全權委託投資業務實施將近有7年的時間，然而學術界對全權委託績效評估的研究仍相當稀少，本文主要目的乃是對全權委託投資業務進行系統性的研究。首先，根據美國投資管理與研究協會(AIMR)所公布的國際投資績效準則(GIPS)，選定合適地投資績效評估指標來估算全權委託投資報酬。進一步探討全權委託市場的各種現象，研究發現：1.在契約委託金額方面，委託金額較大的契約其投資績效會顯著優於委託金額較小的契約；2.在委任公司類別的投資績效評比方面，委由投信公司操作的委託契約其操盤績效顯著優於投顧公司的操盤績效；3.從投信公司所有委託契約與共同基金之投資績效評比發現，投信公司旗下的共同基金的投資績效是顯著優於全權委託的投資績效；4.由四大基金委外代操的契約之投資績效會顯著優於非四大基金的委託契約。其次，以Sharpe (1988,1992)所提出的風格型態分析模型探討全權委託投資契約的投資風格型態，有63.16%的委託契約之投資風格型態是以小型公司(small size)之投資風格，另外有25.44%是屬於綜合型的投資風格型態。最後，探討全權委託投資人之投資行為是否具有處分效果的現象，研究發現在全權委託投資業務中，投資人的投資行為並不存在有處分效果。 The Discretionary Account Business (DAB) has implemented nearly 7 years but there are few academic researches to survey the investment performance of DBA. The main purposes of this research systemically survey the investment measure of DAB. According to the Global Investment Performance (GIPS) that stated by Association for Investment Management and Research (AIMR), we select suitable investment measures to calculate the contracts’ performance of DAB. We find the following interesting results. 1. For the fund’s size of DAB contracts, the investment performances of big size funds are greater than those of small size funds. 2. For the authorizing companies, the investment performances of the contracts that authorized by the securities investment trust company are greater than those that authorized by the securities investment consulting company. 3. Comparing the performance between mutual funds and contracts of DAB in the same investment trust company, we find that the performance of mutual funds is greater than the contracts of DAB. 4. Comparing the performance between government funds and non-government funds, the performance of the government funds is greater than non-government funds. Using style analysis model provided by Sharpe (1998, 1992), there are 63.16% contracts that their investment style is small-cap investment style and 25.44% contracts that their investment style is mix investment style. Finally, we investigate that the investors’ behaviors of DAB accounts and examine investors’ behaviors whether existing disposition effect. We find that the investors’ behaviors of DAB are not existing disposition effect.
