盈餘管理之行為,探討政府與機構投資人持股比例,是否會對盈餘管理之程度有所影響。另外,在中國證券監督管理委員會制定的法規影響下,上市公司有其特殊誘因,進行盈餘管理來達到特定的盈餘目標以避免受到懲罰或限制,本研究藉此將面對不同誘因的公司做分組,探討政府以及機構投資人對公司面對該誘因時,對其盈餘管理之影響。實證結果發現,上市公司其政府股權比例越高,會有越高程度的盈餘管理行為。而機構投資人股權比率與盈餘管理程度並非單純的線性關係,而是呈現凸型:隨著機構投資人股權比率的上升,盈餘管理程度亦隨之上升,但是上升速率逐漸降低,直到股權比例達到特定程度,盈餘管理程度開始下降。而在公司面對強烈盈餘管理誘因時,機構投資人股權比率與盈餘管理程度變為正向關係,盈餘管理程度不隨之到達特定比率而下降。綜觀所述,可以推測政府與機構投資人非但沒有扮演公司治理監督之角色,反而強化了公司作盈餘管理的行為。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This study investigates the roles of government and institutional investors playing in corporate governance in China capital markets. In addition, China listed firms have strong incentives achieving certain ROE targets to avoid punishments or restrictions. I categorize firms with different incentives to see whether institutional investors strengthen or alleviate the earnings management. Using discretionary accounting accruals as the measure of earnings management, I find that the percentage of shareholding held by government is positively associated with the positive discretionary accruals, and the relation between the percentage of shareholding held by institutional investors and the positive discretionary accruals is convex: as the percentage of shareholding held by institutional investors increases, discretionary accruals increases at a decreasing rate up to a certain level, and then begins to decrease. Also, when firms face the strong incentive using discretionary accruals, the relation between the percentage of shareholding held by institutional investors is positively associated with the positive discretionary accruals, not the convex curve. These findings imply that government and institutional investors strengthen the earnings management rather than act as monitors for the minority. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T05:56:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-R97722018-1.pdf: 411399 bytes, checksum: a639241cfbace3c8037e4bcca1587014 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要 i
Abstract ii Table and Chart v 1. Introduction 1 2. Literature review 3 2.1 Ownership Structure and Earnings Management 3 2.2 The Role of Institutional Investors and Large Shareholders in Monitoring 5 2.2.1 Institutional Investors 5 2.2.2 Large Shareholders 9 3. Hypotheses development 11 3.1 Government and earnings management 11 3.2 Institutional investor and earnings management 13 3.3 Incentives to manage accruals in China 14 4. Research design and Sample 16 4.1 Sample 16 4.2 Measurement of earnings management 16 4.3 Regression model 18 4.4 Control variables 19 5.1 Descriptive statistics 21 5.2 Regression results 22 6. Conclusions 25 7. References 35 Table 1 ROE (%) distribution each year from 2000 to 2010 29 Table 2 Descriptive statistics 30 Table 3 PG/PII tendency 30 Table 4 Descriptive statistics for all sample (ALL), all positive DAC (DAC+), firms losing in previous year (PRELOSS), and benchmark using accruals (BUA) sample. 31 Table 5 Results of regression 32 Table 6 Results of regression for groups with incentives using accruals 33 Table 7 Results of regression 34 Figure 1 ROE distribution 2000-2010 28 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.subject | 應計項目盈餘管理 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 股權結構 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 公司治理 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 政府 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 集中性股權 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 機構投資人 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 中國大陸地區 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | China capital markets | en |
| dc.subject | ownership structure | en |
| dc.subject | corporate governance | en |
| dc.subject | accruals earnings management | en |
| dc.subject | government | en |
| dc.subject | concentrated ownership | en |
| dc.subject | institutional investor | en |
| dc.title | 股權結構與盈餘管理之關聯:以中國上市公司為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Ownership Structure and Earnings Management: Evidence
from China Listed Companies | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 99-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張裕任,王全三 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 股權結構,公司治理,應計項目盈餘管理,政府,集中性股權,機構投資人,中國大陸地區, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | ownership structure,corporate governance,accruals earnings management,government,concentrated ownership,institutional investor,China capital markets, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 37 | |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2011-08-08 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 會計學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 會計學系 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-100-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 401.76 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。
