雖反向槓桿收購的研究已被學者廣泛地討論，但仍然存在公司重新上市後的表現是否優於傳統IPOs或同業的質疑，而且關於長期績效的研究亦沒有一致的衡量方法，在反向槓桿收購的領域中，鮮少學者同時使用累積異常報酬率法與買進並持有報酬率法，藉由同時使用不同衡量長期績效的方法來研究反向槓桿收購後長期績效的表現。本研究主要探討2002年至2010年間美國302件反向槓桿收購後營運績效與長期績效之表現，結果發現反向槓桿收購的公司在重新上市後，雖然上市後逐年的營運績效下降的情況並不顯著，但上市後三年的營運績效卻較上市當年度的表現差。另一方面，透過使用不同衡量長期績效的方法發現累積異常報酬率法更能正確顯示反向槓桿收購的長期表現，且每年的報酬率有逐漸上升的趨勢，本研究發現以市值加權平均來計算之市場投資組合作為調整的累積異常報酬率，具有最好的長期報酬。;Although the Reverse Leveraged Buyouts (RLBOs) have been widely studied in recent years, the issue whether their after-market performance is superior to the returns of peers or traditional IPOs is still debate. In addition, since the methodology measuring long-run performance of corporate events is inconclusive, few studies use both of the cumulative abnormal returns and buy-and-hold abnormal returns to examine the long-run performance of RLBOs. This study investigates the long-run operating performance and stock performance of 302 U.S. RLBOs conducted from 2002 through 2010. Empirical findings indicate that, although the operating performance does not materially decline year by year, the performance in three years after re-IPO is significantly worse than the performance in the year when they went back to the market. Meanwhile, using different methods, this study finds that cumulative abnormal returns can better measure the long-run performance of RLBOs. Empirical findings also suggest that the cumulative abnormal return using the value-weight market portfolio as benchmark has the best long-run stock performance.
