| 摘要: | 摘要 財務會計準則第三十五號公報是規定企業資產減損之公報。此公報影響企業之經營成效，所以受到社會上投資大眾與其他利害關係人之關注。由於企業可自行選擇於九十四年準時認列或提前於九十三年七月一日起開始認列。因此，管理當局可依據公司之營運體質，決定資產減損之時點與減損之程度，以達成公司盈餘管理之策略。因此，本文將探討台灣公開發行公司認列資產減損之決定因素。本實證研究首先就公開發行公司資產減損之概況進行樣本描述與敘述性統計分析。實證結果發現：〈一〉、電子業無論準時或提前認列資產減損，減損之家數與金額均高於其他產業。〈二〉、提前認列資產減損公司之平均減損金額較高於準時認列資產減損之公司。〈三〉、減損類型不論提前或準時認列資產減損損失，以認列固定資產與閒置資產為主。〈四〉、提前認列資產減損公司之產業資產報酬成長率、股價淨值比、銷貨成長率、現金流量成長率均高於準時認列資產減損公司，然而其股票報酬卻低於準時認列資產減損公司，推測為投資大眾對於提前認列減損公司之經營體質較無信心，所以直接反映至股價報酬之現象。 其次，探討公開發行公司認列資產減損相對於未認列資產減損，主要受到下列因素之影響。〈一〉、認列資產減損之主要因素：與經濟實質因素項下之產業資產報酬成長率、股價淨值比、呈現正向相關。〈二〉、認列資產減損程度之主要因素：與經濟實質因素項下之股價報酬、現金流量成長率呈現負向相關而與銷貨成長率呈現正向相關；就管理當局誘因項下，與高階管理當局異動因素呈現正向相關。 最後，探討公開發行公司提前認列資產減損相對於準時認列資產減損，主要受到下列因素之影響。經濟實質因素項下之產業資產報酬成長率、股價淨值比、銷貨成長率等呈現正向相關。附錄中利用虛擬變數，進一步解釋各變數對93、94年資產減損程度之差異。實證結果說明：94年現金流量成長率對資產減損程度之影響，顯著高於93年；93年高階管理當局異動因素對資產減損程度之影響，顯著高於94年。 Abstract Taiwan’s financial accounting standard statement No. 35 stipulates the register of the company's assets impairment. Both public investers and those who have a stake value this communique because this register will impact company’s operation outcome. Enterprises can choose to recognize since 1994 as regulated or earlier from July 1 , 1993. That is to say, the administrative authority can determine the timing and degree of assets impairment in light of the operation characteristics of the company so as to achieve the strategies of surplus control. This text, therefore, will deal with the decisive factors affecting the level of recognizing the company’s assets impairment of public issuing companies in Taiwan. The research of the real example started with the overview of public issuing companies’ assets impairment by describing the sample and narrating statistical analysis. The real example indicated: <1>, the number of companies’ impairment in electric industry is higher than those in the other industries no matter recognized it on time or ahead. <2>, the average amounts of impairment recognized ahead of time is higher than those recognized on time. <3>, The recognition of fixed assets and idle assets are the major parts no matter recognized on time or ahead of time. <4>, the △INDROA, PBR, △SALES, and △OCF of the companies which recognized assets impairment ahead of time are averagely higher than those of the companies which recognized assets impairment on time. Nevertheless, STR of the companies which recognized assets impairment is lower than that of the ones which recognized on time. We assumed that it is because the publics are less confident of the companies which recognized impairments ahead of time and it directly affects the STR. Secondly, we discussed below factors that affect public issuing companies to decide to recognize assets impairment or not. <1>, the main factors of recognizing assets impairment—the economic substantial factors under △INDROA, and PBR present this positive relation. <2 > , the main elements of the recognizing assets impairment level: Under economic substantial elements, STR and △OCF have a negative relation, while △SALES and have a positive relation; under the inducement of administrative authority, it has a positive relation with △MGT. Finally, the following factors mainly affect public issuing companies to recognize assets impairment ahead of time. (versus the ones which did it on time. )Under economic substantial elements, △INDROA, PBR, and △SALES have a positive relation. In the appendix, we used virtual variables to explain the difference of the variables of the assets impairment level in 2004 and 2005. The result of the real example showed that the impact of the assets impairment level of △OCF in 2005 was apparently higher than that of △OCF in 2004; the influence of △MGT in 2004 on assets impairment is obviously higher than that of △MGT in 2005. |
