博碩士論文 105428011 詳細資訊




以作者查詢圖書館館藏 以作者查詢臺灣博碩士 以作者查詢全國書目 勘誤回報 、線上人數:7 、訪客IP:3.218.67.1
姓名 賴威宇(Wei-Yu Lai)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 財務金融學系
論文名稱 顧客集中度風險與財務槓桿調整速度
相關論文
★ 本國壽險業內部管理制度與經營績效之探討★ 企業購併宣告對股東財富效果之影響-以台灣金融業為例
★ 金融科技對台灣金融業之影響-以線上貸款為例★ 銀行授信違約風險-財務比率評分之預警效果
★ 所得稅制優化修正與兩稅合一廢除之影響★ 區塊鏈技術應用於金融科技公司企業資金電子調撥系統實作與驗證
★ 房屋貸款者風險特性與個人星座關係之研析-以個案銀行分行房貸業務為例★ 金融科技浪潮下銀行分行經營績效之探討-以個案銀行為例
★ 中國A股正式納入MSCI指數之異常報酬探討★ 企業信用管理政策之個案研究
★ 生技公司與醫美診所聯合經營商業模式探討與財務分析-以某公開發行公司為例★ 經濟供需模型評價死亡率債券
★ 個人稅與市場流動性對公司債信用價差的影響★ 最高價、最低價、開盤價及收盤價之買賣價差估計模型探討
★ 興櫃與承銷價格間折價幅度對投資人意願及績效之探討★ 應用景氣燈號於投資國內股票型共同基金之實證研究
檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [相關文章]   [文章引用]   [完整記錄]   [館藏目錄]   至系統瀏覽論文 (2024-8-12以後開放)
摘要(中) 本文使用 1991年到 2015年美國上市公司的資料檢測顧客集中度風險與財務槓桿調整速度的關係。提出假說企業型主要顧客會使供應商面對較高的潛在風險,進而透過增加財務槓桿調整速度,以面對往後可能面對的問題;政府型主要顧客則因為對供應商有較多正面的影響,所以供應商 可能增加調整速度的幅度沒有企業型的大,甚至不需要增
加槓桿調整速度。實證證據表示,企業型主要顧客確實會增加槓桿的調整速度,政府型主要顧客則也會增加槓桿調整速度, 而前者所增加的速度確實比後者要來的快一些, 主要解釋變數的結果在所有模型上都有經濟和統計上的顯著性。

本研究使用虛擬變數、銷售比率與 HHI指標三種方式來測量顧客集中度,使用縮減式部分調整模型來評估槓桿調整速度,並使用 DPF預估法來解決負債比率的不偏性。作為延伸檢驗,發現高顧客集中度造成的影響會大於低顧客集中度,高轉換成本下企業型顧客集中度的效果會消失,收入多角化能使企業型顧客集中度對槓桿調整速度的效果減
少,政府支出的高成長也會減少政府型顧客集中度對調整速度的影響。
摘要(英) This paper selects data from American listed companies from 1991 to 2015 to test the relationship between the customer concentration risk and the leverage speed of adjustment. It is hypothesized that the main customers of the enterprise will make the higher potential risks of the suppliers, and then increase the leverage speed of adjustment to face the problems that may happen in the future. The main customers of the government have more positive impact on the suppliers, so the supplier increase the leverage speed of adjustment smaller than the customer of enterprise. The empirical evidence shows that the main customers of the enterprise will increase the leverage speed of adjustment, while the main customers of government will also increase the leverage speed of adjustment. The results of main explanatory variables are economically and statistically significant on all models.

In this study, the dummy variable, sales ratio and HHI index were used to measure customer concentration. The reduced-form partial adjustment model was used to evaluate the leverage speed of adjustment, and the DPF estimation approach method was used to solve the unbiasedness of debt ratio. As an extension test, it is found that the impact of high customer concentration will be greater than the low customer concentration, the effect of enterprise customer concentration will disappear under high switching costs, and the diversification of revenue can reduce the effect of enterprise customer concentration on leverage speed of adjustment. The high growth of government spending will also reduce the impact of government-type customer concentration on adjustment speed.
關鍵字(中) ★ 顧客集中度
★ 槓桿調整速度
★ 轉換成本
★ 收入多角化
★ 政黨輪替
關鍵字(英) ★ Customer concentration risk
★ Leverage speed of adjustment
★ Switching costs
★ Revenue diversification
★ Political cycle
論文目次 第一章 : 緒論 1
1-1 研究背景 1
1-2 研究架構 3
第二章 : 文獻回顧 4
2-1 顧客集中度 4
2-2 財務槓桿調整速度 5
2-3 相關 的影響因子 6
第三章 : 研究方法 9
3-1 研究假說 9
3-2 資料來源 9
3-3 變數定義 10
3-3-1 相關與控制變數 10
3-3-2 顧客集中度 11
3-3-3 財務槓桿調整速度 12
3-4 研究模型 13
3-4-1 顧客集中度風險針對財務槓桿調整速度的效果 13
3-4-2 DPF 估算方法 13
第四章 : 研究結果 15
4-1 敘述統計量 15
4-2 主迴歸分析 22
4-2-1 企業型顧客集中度 22
4-2-2 政府型顧客集中度 27
4-3 高顧客集中度與低顧客集中度之差異 32
4-4 轉換成本與收入多角化的影響 36
4-5 政黨政治的循環 40
第五章 : 研究結論 42
參考文獻 43
參考文獻 Albuquerque, A., Papadakis, G., Wysocki, P., 2013. The impact of risk and monitoring on CEO equity incentives: Evidence from suppliers with major customers. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1944015.
An, Z., Li, D. and Yu, J., 2015. Firm crash risk, information environment, and speed of leverage adjustment. Journal of Corporate Finance 31, 132-151.
Balakrishnan, R., Linsmeier, T.J., Venkatachalam, M., 1996. Financial benefits from JIT adoption: Effects of customer concentration and cost structure. The Accounting Review 71, 183-205.
Bae, K.-H., Kang, J.-K. and Wang, J., 2011. Employee treatment and firm leverage: A test of the stakeholder theory of capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics 100, 130-153.
Bebchuk, L., Cohen, A. and Ferrell, A., 2009. What matters in corporate governance? The Review of Financial Studies 22, 783-827.
Belo, F., Gala, V., Li, J., 2013. Government spending, political cycles, and the cross section of stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics 107, 305-324
Ben-Nasr, H. and Ghouma, H., 2018. Employee welfare and stock price crash risk. Journal of Corporate Finance 48, 700-725. Blundell, R. and Bond, S., 1998. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics 87, 115-143.
Brisker, E.R. and Wang, W., 2017. CEO′s inside debt and dynamics of capital structure. Financial Management 46, 655-685.
Bruno, G.S., 2005. Approximating the bias of the LSDV estimator for dynamic unbalanced panel data models. Economics Letters 87, 361-366.
Byoun, S., 2008. How and when do firms adjust their capital structures toward targets? The Journal of Finance 63, 3069-3096.
Campello, M., Gao, J., 2017. Customer concentration and loan contract terms. Journal of Financial Economics 123, 108-136. Chang, Y.-K., Chou, R.K. and Huang, T.-H., 2014. Corporate governance and the dynamics of capital structure: New evidence. Journal of Banking & Finance 48, 374-385.
Choi, J. and Wang, H., 2009. Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 30, 895-907.
Cook, D.O. and Tang, T., 2010. Macroeconomic conditions and capital structure adjustment
指導教授 黃泓人(HONG-REN HUANG) 審核日期 2019-8-14
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明